Suprathreshold perceptual decisions constrain models of confidence
Fig 4
A) Relative AICc scores for the Type 1 models. Scores were compared to the winning flat-prior variant models. Bars: average relative AICc score. Markers: Individual participant results. Colour: flat-prior (orange) or centred-prior (blue) variant. Error bars: ±SEM. B) Relative AICc scores for the Type 2 models, with fraction best-fit annotated. Models are grouped by metric type. Note the different y-axis scales between panels A and B. C) Average best-fitting Heuristic-model coefficients across all observers. Note that the position coefficient was always fixed at 1 in the model, but is graphed to illustrate the relative coefficient weights. Error bars: ±SEM. D) The best-fitting quantity and quality coefficients per observer. Marker colour and type indicates the best-fitting model for that observer. Dotted lines: the position coefficient value for comparison. Dashed line: equality line. E) Model recovery results. For each model and observer, 10 data sets were simulated using the participant’s best-fitting parameters (1920 data sets total) and then fit by each of the 12 models. The best-fitting model was tallied per dataset per simulated model. Dark squares along the downward diagonal indicate high model recovery success. F) The relative AICc scores compared to the simulated model (downward diagonal of 0).