Changing one’s mind on the basis of new evidence is a hallmark of cognitive flexibility. To revise our confidence in a previous decision, we should use new evidence to update beliefs about choice accuracy. How this process unfolds in the human brain, however, remains unknown. Here we manipulated whether additional sensory evidence supports or negates a previous motion direction discrimination judgment while recording markers of neural activity in the human brain using fMRI. A signature of post-decision evidence (change in log-odds correct) was selectively observed in the activity of posterior medial frontal cortex. In contrast, distinct activity profiles in anterior prefrontal cortex mediated the impact of post-decision evidence on subjective confidence, independently of changes in decision value. Together our findings reveal candidate neural mediators of post-decisional changes of mind in the human brain and indicate possible targets for ameliorating deficits in cognitive flexibility.
Your institute does not have access to this article
Open Access articles citing this article.
Nature Communications Open Access 22 July 2022
Bots influence opinion dynamics without direct human-bot interaction: the mediating role of recommender systems
Applied Network Science Open Access 06 July 2022
Scientific Reports Open Access 03 June 2022
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $4.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Kiani, R., Cueva, C. J., Reppas, J. B. & Newsome, W. T. Dynamics of neural population responses in prefrontal cortex indicate changes of mind on single trials. Curr. Biol. 24, 1542–1547 (2014).
Resulaj, A., Kiani, R., Wolpert, D. M. & Shadlen, M. N. Changes of mind in decision-making. Nature 461, 263–266 (2009).
van den Berg, R. et al. A common mechanism underlies changes of mind about decisions and confidence. Elife 5, e12192 (2016).
Pleskac, T. J. & Busemeyer, J. R. Two-stage dynamic signal detection: a theory of choice, decision time, and confidence. Psychol. Rev. 117, 864–901 (2010).
Pouget, A., Drugowitsch, J. & Kepecs, A. Confidence and certainty: distinct probabilistic quantities for different goals. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 366–374 (2016).
Bronfman, Z. Z. et al. Decisions reduce sensitivity to subsequent information. Proc. Biol. Sci. 282, 20150228 (2015).
Yu, S., Pleskac, T. J. & Zeigenfuse, M. D. Dynamics of postdecisional processing of confidence. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144, 489–510 (2015).
Carter, C. S. et al. Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance. Science 280, 747–749 (1998).
Dehaene, S., Posner, M. I. & Tucker, D. M. Localization of a neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychol. Sci. 5, 303–305 (1994).
Bonini, F. et al. Action monitoring and medial frontal cortex: leading role of supplementary motor area. Science 343, 888–891 (2014).
Fleming, S. M., Ryu, J., Golfinos, J. G. & Blackmon, K. E. Domain-specific impairment in metacognitive accuracy following anterior prefrontal lesions. Brain 137, 2811–2822 (2014).
Fleming, S. M., Huijgen, J. & Dolan, R. J. Prefrontal contributions to metacognition in perceptual decision making. J. Neurosci. 32, 6117–6125 (2012).
Shimamura, A. P. & Squire, L. R. Memory and metamemory: a study of the feeling-of-knowing phenomenon in amnesic patients. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 12, 452–460 (1986).
Hilgenstock, R., Weiss, T. & Witte, O. W. You’d better think twice: post-decision perceptual confidence. Neuroimage 99, 323–331 (2014).
Fleming, S. M. & Lau, H. C. How to measure metacognition. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 443 (2014).
Sanders, J. I., Hangya, B. & Kepecs, A. Signatures of a statistical computation in the human sense of confidence. Neuron 90, 499–506 (2016).
Rushworth, M. F. S. & Behrens, T. E. J. Choice, uncertainty and value in prefrontal and cingulate cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 11, 389–397 (2008).
De Martino, B., Fleming, S. M., Garrett, N. & Dolan, R. J. Confidence in value-based choice. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 105–110 (2013).
Lebreton, M., Abitbol, R., Daunizeau, J. & Pessiglione, M. Automatic integration of confidence in the brain valuation signal. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 1159–1167 (2015).
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1173–1182 (1986).
Atlas, L. Y., Lindquist, M. A., Bolger, N. & Wager, T. D. Brain mediators of the effects of noxious heat on pain. Pain 155, 1632–1648 (2014).
Zhang, H. & Maloney, L. T. Ubiquitous log odds: a common representation of probability and frequency distortion in perception, action, and cognition. Front. Neurosci. 6, 1 (2012).
Kiani, R., Corthell, L. & Shadlen, M. N. Choice certainty is informed by both evidence and decision time. Neuron 84, 1329–1342 (2014).
Neubert, F.-X., Mars, R. B., Thomas, A. G., Sallet, J. & Rushworth, M. F. S. Comparison of human ventral frontal cortex areas for cognitive control and language with areas in monkey frontal cortex. Neuron 81, 700–713 (2014).
