Bayesian inference with incomplete knowledge explains perceptual confidence and its deviations from accuracy

Confidence bias prescribes the neurocomputational mechanism of decision-making

A couple of decision-making models with different ingredients have successfully interpreted choices, confidence, and related neural activities. However, empirical and theoretical evidence is currently lacking to distinguish these models clearly. Here, we investigated the decision-congruent confidence bias, where confidence favors evidence from the chosen option, yet the choice and its correctness or optimality are determined equally by alternative evidence strengths across both perceptual and value-based decision-making tasks. This confidence bias is manifested by confidence-coding neural activities, particularly in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. Further analyses on an array of neurocomputational models show that only the decision-making model equipped with mutual inhibition and an urgency signal can produce such a selective bias across almost all parameter regimes. These findings suggest that mutual inhibition and an urgency signal are two indispensable features embedded in the decision-making process, while confidence bias might be its consequence.

Multifaceted confidence in exploratory choice

Our choices are typically accompanied by a feeling of confidence-an internal estimate that they are correct. Correctness, however, depends on our goals. For example, exploration-exploitation problems entail a tension between short- and long-term goals: finding out about the value of one option could mean foregoing another option that is apparently more rewarding. Here, we hypothesised that after making an exploratory choice that involves sacrificing an immediate gain, subjects will be confident that they chose a better option for long-term rewards, but not confident that it was a better option for immediate reward. We asked 250 subjects across 2 experiments to perform a varying-horizon two-arm bandits task, in which we asked them to rate their confidence that their choice would lead to more immediate, or more total reward. Confirming previous studies, we found a significant increase in exploration with increasing trial horizon, but, contrary to our predictions, we found no difference between confidence in immediate or total reward. This dissociation is further evidence for a separation in the mechanisms involved in choices and confidence judgements.

Introspective psychophysics for the study of subjective experience

Studying subjective experience is hard. We believe that pain is not identical to nociception, nor pleasure a computational reward signal, nor fear the activation of "threat circuitry". Unfortunately, introspective self-reports offer our best bet for accessing subjective experience, but many still believe that introspection is "unreliable" and "unverifiable". But which of introspection's faults do we find most damning? Is it that introspection provides imperfect access to brain processes (e.g. perception, memory)? That subjective experience is not objectively verifiable? That it is hard to isolate from non-subjective processing capacity? Here, I argue none of these prevents us from building a meaningful, impactful psychophysical research program that treats subjective experience as a valid empirical target through precisely characterizing relationships among environmental variables, brain processes and behavior, and self-reported phenomenology. Following recent similar calls by Peters (Towards characterizing the canonical computations generating phenomenal experience. 2022. Neurosci Biobehav Rev: 142, 104903), Kammerer and Frankish (What forms could introspective systems take? A research programme. 2023. J Conscious Stud 30:13-48), and Fleming (Metacognitive psychophysics in humans, animals, and AI. 2023. J Conscious Stud 30:113-128), "introspective psychophysics" thus treats introspection's apparent faults as features, not bugs-just as the noise and distortions linking environment to behavior inspired Fechner's psychophysics over 150 years ago. This next generation of psychophysics will establish a powerful tool for building and testing precise explanatory models of phenomenology across many dimensions-urgency, emotion, clarity, vividness, confidence, and more.

Bayesian confidence in optimal decisions

The optimal way to make decisions in many circumstances is to track the difference in evidence collected in favor of the options. The drift diffusion model (DDM) implements this approach and provides an excellent account of decisions and response times. However, existing DDM-based models of confidence exhibit certain deficits, and many theories of confidence have used alternative, nonoptimal models of decisions. Motivated by the historical success of the DDM, we ask whether simple extensions to this framework might allow it to better account for confidence. Motivated by the idea that the brain will not duplicate representations of evidence, in all model variants decisions and confidence are based on the same evidence accumulation process. We compare the models to benchmark results, and successfully apply four qualitative tests concerning the relationships between confidence, evidence, and time, in a new preregistered study. Using computationally cheap expressions to model confidence on a trial-by-trial basis, we find that a subset of model variants also provide a very good to excellent account of precise quantitative effects observed in confidence data. Specifically, our results favor the hypothesis that confidence reflects the strength of accumulated evidence penalized by the time taken to reach the decision (Bayesian readout), with the penalty applied not perfectly calibrated to the specific task context. These results suggest there is no need to abandon the DDM or single accumulator models to successfully account for confidence reports. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Neural basis of concurrent deliberation toward a choice and degree of confidence

