Confidence in value-based choice

De Martino, Fleming, Garrett, Dolan · Nature Neuroscience · 2013 · neuroscience · 10.1038/nn.3279 · record De-Martino2013-confidence-in-value-based-choice
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (xml); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. The paper is a hybrid of fMRI, behavioural economics (BDM bidding) and computational modelling (a race model simulation); the method vocabulary forces a single tag, so fmri was chosen as the method that carries the neural claim, and the modelling component is not captured. The Insabato citation is named in the immediately preceding sentence but the sentence that states the paper's own relation to it does not repeat the name, so the quoted evidence is the relation sentence. 2026-08-13, 2026-08-15 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

21 quotations on this page contain a reference number where the paper printed a superscript. This journal style prints citations as raised numerals — parameters^12,13 — and the extraction flattened them into the line, so the sentence reads parameters 12 , 13 . The digits are citation markers and not part of what the author wrote. The quotes keep them for the same reason they keep every other extraction fault: a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
confidence 5 fields · logistic regression 3 fields · fmri 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 20 concept tags on this paper, none is grounded in a quoted sentence. All carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

confidence choice confidence bid confidence risk difference in value race model vmPFC rRLPFC metacognitive accuracy willingness-to-pay BDM logistic regression Bayesian information criterion reaction time psychophysiological interaction accumulators second-order reversed noise in the choice process precuneus Confidence arises because evidence for each option accumulates stochastically during value comparison, so trial-to-trial noise makes the final gap between accumulators (and hence confidence, speed and accuracy) vary even at fixed initial value difference. Inter-trial noise in the comparison process drives the joint pattern of confidence, reaction time and accuracy. Confidence computed in vmPFC becomes reportable by being read out by a hierarchically distinct second-order network in rRLPFC. Noise added at the read-out stage degrades the correspondence between reported confidence and actual accuracy, producing individual differences in metacognition. difference in value (DV) psychophysiological interaction (PPI) metacognitive noise signed difference in value choice reaction time Signal in vmPFC change in slope Bayesian information criterion – BIC likelihood ratio test ANOVA t-test one-sample t-tests against zero partial correlation general linear model general linear model (GLM) multiple-comparison correction family wise error correction (FWE) standard error of the mean standard error of the mean (s.e.m.) autocorrelation serial autocorrelation regression model family wise error one-sample t-test fmri

Legend

second reading	`alternatives`	an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees
relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
contribution	`contribution`	what the paper claims to add
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
object of study	`object_of_study`	what the paper is about — the thing it investigates
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
research question	`research_question`	the question the paper sets itself
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it
transfer	`transfers`	a method or concept carried in from another field

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3279. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

alternatives 3 · claim_relations 9 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 9 · content_tags 77 · contribution 1 · controls 2 · limitations 7 · mechanisms 8 · method 1 · object_of_study 1 · phenomenon 1 · research_question 1 · senses 5 · transfers 5

