Fig 1.
Experimental design was identical to Rounis and colleagues [19], apart from exceptions described in methods. Most notably, confidence in choice was used instead of visibility to determine metacognitive judgement. Participants were presented with either a diamond on the left and square on the right or vice versa, followed by a metacontrast mask. They were then required to make a combined judgement as to the stimulus configuration and their level of confidence in that decision. Adapted from Rounis [19] with permission.
Table 1.
List of inclusions and exclusions for experiment 1 participants.
Fig 2.
Pre and post-TMS performance measures for the different groups. a) Proportion correct. B) Mean contrast C) Mean confidence D) Reaction Time for correct responses. DLPFC = bilateral DLPFC group, PPC = bilateral posterior parietal cortex group, LEFT = left posterior parietal cortex and DLPFC group, RIGHT = right posterior parietal cortex and DLPFC group. All error bars are SE.
Fig 3.
Pre- and post-TMS metacognitive measures for the different groups. a) meta d’—d’. b) type II d’. c) Accuracy-confidence phi correlation. Group labels as Fig 2. All error bars are SE.
Table 2.
Meta d’ table of t tests, effect sizes and Bayes factors analyses between conditions and control (NB for the Rounis study, post—pre TMS meta d’—d’ Mean DLPFC versus sham control was -0.4).
Table 3.
Type II d’ table of t tests, effect sizes and Bayes factors analyses between conditions and control (NB no type II d’ results were reported in the Rounis study. Lower/upper bounds of average type II d’ scores were used instead).
Table 4.
Correlation between accuracy and confidence table of t tests, effect sizes and Bayes factors analyses between conditions and control (NB for the Rounis study, post—pre TMS accuracy-visibility correlation DLPFC versus sham control was -0.05).
Fig 4.
Histogram of distribution of meta d’—d’ values.
Histograms, using 0.4 sized bins, of meta d’—d’ for a) stable data only, per subject experimental block; and b) all data (including unstable). Whereas the stable data is Gaussian, the unstable data is not.
Fig 5.
Relationship between IQ and average contrast.
The relationship between Cattell Culture Fair IQ score and average contrast. Each blue diamond represents a single participant’s average score for both experimental blocks. The black line is a linear best fit of the data. There was a significant negative relationship between IQ and contrast, such that higher IQ participants tended to achieve a more difficult contrast level.
Table 5.
Experiment 2 values for meta d'—d' post TMS minus pre (above threshold results in bold).