A common algorithm for confidence judgements across visual, auditory and audio-visual decisions

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Most studies investigating the computational basis of decision confidence have focused on simple visual perceptual tasks, leaving open questions about how confidence is formed in decisions involving other sensory modalities or those requiring the integration of information across modalities. To address these gaps, we used computational modelling to analyse confidence judgements in perceptual decisions involving visual, auditory, and audio-visual stimuli. Drawing on research into visual confidence, we adapted models from the literature to evaluate their fit to our data, comparing three popular classes: unscaled evidence strength, scaled evidence strength, and Bayesian models. Our results show that the scaled evidence strength models consistently outperformed the other model classes across all tasks and could also be used to predict behaviour in the audio-visual task from the unidimensional auditory and visual model fits. These findings suggest that confidence judgements across different perceptual decisions rely on a shared algorithm that dynamically accounts for both sensory uncertainty and evidence strength, without the computation of posterior probabilities. Additionally, we investigated the algorithms used for multidimensional (audio-visual) confidence judgements specifically, showing that participants integrated both the visual and auditory dimensions of the stimulus, rather than relying solely on the most informative modality, and used a modality-independent measure of sensory uncertainty to adjust their confidence. Overall, our findings provide evidence for a common algorithm underlying confidence judgements across modalities and demonstrate the broad applicability of the scaled evidence strength algorithm, even in tasks requiring the integration of distinct sensory information.
Full text 1,967 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Most studies investigating the computational basis of decision confidence have focused on simple visual perceptual tasks, leaving open questions about how confidence is formed in decisions involving other sensory modalities or those requiring the integration of information across modalities. To address these gaps, we used computational modelling to analyse confidence judgements in perceptual decisions involving visual, auditory, and audio-visual stimuli. Drawing on research into visual confidence, we adapted models from the literature to evaluate their fit to our data, comparing three popular classes: unscaled evidence strength, scaled evidence strength, and Bayesian models. Our results show that the scaled evidence strength models consistently outperformed the other model classes across all tasks and could also be used to predict behaviour in the audio-visual task from the unidimensional auditory and visual model fits. These findings suggest that confidence judgements across different perceptual decisions rely on a shared algorithm that dynamically accounts for both sensory uncertainty and evidence strength, without the computation of posterior probabilities. Additionally, we investigated the algorithms used for multidimensional (audio-visual) confidence judgements specifically, showing that participants integrated both the visual and auditory dimensions of the stimulus, rather than relying solely on the most informative modality, and used a modality-independent measure of sensory uncertainty to adjust their confidence. Overall, our findings provide evidence for a common algorithm underlying confidence judgements across modalities and demonstrate the broad applicability of the scaled evidence strength algorithm, even in tasks requiring the integration of distinct sensory information. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Footnotes Some minor revisions to the manuscript text were made.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00