Similarities and differences in the effects of different stimulus manipulations on accuracy and confidence

Visual stimuli can vary in multiple dimensions that affect accuracy and confidence in a perceptual decision-making task. However, previous studies have typically included just one or at most two manipulations, leaving it unclear whether each manipulation has a unique effect on accuracy vs. confidence. Subjects indicated whether a tilted Gabor patch was oriented clockwise or counterclockwise from 45°. We included manipulations of the task-defining feature (tilt offset) and four auxiliary, non-task-defining features (size, duration, spatial frequency, and noise level). We found that the four auxiliary manipulations had fairly similar effects on accuracy and confidence. In contrast, the task-defining tilt offset manipulation stood out by affecting accuracy more strongly than confidence. In addition, tilt offset exhibited a supraadditive interaction with all other manipulations for both accuracy and confidence, whereas all auxiliary manipulations exhibited either no interactions or subadditive interactions with each other. Furthermore, tilt offset was the only manipulation for which confidence in incorrect trials decreased with increasing difficulty, while all auxiliary manipulations exhibited the opposite trend. Overall, our results reveal a noticeable similarity among the effects of all four auxiliary (non-task-defining) manipulations on accuracy and confidence, as well as a prominent difference between them and the task-defining manipulation (tilt offset). These results enable a priori predictions of how novel manipulations would affect accuracy and confidence.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Consciousness and Cognition
Published
2025-10-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2025.103942
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.47
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Similarities and differences in the effects of different stimulus manipulations on accuracy and confidence

Dobromir Rahnev, Medha Shekhar, Kai Xue, Manuel Rausch et al.
4 citations
Consciousness and Cognition
Cognitive Abilities and Testing
8.47
article

Similarities and differences in the effects of different stimulus manipulations on accuracy and confidence

Dobromir Rahnev, Medha Shekhar, Kai Xue, Manuel Rausch, Herrick Fung
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Visual stimuli can vary in multiple dimensions that affect accuracy and confidence in a perceptual decision-making task. However, previous studies have typically included just one or at most two manipulations, leaving it unclear whether each manipulation has a unique effect on accuracy vs. confidence. Subjects indicated whether a tilted Gabor patch was oriented clockwise or counterclockwise from 45°. We included manipulations of the task-defining feature (tilt offset) and four auxiliary, non-task-defining features (size, duration, spatial frequency, and noise level). We found that the four auxiliary manipulations had fairly similar effects on accuracy and confidence. In contrast, the task-defining tilt offset manipulation stood out by affecting accuracy more strongly than confidence. In addition, tilt offset exhibited a supraadditive interaction with all other manipulations for both accuracy and confidence, whereas all auxiliary manipulations exhibited either no interactions or subadditive interactions with each other. Furthermore, tilt offset was the only manipulation for which confidence in incorrect trials decreased with increasing difficulty, while all auxiliary manipulations exhibited the opposite trend. Overall, our results reveal a noticeable similarity among the effects of all four auxiliary (non-task-defining) manipulations on accuracy and confidence, as well as a prominent difference between them and the task-defining manipulation (tilt offset). These results enable a priori predictions of how novel manipulations would affect accuracy and confidence.

Consciousness and CognitionVol. 136
Georgia Institute of Technology (US), Neurosciences Institute (US), Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt (DE), Neuroscience Institute (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Cognitive Abilities and Testing
8.47
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.