Decision confidence plays a key role in flexible behavior and (meta)cognition, but its underlying neural mechanisms remain elusive. To uncover the latent dynamics of confidence formation at the level of population activity, we designed a decision task for nonhuman primates that measures choice, reaction time, and confidence with a single eye movement on every trial. Monkey behavior was well fit by a bounded accumulator model instantiating parallel processing of evidence, rejecting a serial model in which the choice is resolved first followed by post-decision accumulation for confidence. Neurons in area LIP reflected concurrent accumulation, exhibiting covariation of choice and confidence signals across the population, and within-trial dynamics consistent with parallel updating at near-zero time lag. The results demonstrate that monkeys can process a single stream of evidence in service of two computational goals simultaneously-a categorical decision and associated level of confidence-and illuminate a candidate neural substrate for this ability.

Neural Signatures of Evidence Accumulation Encode Subjective Perceptual Confidence Independent of Performance

Confidence is an adaptive computation when environmental feedback is absent, yet there is little consensus regarding how perceptual confidence is computed in the brain. Difficulty arises because confidence correlates with other factors, such as accuracy, response time (RT), or evidence quality. We investigated whether neural signatures of evidence accumulation during a perceptual choice predict subjective confidence independently of these factors. Using motion stimuli, a central-parietal positive-going electroencephalogram component (CPP) behaves as an accumulating decision variable that predicts evidence quality, RT, accuracy, and confidence (Experiment 1, N = 25 adults). When we psychophysically varied confidence while holding accuracy constant (Experiment 2, N = 25 adults), the CPP still predicted confidence. Statistically controlling for RT, accuracy, and evidence quality (Experiment 3, N = 24 adults), the CPP still explained unique variance in confidence. The results indicate that a predecision neural signature of evidence accumulation, the CPP, encodes subjective perceptual confidence in decision-making independent of task performance.

A low-dimensional approximation of optimal confidence

Human decision making is accompanied by a sense of confidence. According to Bayesian decision theory, confidence reflects the learned probability of making a correct response, given available data (e.g., accumulated stimulus evidence and response time). Although optimal, independently learning these probabilities for all possible data combinations is computationally intractable. Here, we describe a novel model of confidence implementing a low-dimensional approximation of this optimal yet intractable solution. This model allows efficient estimation of confidence, while at the same time accounting for idiosyncrasies, different kinds of biases and deviation from the optimal probability correct. Our model dissociates confidence biases resulting from the estimate of the reliability of evidence by individuals (captured by parameter α), from confidence biases resulting from general stimulus independent under and overconfidence (captured by parameter β). We provide empirical evidence that this model accurately fits both choice data (accuracy, response time) and trial-by-trial confidence ratings simultaneously. Finally, we test and empirically validate two novel predictions of the model, namely that 1) changes in confidence can be independent of performance and 2) selectively manipulating each parameter of our model leads to distinct patterns of confidence judgments. As a tractable and flexible account of the computation of confidence, our model offers a clear framework to interpret and further resolve different forms of confidence biases.

What the eyes, confidence, and partner's identity can tell about change of mind

Perceptual confidence reflects the ability to evaluate the evidence that supports perceptual decisions. It is thought to play a critical role in guiding decision-making. However, only a few empirical studies have actually investigated the function of perceptual confidence. To address this issue, we designed a perceptual task in which participants provided a confidence judgment on the accuracy of their perceptual decision. Then, they viewed the response of a machine or human partner, and they were instructed to decide whether to keep or change their initial response. We observed that confidence predicted participants' changes of mind more than task difficulty and perceptual accuracy. Additionally, interacting with a machine, compared to a human, decreased confidence and increased participants tendency to change their initial decision, suggesting that both confidence and changes of mind are influenced by contextual factors, such as the identity of a partner. Finally, variations in confidence judgments but not change of mind were correlated with pre-response pupil dynamics, indicating that arousal changes are linked to confidence computations. This study contributes to our understanding of the factors influencing confidence and changes of mind and also evaluates the possibility of using pupil dynamics as a proxy of confidence.

Recurrent Neural Circuits Overcome Partial Inactivation by Compensation and Re-learning

Technical advances in artificial manipulation of neural activity have precipitated a surge in studying the causal contribution of brain circuits to cognition and behavior. However, complexities of neural circuits challenge interpretation of experimental results, necessitating new theoretical frameworks for reasoning about causal effects. Here, we take a step in this direction, through the lens of recurrent neural networks trained to perform perceptual decisions. We show that understanding the dynamical system structure that underlies network solutions provides a precise account for the magnitude of behavioral effects due to perturbations. Our framework explains past empirical observations by clarifying the most sensitive features of behavior, and how complex circuits compensate and adapt to perturbations. In the process, we also identify strategies that can improve the interpretability of inactivation experiments.

