People confabulate with high confidence when their decisions are supported by weak internal variables

Area of Science:

• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Decision-Making Research
• Human-Computer Interaction

Background:

• Introspection allows reporting decision drivers, but choice blindness (CB) suggests this can be a retrospective illusion.
• Previous research indicates external cues can influence justifications for choices not actually made.
• The precise interplay between internal decision variables and external cues in introspection remains unclear.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the relative contributions of internal decision variables and external cues in introspective reports.
• To explore the neural underpinnings of choice blindness using brain-computer interface technology.
• To examine the relationship between confidence, accuracy, and internal decision evidence during introspective failures.

Main Methods:

• Utilized a brain-computer interface (BCI) to monitor internal decision variables during choice blindness experiments.
• Presented participants with deceptive external cues to manipulate their reported choices.
• Analyzed the impact of internal variables versus external cues on introspective reports and confidence levels.

Main Results:

• Internal decision variables are continuously monitored but are less influential than deceptive external cues in choice blindness scenarios.
• Choice blindness episodes show an inverse relationship between confidence and accuracy, with higher confidence linked to introspective failures.
• Overconfident confabulations are more likely when internal decision evidence is weak and variable.

Conclusions:

• Introspection is not a direct readout of internal states nor solely a retrospective illusion.
• Introspection involves integrating both internal decision evidence and external cues.
• Choice blindness represents a specific case where inconsistent internal evidence interacts with external cues.