Communications in Humanities Research ISSN: 2753-7072
Home> Volumes> Volume CHR Vol.42> Article
Research Article

The Neural Basis and Computational Models of Metacognition

Nashao ZhongKing's College London*

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

The ability to reflect on one’s own thinking is what makes human cognition "meta." Metacognition, the capability to assess, reflect on, and control first-order cognitive processes, is essential for flexible and adaptive behaviors across various contexts. This review explores the neural mechanisms and computational models underpinning metacognition. The involvement of brain regions, including the insula, precuneus, medial prefrontal cortex, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in metacognitive judgments is examined. How distinct regions support both domain-general and domain-specific metacognitive processes is also explored. Furthermore, the neural correlates of metacognitive executive functions, such as error monitoring and cognitive control, are investigated, with a focus on the prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex and their roles in regulating working memory and performance monitoring. This review also discusses the Bayesian models of human metacognitive processes proposed by Fleming and Daw. Studies on human metacognition have significant implications for the development of artificial intelligence, evidenced by the H-CogAff architecture, revealing how integrating metacognitive frameworks could enhance AI’s transparency, reasoning, adaptability, and perception. The findings suggest that investigating the neural mechanisms and computational models of metacognition is crucial not only for understanding human cognitive processes but also for improving the resilience and flexibility of AI systems. Future studies in this field should expand the scope by integrating broader and more qualitative dimensions, such as affective self-assessment and social cognition, while maintaining the precision of current evaluation approaches.

Keywords: Neural basis; computational models; metacognition.
Published: November 15, 2024
DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/42/20242524
Volume: CHR Vol.42
pp. 134-141
Download PDF

References

  1. Katyal, S., & Fleming, S. M. (2024). The future of metacognition research: Balancing construct breadth with measurement rigor. Cortex, 171, 223–234.
  2. Flavell, J. H., & Wellman, H. M. (1975). Metamemory. Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Science Foundation. ERIC
  3. Fleur, Damien S., Bredeweg, B., & van den Bos, W. (2021). Metacognition: Ideas and insights from neuro- and Educational Sciences. Npj Science of Learning, 6(1).
  4. Nelson, T.O. (1990). Metamemory: A Theoretical Framework and New Findings. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125-173.
  5. Roebers, C. M. (2017). Executive Function and Metacognition: Towards a unifying framework of cognitive self-regulation. Developmental Review, 45, 31–51.
  6. Fleming, S. M., & Dolan, R. J. (2012). The neural basis of metacognitive ability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 367(1594), 1338–1349.
  7. Hart, J. T. (1965). Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(4), 208–216.
  8. Arbuckle, T. Y., & Cuddy, L. L. (1969). Discrimination of item strength at time of presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 126–131.
  9. Fechner, G. T. (1948). Elements of psychophysics, 1860. In W. Dennis (Ed.), Readings in the history of psychology,206–213.
  10. Fleming, S. M., Weil, R. S., Nagy, Z., Dolan, R. J., & Rees, G. (2010). Relating introspective accuracy to individual differences in brain structure. Science, 329(5998), 1541–1543.
  11. Vaccaro, A. G., & Fleming, S. M. (2018). Thinking about thinking: A coordinate-based meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies of metacognitive judgements. Brain and neuroscience advances, 2.
  12. Baird, B., Smallwood, J., Gorgolewski, K. J., & Margulies, D. S. (2013). Medial and lateral networks in anterior prefrontal cortex support metacognitive ability for memory and perception. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 33(42), 16657–16665.
  13. McCurdy, L. Y., Maniscalco, B., Metcalfe, J., Liu, K. Y., de Lange, F. P., & Lau, H. (2013). Anatomical coupling between distinct metacognitive systems for memory and visual perception. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 33(5), 1897–1906.
  14. Rouault, M., Seow, T., Gillan, C. M., & Fleming, S. M. (2018). Psychiatric Symptom Dimensions Are Associated With Dissociable Shifts in Metacognition but Not Task Performance. Biological psychiatry, 84(6), 443–451.
  15. Boldt, A., & Gilbert, S. J. (2019). Confidence guides spontaneous cognitive offloading. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 4(1).
  16. Fernandez-Duque, D., Baird, J. A., & Posner, M. I. (2000). Executive attention and Metacognitive Regulation. Consciousness and Cognition, 9(2).
  17. Shimamura, A. P. (2008). A neurocognitive approach to metacognitive monitoring and control. In J. Dunlosky & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Handbook of metamemory and memory, 373–390. Psychology Press.
  18. Taylor, S. F., Stern, E. R., & Gehring, W. J. (2007). Neural systems for error monitoring: recent findings and theoretical perspectives. The Neuroscientist: a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry, 13(2), 160–172.
  19. Fleming, S. M., & Daw, N. D. (2017). Self-evaluation of decision-making: A general Bayesian framework for metacognitive computation. Psychological Review, 124(1), 91–114.
  20. Kennedy, C. M. (2018). Computational modelling of metacognition in emotion regulation.
  21. Wei, H., Shakarian, P., Lebiere, C., Draper, B., Krishnaswamy, N., & Nirenburg, S. (2024). Metacognitive AI: Framework and the Case for a Neurosymbolic Approach. In International Conference on Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning, 60-67.