Neurocomputational mechanisms involved in adaptation to fluctuating intentions of others

Humans frequently interact with agents whose intentions can fluctuate between competition and cooperation over time. It is unclear how the brain adapts to fluctuating intentions of others when the nature of the interactions (to cooperate or compete) is not explicitly and truthfully signaled. Here, we use model-based fMRI and a task in which participants thought they were playing with another player. In fact, they played with an algorithm that alternated without signaling between cooperative and competitive strategies. We show that a neurocomputational mechanism with arbitration between competitive and cooperative experts outperforms other learning models in predicting choice behavior. At the brain level, the fMRI results show that the ventral striatum and ventromedial prefrontal cortex track the difference of reliability between these experts. When attributing competitive intentions, we find increased coupling between these regions and a network that distinguishes prediction errors related to competition and cooperation. These findings provide a neurocomputational account of how the brain arbitrates dynamically between cooperative and competitive intentions when making adaptive social decisions.

Manipulating Prior Beliefs Causally Induces Under- and Overconfidence

Humans differ vastly in the confidence they assign to decisions. Although such under- and overconfidence relate to fundamental life outcomes, a computational account specifying the underlying mechanisms is currently lacking. We propose that prior beliefs in the ability to perform a task explain confidence differences across participants and tasks, despite similar performance. In two perceptual decision-making experiments, we show that manipulating prior beliefs about performance during training causally influences confidence in healthy adults (N = 50 each; Experiment 1: 8 men, one nonbinary; Experiment 2: 5 men) during a test phase, despite unaffected objective performance. This is true when prior beliefs are induced via manipulated comparative feedback and via manipulated training-phase difficulty. Our results were accounted for within an accumulation-to-bound model, explicitly modeling prior beliefs on the basis of earlier task exposure. Decision confidence is quantified as the probability of being correct conditional on prior beliefs, causing under- or overconfidence. We provide a fundamental mechanistic insight into the computations underlying under- and overconfidence.

Affective valence does not reflect progress prediction errors in perceptual decisions

Affective valence and intensity form the core of our emotional experiences. It has been proposed that affect reflects the prediction error between expected and actual states, such that better/worse-than-expected discrepancies result in positive/negative affect. However, whether the same principle applies to progress prediction errors remains unclear. We empirically and computationally evaluate the hypothesis that affect reflects the difference between expected and actual progress in forming a perceptual decision. We model affect within an evidence accumulation framework where actual progress is mapped onto the drift-rate parameter and expected progress onto an expected drift-rate parameter. Affect is computed as the difference between the expected and actual amount of accumulated evidence. We find that expected and actual progress both influence affect, but in an additive manner that does not align with a prediction error account. Our computational model reproduces both task behavior and affective ratings, suggesting that sequential sampling models provide a promising framework to model progress appraisals. These results show that although affect is sensitive to both expected and actual progress, it does not reflect the computation of a progress prediction error.

Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis

Determining the psychological, computational, and neural bases of confidence and uncertainty holds promise for understanding foundational aspects of human metacognition. While a neuroscience of confidence has focused on the mechanisms underpinning subpersonal phenomena such as representations of uncertainty in the visual or motor system, metacognition research has been concerned with personal-level beliefs and knowledge about self-performance. I provide a road map for bridging this divide by focusing on a particular class of confidence computation: propositional confidence in one's own (hypothetical) decisions or actions. Propositional confidence is informed by the observer's models of the world and their cognitive system, which may be more or less accurate-thus explaining why metacognitive judgments are inferential and sometimes diverge from task performance. Disparate findings on the neural basis of uncertainty and performance monitoring are integrated into a common framework, and a new understanding of the locus of action of metacognitive interventions is developed.

Distinct value computations support rapid sequential decisions

The value of the environment determines animals' motivational states and sets expectations for error-based learning1-3. How are values computed? Reinforcement learning systems can store or cache values of states or actions that are learned from experience, or they can compute values using a model of the environment to simulate possible futures3. These value computations have distinct trade-offs, and a central question is how neural systems decide which computations to use or whether/how to combine them4-8. Here we show that rats use distinct value computations for sequential decisions within single trials. We used high-throughput training to collect statistically powerful datasets from 291 rats performing a temporal wagering task with hidden reward states. Rats adjusted how quickly they initiated trials and how long they waited for rewards across states, balancing effort and time costs against expected rewards. Statistical modeling revealed that animals computed the value of the environment differently when initiating trials versus when deciding how long to wait for rewards, even though these decisions were only seconds apart. Moreover, value estimates interacted via a dynamic learning rate. Our results reveal how distinct value computations interact on rapid timescales, and demonstrate the power of using high-throughput training to understand rich, cognitive behaviors.