Fleming, S. M. & Daw, N. D. Self-evaluation of decision-making: A general Bayesian framework for metacognitive computation. Psychol. Rev. 124, 91–114 (2017).
Insabato, A., Pannunzi, M., Rolls, E. T. & Deco, G. Confidence-related decision making. J. Neurophysiol. 104, 539–547 (2010).
Fleck, M. S., Daselaar, S. M., Dobbins, I. G. & Cabeza, R. Role of prefrontal and anterior cingulate regions in decision-making processes shared by memory and nonmemory tasks. Cereb. Cortex 16, 1623–1630 (2006).
Kenny, D. A., Korchmaros, J. D. & Bolger, N. Lower level mediation in multilevel models. Psychol. Methods 8, 115–128 (2003).
Kepecs, A., Uchida, N., Zariwala, H. A. & Mainen, Z. F. Neural correlates, computation and behavioural impact of decision confidence. Nature 455, 227–231 (2008).
Lak, A. et al. Orbitofrontal cortex is required for optimal waiting based on decision confidence. Neuron 84, 190–201 (2014).
Wallis, J. D. Cross-species studies of orbitofrontal cortex and value-based decision-making. Nat. Neurosci. 15, 13–19 (2011).
Kolling, N., Behrens, T. E. J., Mars, R. B. & Rushworth, M. F. S. Neural mechanisms of foraging. Science 336, 95–98 (2012).
Neubert, F.-X., Mars, R. B., Sallet, J. & Rushworth, M. F. S. Connectivity reveals relationship of brain areas for reward-guided learning and decision making in human and monkey frontal cortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E2695–E2704 (2015).
Boldt, A. & Yeung, N. Shared neural markers of decision confidence and error detection. J. Neurosci. 35, 3478–3484 (2015).
Scheffers, M. K. & Coles, M. G. H. Performance monitoring in a confusing world: error-related brain activity, judgments of response accuracy, and types of errors. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 26, 141–151 (2000).
Yeung, N. & Summerfield, C. Metacognition in human decision-making: confidence and error monitoring. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 367, 1310–1321 (2012).
Murphy, P. R., Robertson, I. H., Harty, S. & O’Connell, R. G. Neural evidence accumulation persists after choice to inform metacognitive judgments. Elife 4, 3478 (2015).
Atlas, L. Y., Bolger, N., Lindquist, M. A. & Wager, T. D. Brain mediators of predictive cue effects on perceived pain. J. Neurosci. 30, 12964–12977 (2010).
Liu, H. et al. Connectivity-based parcellation of the human frontal pole with diffusion tensor imaging. J. Neurosci. 33, 6782–6790 (2013).
Badre, D., Doll, B. B., Long, N. M. & Frank, M. J. Rostrolateral prefrontal cortex and individual differences in uncertainty-driven exploration. Neuron 73, 595–607 (2012).
Purcell, B. A. & Kiani, R. Hierarchical decision processes that operate over distinct timescales underlie choice and changes in strategy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E4531–E4540 (2016).
Shea, N. et al. Supra-personal cognitive control and metacognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 18, 186–193 (2014).
Cortese, A., Amano, K., Koizumi, A., Kawato, M. & Lau, H. Multivoxel neurofeedback selectively modulates confidence without changing perceptual performance. Nat. Commun. 7, 13669 (2016).
Kiani, R. & Shadlen, M. N. Representation of confidence associated with a decision by neurons in the parietal cortex. Science 324, 759–764 (2009).
Moritz, S. & Woodward, T. S. A generalized bias against disconfirmatory evidence in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 142, 157–165 (2006).
Woodward, T. S., Buchy, L., Moritz, S. & Liotti, M. A bias against disconfirmatory evidence is associated with delusion proneness in a nonclinical sample. Schizophr. Bull. 33, 1023–1028 (2007).
Brainard, D. H. The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spat. Vis. 10, 433–436 (1997).
Pelli, D. G. The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spat. Vis. 10, 437–442 (1997).
Roitman, J. D. & Shadlen, M. N. Response of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time task. J. Neurosci. 22, 9475–9489 (2002).
Staël von Holstein, C.-A. S. Measurement of subjective probability. Acta Psychol. (Amst.) 34, 146–159 (1970).
Schotter, A. & Trevino, I. Belief elicitation in the laboratory. Annu. Rev. Econom 6, 103–128 (2014).
Moore, D. A. & Healy, P. J. The trouble with overconfidence. Psychol. Rev. 115, 502–517 (2008).
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5823 (2014).
Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011).
Carpenter, B. et al. Stan: a probabilistic programming language. J. Stat. Softw. 20, 1–37 (2016).
Andersson, J. L., Hutton, C., Ashburner, J., Turner, R. & Friston, K. Modeling geometric deformations in EPI time series. Neuroimage 13, 903–919 (2001).
Ashburner, J. & Friston, K. J. Unified segmentation. Neuroimage 26, 839–851 (2005).