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 9 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
object_of_study	how subjective confidence in a choice relates to the value comparison that produced it, in behaviour and in the brain Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`object_of_study`		the paper's words
research_question	whether confidence is a read-out of noise in the value comparison, separable from the value difference itself Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`research_question`		the paper's words
contribution	dissociates confidence from value difference, shows a race model explains their joint relation to accuracy and reaction time, locates both in vmPFC, and predicts individual metacognitive ability from vmPFC-rRLPFC coupling Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`contribution`		the paper's words
claim_type	mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	decision confidence in value-based choice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	fmri Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: fmri	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Confidence arises because evidence for each option accumulates stochastically during value comparison, so trial-to-trial noise makes the final gap between accumulators (and hence confidence, speed and accuracy) vary even at fixed initial value difference.	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Inter-trial noise in the comparison process drives the joint pattern of confidence, reaction time and accuracy.	`mechanisms[1]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Confidence computed in vmPFC becomes reportable by being read out by a hierarchically distinct second-order network in rRLPFC.	`mechanisms[2]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Noise added at the read-out stage degrades the correspondence between reported confidence and actual accuracy, producing individual differences in metacognition.	`mechanisms[3]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	in the race model confidence is the gap between the two accumulators when one crosses threshold, so it tracks trial-to-trial noise rather than the starting value difference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	the same noise makes a trial faster, more accurate and more confident at once, which is why the three covary without any of them causing the others Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	because confidence follows the stochastic path rather than the initial difference, the model itself explains why value and confidence come apart Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	a second-order region reads confidence out of the comparison process, and how faithfully it does so varies between people Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[7]`	0.8	the tagger's words
limitations	Only a small, experimentally controllable subset of the factors that could influence confidence was measured. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the account of what drives confidence: WE REPORT A LIMITED SET OF THESE FACTORS ... FOR WHICH WE COULD EXERCISE GOOD EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The design cannot adjudicate between confidence emerging in vmPFC and confidence being computed elsewhere and fed into vmPFC; that would need a high-temporal-resolution method such as MEG. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the direction of the vmPFC-rRLPFC relationship: RESOLVING THIS POSSIBILITY IS BEYOND THE DESIGN OF THE CURRENT STUDY AND WILL REQUIRE OTHER TECHNIQUES WITH HIGH TEMPORAL RESOLUTION	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Alternative functional mappings from model confidence to reported confidence were not explored. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the model-to-report mapping: OTHER FUNCTIONAL FORMS FOR THE LINK BETWEEN MODEL CONFIDENCE AND REPORTED CONFIDENCE ARE POSSIBLE, BUT WE DO NOT INVESTIGATE THESE HERE	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	the authors state that only a limited set of the factors affecting confidence could be controlled Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0] - other internal and external factors ARE LIKELY TO AFFECT SUBJECTIVE CONFIDENCE and were not measured	`limitations[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	the direction of the vmPFC-rRLPFC relation is not resolvable by fMRI; confidence could be computed elsewhere and imported Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[1], with the alternative stated: confidence may be CODED ELSEWHERE ... AND IS THEN COMMUNICATED TO vmPFC	`limitations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	8 of 28 participants were excluded, including one for not varying their confidence ratings enough to estimate the measure of interest Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the sample every metacognitive estimate rests on, which is conditioned on the measure itself: PARTICIPANTS WERE ONLY INCLUDED IF THEY USED A SUFFICIENT RANGE OF CONFIDENCE RATINGS (STANDARD DEVIATION > 0.8) TO ALLOW ESTIMATION OF METACOGNITIVE ABILITY	`limitations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	value is measured after scanning by a separate bidding task, so choice and value come from different sessions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any joint use of choice and value: value was elicited AT THE END OF THE SCANNING SESSION by a separate BDM bidding task, so the two come from different sessions and instruments	`limitations[6]`	0.9	the tagger's words
transfers	the BDM incentive-compatible auction, used to elicit each participant's willingness-to-pay as an objective measure of item value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[0]`		the tagger's words
transfers	the idea that confidence is a second-order metacognitive judgement measurable separately from the choice itself, imported into value-based choice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[1]`		the tagger's words
transfers	the second-order framing of confidence and the requirement to measure it separately from choice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
transfers	the BDM auction, used to make stated values incentive-compatible Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
transfers	the race model, imported from perceptual choice into value-based choice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
controls	each item pair was presented twice with the left-right position counterbalanced Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a choice or a confidence rating is driven by which side of the screen an item appeared on · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
controls	confidence for repeated pairs was correlated across repetitions with the value difference partialled out Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that apparent confidence stability is just the value difference reappearing - that subjects are re-reading the same easy choice rather than holding a stable confidence · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	confidence here is NOT risk: every option has a known outcome, so this is certainty about having picked the better item, not uncertainty about what will happen Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	choice confidence (second order, about the comparison) versus bid confidence (first order, about each item's value) - two senses of one word, measured separately and adjudicated by model comparison Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	metacognitive accuracy is operationalised as the CHANGE in logistic slope between low and high confidence trials, not as calibration or correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	the slope of the logistic fit is read as choice accuracy AND as noise in the choice process - one number, two descriptions, used interchangeably Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	value here means willingness-to-pay elicited by a BDM auction after scanning, not a rating and not a preference order Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
alternatives	claim_type: mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: mechanism — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.claim_type`		the tagger's words
alternatives	method: fMRI during binary snack choice with trial-by-trial confidence report, values elicited afterwards by an incentive-compatible bidding procedure, logistic model comparison and a race model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: fmri — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.method`		the tagger's words