Attractor dynamics reflect decision confidence in macaque prefrontal cortex

Decisions are made with different degrees of consistency, and this consistency can be linked to the confidence that the best choice has been made. Theoretical work suggests that attractor dynamics in networks can account for choice consistency, but how this is implemented in the brain remains unclear. Here we provide evidence that the energy landscape around attractor basins in population neural activity in the prefrontal cortex reflects choice consistency. We trained two rhesus monkeys to make accept/reject decisions based on pretrained visual cues that signaled reward offers with different magnitudes and delays to reward. Monkeys made consistent decisions for very good and very bad offers, but decisions were less consistent for intermediate offers. Analysis of neural data showed that the attractor basins around patterns of activity reflecting decisions had steeper landscapes for offers that led to consistent decisions. Therefore, we provide neural evidence that energy landscapes predict decision consistency, which reflects decision confidence.

Metacognitive awareness in the sound-induced flash illusion

Hundreds (if not thousands) of multisensory studies provide evidence that the human brain can integrate temporally and spatially discrepant stimuli from distinct modalities into a singular event. This process of multisensory integration is usually portrayed in the scientific literature as contributing to our integrated, coherent perceptual reality. However, missing from this account is an answer to a simple question: how do confidence judgements compare between multisensory information that is integrated across multiple sources, and multisensory information that comes from a single, congruent source in the environment? In this paper, we use the sound-induced flash illusion to investigate if confidence judgements are similar across multisensory conditions when the numbers of auditory and visual events are the same, and the numbers of auditory and visual events are different. Results showed that congruent audiovisual stimuli produced higher confidence than incongruent audiovisual stimuli, even when the perceptual report was matched across the two conditions. Integrating these behavioural findings with recent neuroimaging and theoretical work, we discuss the role that prefrontal cortex may play in metacognition, multisensory causal inference and sensory source monitoring in general. This article is part of the theme issue 'Decision and control processes in multisensory perception'.

Attractor dynamics reflect decision confidence in macaque prefrontal cortex

Decisions are made with different degrees of consistency, and this consistency can be linked to the confidence that the best choice has been made. Theoretical work suggests that attractor dynamics in networks can account for choice consistency, but how this is implemented in the brain remains unclear. Here, we provide evidence that the energy landscape around attractor basins in population neural activity in prefrontal cortex reflects choice consistency. We trained two rhesus monkeys to make accept/reject decisions based on pretrained visual cues that signaled reward offers with different magnitudes and delays-to-reward. Monkeys made consistent decisions for very good and very bad offers, but decisions were less consistent for intermediate offers. Analysis of neural data showed that the attractor basins around patterns of activity reflecting decisions had steeper landscapes for offers that led to consistent decisions. Therefore, we provide neural evidence that energy landscapes predict decision consistency, which reflects decision confidence.

Contributions of the Basal Ganglia to Visual Perceptual Decisions

The basal ganglia (BG) make up a prominent nexus between visual and motor-related brain regions. In contrast to the BG's well-established roles in movement control and value-based decision making, their contributions to the transformation of visual input into an action remain unclear, especially in the context of perceptual decisions based on uncertain visual evidence. This article reviews recent progress in our understanding of the BG's contributions to the formation, evaluation, and adjustment of such decisions. From theoretical and experimental perspectives, the review focuses on four key stations in the BG network, namely, the striatum, pallidum, subthalamic nucleus, and midbrain dopamine neurons, which can have different roles and together support the decision process.

Natural statistics support a rational account of confidence biases

Previous work has sought to understand decision confidence as a prediction of the probability that a decision will be correct, leading to debate over whether these predictions are optimal, and whether they rely on the same decision variable as decisions themselves. This work has generally relied on idealized, low-dimensional models, necessitating strong assumptions about the representations over which confidence is computed. To address this, we used deep neural networks to develop a model of decision confidence that operates directly over high-dimensional, naturalistic stimuli. The model accounts for a number of puzzling dissociations between decisions and confidence, reveals a rational explanation of these dissociations in terms of optimization for the statistics of sensory inputs, and makes the surprising prediction that, despite these dissociations, decisions and confidence depend on a common decision variable.