Bartra, O., McGuire, J. T. & Kable, J. W. The valuation system: a coordinate-based meta-analysis of BOLD fMRI experiments examining neural correlates of subjective value. Neuroimage 76, 412–427 (2013).
Wager, T. D., Davidson, M. L., Hughes, B. L., Lindquist, M. A. & Ochsner, K. N. Prefrontal-subcortical pathways mediating successful emotion regulation. Neuron 59, 1037–1050 (2008).
Efron, B. & Tibshirani, R. An Introduction to the Bootstrap (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1993).
Woo, C.-W., Krishnan, A. & Wager, T. D. Cluster-extent based thresholding in fMRI analyses: pitfalls and recommendations. Neuroimage 91, 412–419 (2014).
Eklund, A., Nichols, T. E. & Knutsson, H. Cluster failure: why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 7900–7905 (2016).
Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statist. Sci. 7, 457–472 (1992).
We thank D. Bang and B. De Martino for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Funded by a Sir Henry Wellcome Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (WT096185) awarded to S.M.F. N.D.D is funded by the James S. McDonnell Foundation and the John Templeton Foundation. The Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging is supported by core funding from the Wellcome Trust (203147/Z/16/Z).
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Integrated supplementary information
Psychometric functions from calibration session for all participants.
Group cross-correlation matrices depicting mean correlation (r) across participants between pre-decision motion strength (PreCoh), post-decision motion strength (PostCoh), confidence, subjective value, decision response time and confidence response time. Behavioural session, N = 25 subjects; fMRI session, N = 22 subjects.
Supplementary Figure 3 Calibration curves relating objective performance to reported confidence in the main experiment.
For each subject performance (proportion correct) was calculated separately for each confidence bin [0–0.2, 0.2–0.4, 0.4–0.6, 0.6–0.8, 0.8–1.0]. Individual subjects are shown as separate data points; error bars indicate standard errors of the mean across subjects. Behavioural session, N = 25 subjects; fMRI session, N = 22 subjects.
a) Illustration of effects of model parameters on relation between post-decision motion and confidence for temporal weighting, choice weighting and choice bias models. For illustration purposes w post and w incon were set to 2-w pre and 2-w post , respectively, but were free to vary independently in model fits. In all simulations pre- and post-decision coherence were crossed in a fully factorial design and drawn from the set 0%, 25% or 50% with k = 4 and m = 0. Blue lines indicate correct trials; orange lines indicate error trials. b) Mean cross-validated log-likelihood of each candidate model relative to a random-choice model.
Left panels: empirical probability distributions of confidence ratings aggregated across subjects for each of the 9 experimental conditions (3 pre-decision coherence levels × 3 post-decision coherence levels). Blue bars – correct trials; orange bars – error trials. Right panels: probability distributions of confidence ratings simulated from the best-fitting Bayesian+RT model parameters.
Single-trial activity estimates as a function of post-decision motion strength and decision accuracy in aPFC regions of interest. Data are plotted as boxplots for each condition in which horizontal lines indicate median values, boxes indicate 25-75% interquartile range and whiskers indicate minimum and maximum values; data points outside of 1.5 × the interquartile range are shown separately as circles. Solid lines show the mean of subject-level linear fits. Blue bars/lines show correct trials; orange bars/lines show error trials. N = 22 subjects.
a) Single-trial activity estimates as a function of post-decision motion strength and choice accuracy. Data are plotted as boxplots for each condition in which horizontal lines indicate median values, boxes indicate 25-75% interquartile range and whiskers indicate minimum and maximum values; data points outside of 1.5 × the interquartile range are shown separately as circles. Solid lines show the mean of subject-level linear fits. Blue bars/lines show correct trials; orange bars/lines show error trials. b) Split-regression coefficients relating activity to confidence; error bars indicate standard errors of coefficient means. *** P < 0.001, * P < 0.05, two-tailed Type III Wald χ2 test; see Supplementary Table 7. c) Timecourse of regression coefficients for confidence and value. Points below timecourses indicate significant excursions of T-statistics assessed using two-tailed permutation tests. Error bars indicate standard errors of the coefficient mean. In all panels N = 22 subjects.
The model used in Fig. 5a was fit to each voxel independently to create a map of P-values for the mediation (a × b) effect. Thresholded at P < 0.05 FWE corrected at the cluster level using Monte Carlo simulation, cluster-defining threshold P < 0.001.
About this article
Cite this article
Fleming, S.M., van der Putten, E.J. & Daw, N.D. Neural mediators of changes of mind about perceptual decisions. Nat Neurosci 21, 617–624 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0104-6
Nature Communications (2022)
Scientific Reports (2022)
Bots influence opinion dynamics without direct human-bot interaction: the mediating role of recommender systems
Applied Network Science (2022)
Bayesian inference with incomplete knowledge explains perceptual confidence and its deviations from accuracy
Nature Communications (2021)