alternatives	phenomenon: decision confidence: subjective certainty in having chosen the better of two options Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: decision confidence in value-based choice — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.phenomenon`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → the race model of evidence accumulation and decision confidence (refs 7, 21) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Insabato et al.'s two-layer neural network account of confidence read-out (ref 18) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → earlier studies that defined decision confidence in terms of the factors governing choice (rat orbitofrontal firing rates, ref 7; human vmPFC fMRI, ref 8) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[2]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	critiques → earlier studies that defined confidence through the factors governing choice, which cannot separate confidence from value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS HOW CONFIDENCE IS DEFINED. 'Quotation withheld' The earlier work is not wrong about what it measured - its definition makes one question unaskable, which is a critique of scope rather than of result.	`claim_relations[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → the perceptual decision-making tradition of measuring confidence independently of choice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → race models of decision confidence, applied here to value-based rather than perceptual choice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	supports → the account of vmPFC as a dynamic accumulator of choice values Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	supports → two-layer architectures in which a second-order network reads out first-order performance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[7]`	0.9	the tagger's words
claim_relations	generalises → rRLPFC's role in metacognition from perceptual to value-based decisions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[8]`	0.9	the tagger's words
concept_edges	confidence —distinct-from→ risk Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: CRITERION, stated: every option here determines a known outcome, so there is nothing to be risky about also in: confidence · risk	`concept_edges[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	choice confidence —distinct-from→ bid confidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: CRITERION, and it is TESTED: model comparison shows the second-order measure modulates choice and the first-order one does not Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes '2nd level confidence' and '1st level confidence in the item values', not 'choice confidence' / 'bid confidence'. also in: choice confidence · bid confidence	`concept_edges[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	confidence —operationalised-as→ accumulators Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: in the model confidence IS the gap between accumulators at threshold - a definition, not a correlate Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but confidence was modelled in a race model of accumulators; operationalised-as is loose. also in: confidence · accumulators	`concept_edges[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	metacognitive accuracy —operationalised-as→ logistic regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: the change in slope between low and high confidence trials; a different measure from calibration or meta-d prime Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'slope of the logistic fit', not 'logistic regression'. also in: metacognitive accuracy · logistic regression	`concept_edges[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	willingness-to-pay —operationalised-as→ BDM Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: willingness-to-pay · BDM	`concept_edges[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	difference in value —operationalised-as→ willingness-to-pay Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'value for individual items', not 'difference in value'. also in: difference in value · willingness-to-pay	`concept_edges[5]`	0.9	the tagger's words
concept_edges	noise in the choice process —operationalised-as→ logistic regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: the SAME slope is called choice accuracy and noise in the same sentence; a record joining on either word joins on one number also in: noise in the choice process · logistic regression	`concept_edges[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · confidence —distinct-from→ difference in value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The old span reported a variance figure without naming confidence. This sentence names both and separates them in the paper's own construction - the same region 'NOT ONLY ... BUT ALSO the confidence'. — strength of the relation: 1 · note: CRITERION: value difference explains only 17.7% of confidence variance, and that residual is what the whole design rests on also in: confidence · difference in value	`concept_edges[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	confidence —causes→ reversed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: PREDICTIVE, NOT DEMONSTRATED CAUSAL: 'initial confidence was a significant negative predictor of choice reversal' in a logistic regression. A regression coefficient is not an intervention. · strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: SIGN: negative. Lower initial confidence predicts changing your mind on the repeat Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but confidence negatively predicted reversal; the edge carries no direction. also in: confidence · reversed	`concept_edges[9]`	0.9	the tagger's words
content_tags	logistic regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: logistic regression	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Bayesian information criterion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Bayesian information criterion	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	likelihood ratio test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: likelihood ratio test	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	partial correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: partial correlation	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	general linear model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: general linear model	`content_tags.statistics[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	multiple-comparison correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multiple-comparison correction	`content_tags.statistics[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	standard error of the mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard error of the mean	`content_tags.statistics[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	autocorrelation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: autocorrelation	`content_tags.statistics[9]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Bayesian information criterion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Bayesian information criterion	`content_tags.statistics[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	likelihood ratio test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: likelihood ratio test	`content_tags.statistics[11]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	logistic regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: logistic regression	`content_tags.statistics[12]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	partial correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: partial correlation	`content_tags.statistics[13]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	family wise error Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: family wise error	`content_tags.statistics[14]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	one-sample t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: one-sample t-test	`content_tags.statistics[15]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	general linear model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: general linear model	`content_tags.statistics[16]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	Subjective confidence was only weakly related to the objective difference in value between the two options, so the two could be dissociated. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Trials on which participants reported higher confidence showed higher choice accuracy, i.e. a steeper logistic slope relating value difference to choice. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Reaction time showed main effects of both value difference and confidence, with no interaction. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The regression model in which choice confidence modulates the effect of value difference on choice fitted better than models using confidence in the individual item bids. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The confidence-accuracy relationship was stable across scanning sessions and was not explained by trial-to-trial fluctuations in attention. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Choices made with low initial confidence were more likely to be reversed when the same item pair was presented again. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The same vmPFC region carried both a value-difference signal and a confidence signal. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Value and confidence had additive but non-interacting effects on vmPFC activity. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Right rostrolateral prefrontal cortex encoded reported confidence but not the difference in value. