Suprathreshold perceptual decisions constrain models of confidence
Fig 5
Confidence agreement results (n = 15).
Confidence agreement was calculated per trial as the proportion of the most-selected confidence choice for the participants who did a 3-, 4-, or 5-pass version of the experiment (Fig 2B). A) Heatmaps of average confidence agreement according to the properties of the two stimuli displayed, pooled across observers. Gold: the indifference lines where each interval is equally likely to be selected as more confident according to the preliminary analyses (Fig 3B). B) Comparing the 5-pass confidence agreement of a representative example participant (red; #11) with the predicted confidence agreement of the models. Green: the best-fitting model for this observer (Heuristic model). Black: other models (flat- and centred-prior variants had similar confidence agreement counts so only the flat-prior variant is shown). Grey: the Basic-Probability model with additional late noise (1% SD). Model predictions calculated from 100 simulated datasets using the participant-specific best-fitting parameters. Error bars: ±2 SD. C) A comparison of the predicted and the observed proportion of trials for the highest agreement count. Each marker is an individual participant, where marker style indicates their best-fitting model (“F” refers to the flat-prior variant and “C” the centred-prior variant). The best-fitting model per observer was used for the confidence-agreement prediction. Dashed line of equality is also shown.