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The strength of vmPFC-rRLPFC functional coupling predicted how well a participant's confidence tracked their own accuracy. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[9]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	value difference accounted for only 17.7% of the variance in confidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	high confidence trials showed a steeper value-to-choice slope, so confidence tracks accuracy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[11]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	value difference and confidence both had main effects on reaction time, with no interaction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[12]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	the model in which choice confidence modulates value difference beat four rivals on BIC Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[13]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	that model beat the canonical value-only model in 19 of 20 participants individually Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[14]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	14.7% of choices reversed on repeat, and reversed choices had had markedly lower initial confidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[15]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	vmPFC activity was modulated by both value difference and confidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[16]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	rRLPFC tracked confidence but not value difference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[17]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	vmPFC-rRLPFC coupling scaled with confidence and predicted metacognitive accuracy across people Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[18]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	LOAD-BEARING NULL: no value-by-confidence interaction in vmPFC, which is what supports their theoretical independence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[19]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	CONTROL NULL: no effect of session and no session-by-confidence interaction, so the relation is stable across the hour Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[20]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	CONTROL NULL: confidence was not predicted by the preceding five trials' confidence, so it is not drifting attention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[21]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	CONTROL NULL: mean confidence did not differ between first and second presentation of the same pair Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[22]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	CONTROL NULL: the vmPFC confidence response was not a categorical response to errors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[23]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	confidence for a repeated item pair correlated with itself after partialling out value difference, in 19 of 20 subjects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[24]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	DECLARED NOT EVIDENCE: the vmPFC bar plot is shown to clarify the pattern, with inference carried out in a separate model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[25]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	DECLARED NOT EVIDENCE: the between-subject scatter plot is illustrative only and not the basis of the statistic Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[26]`	0.85	the tagger's words
content_tags	choice confidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: choice confidence	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	difference in value (DV) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: difference in value (DV)	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	metacognitive accuracy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: metacognitive accuracy	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	psychophysiological interaction (PPI) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: psychophysiological interaction (PPI)	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	metacognitive noise Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: metacognitive noise	`content_tags.definitions[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	confidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: confidence	`content_tags.definitions[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	race model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: race model	`content_tags.definitions[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	metacognitive accuracy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: metacognitive accuracy	`content_tags.definitions[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	BDM Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: BDM	`content_tags.definitions[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	second-order Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: second-order	`content_tags.definitions[10]`	0.9	the tagger's words
content_tags	signed difference in value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: signed difference in value	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	choice reaction time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: choice reaction time	`content_tags.variables[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Signal in vmPFC Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Signal in vmPFC	`content_tags.variables[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	change in slope Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: change in slope	`content_tags.variables[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	choice confidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: choice confidence	`content_tags.variables[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	difference in value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: difference in value	`content_tags.variables[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	reaction time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reaction time	`content_tags.variables[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	metacognitive accuracy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: metacognitive accuracy	`content_tags.variables[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	17.7% — share of the variance in confidence ratings explained by the unsigned value difference, showing the two are largely independent Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	20 — number of participants whose fMRI and behavioural data entered the final analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	340 — total binary food choices each participant made in the scanner, across 4 sessions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	19 out of 20 — participants for whom the confidence-modulated choice model beat the value-only model by a likelihood ratio test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Model 1: 5424; Model 2: 4995; Model 3: 5388; Model 4: 5498; Model 5 5291 — BIC scores of the five competing logistic choice models, lowest (best) for the confidence-modulated Model 2 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	14.7 % — proportion of choices that were reversed when the identical item pair was shown a second time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	F (1,19) = 39.75; P < 0.0001 — main effect of confidence on choice accuracy when the logistic fit was split by scanning session Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	210.6 ± 72.4 SD; 340.2 ± 53.5 SD — mean confidence (arbitrary units) on choices later reversed versus choices later repeated Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	F (1,19) = 5.1, p<0.05; F (1,19) = 7.6, p<0.05; F (1,19) = 0.7, p>0.5 — vmPFC main effects of value and of confidence with no value-by-confidence interaction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	17.7% — variance in confidence explained by unsigned value difference - the residual is what the design exploits Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	14.7% — choices reversed when the same pair reappeared Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	19 of 20 — participants for whom the confidence-modulated model beat the value-only model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[11]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	28 down to 20 — participants recruited against participants analysed, after four exclusion rules Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[12]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	standard deviation > 0.8 — the spread of confidence ratings a participant had to show to be included at all Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[13]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	340 — choices per participant, each pair seen twice in mirrored positions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[14]`	1.0	the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.