Feeling lucky? prospective and retrospective cues for sensorimotor confidence

On a daily basis, humans interact with the outside world using judgments of sensorimotor confidence, constantly evaluating our actions for success. We ask, what sensory and motor-execution cues are used in making these judgements and when are they available? Two sources of temporally distinct information are prospective cues, available prior to the action (e.g., knowledge of motor noise and past performance), and retrospective cues specific to the action itself (e.g., proprioceptive measurements). We investigated the use of these two cues in two tasks, a secondary motor-awareness task and a main task in which participants reached toward a visual target with an unseen hand and then made a continuous judgment of confidence about the success of the reach. Confidence was reported by setting the size of a circle centered on the reach-target location, where a larger circle reflects lower confidence. Points were awarded if the confidence circle enclosed the true endpoint, with fewer points returned for larger circles. This incentivized accurate reaches and attentive reporting to maximize the score. We compared three Bayesian-inference models of sensorimotor confidence based on either prospective cues, retrospective cues, or both sources of information to maximize expected gain (i.e., an ideal-performance model). Our findings showed two distinct strategies: participants either performed as ideal observers, using both prospective and retrospective cues to make the confidence judgment, or relied solely on prospective information, ignoring retrospective cues. Thus, participants can make use of retrospective cues, evidenced by the behavior observed in our motor-awareness task, but these cues are not always included in the computation of sensorimotor confidence.

Optimal policy for uncertainty estimation concurrent with decision making

Decision making often depends on vague information that leads to uncertainty, which is a quantity contingent not on choice but on probability distributions of sensory evidence and other cognitive variables. Uncertainty may be computed in parallel and interact with decision making. Here, we adapt the classic random-dot motion direction discrimination task to allow subjects to indicate their uncertainty without having to form a decision first. The subjects' choices and reaction times for perceptual decisions and uncertainty responses are measured, respectively. We then build a value-based model in which decisions are based on optimizing value computed from a drift-diffusion process. The model accounts for key features of subjects' behavior and the variation across the individuals. It explains how the addition of the uncertainty option affects perceptual decision making. Our work establishes a value-based theoretical framework for studying uncertainty and perceptual decisions that can be readily applied in future investigations of the underlying neural mechanism.

Neural Mechanisms That Make Perceptual Decisions Flexible

Neural mechanisms of perceptual decision making have been extensively studied in experimental settings that mimic stable environments with repeating stimuli, fixed rules, and payoffs. In contrast, we live in an ever-changing environment and have varying goals and behavioral demands. To accommodate variability, our brain flexibly adjusts decision-making processes depending on context. Here, we review a growing body of research that explores the neural mechanisms underlying this flexibility. We highlight diverse forms of context dependency in decision making implemented through a variety of neural computations. Context-dependent neural activity is observed in a distributed network of brain structures, including posterior parietal, sensory, motor, and subcortical regions, as well as the prefrontal areas classically implicated in cognitive control. We propose that investigating the distributed network underlying flexible decisions is key to advancing our understanding and discuss a path forward for experimental and theoretical investigations.

Confidence reflects a noisy decision reliability estimate

Decisions vary in difficulty. Humans know this and typically report more confidence in easy than in difficult decisions. However, confidence reports do not perfectly track decision accuracy, but also reflect response biases and difficulty misjudgements. To isolate the quality of confidence reports, we developed a model of the decision-making process underlying choice-confidence data. In this model, confidence reflects a subject's estimate of the reliability of their decision. The quality of this estimate is limited by the subject's uncertainty about the uncertainty of the variable that informs their decision ('meta-uncertainty'). This model provides an accurate account of choice-confidence data across a broad range of perceptual and cognitive tasks, investigated in six previous studies. We find meta-uncertainty varies across subjects, is stable over time, generalizes across some domains and can be manipulated experimentally. The model offers a parsimonious explanation for the computational processes that underlie and constrain the sense of confidence.

Neurocomputational mechanisms of confidence in self and others

Computing confidence in one’s own and others’ decisions is critical for social success. While there has been substantial progress in our understanding of confidence estimates about oneself, little is known about how people form confidence estimates about others. Here, we address this question by asking participants undergoing fMRI to place bets on perceptual decisions made by themselves or one of three other players of varying ability. We show that participants compute confidence in another player’s decisions by combining distinct estimates of player ability and decision difficulty – allowing them to predict that a good player may get a difficult decision wrong and that a bad player may get an easy decision right. We find that this computation is associated with an interaction between brain systems implicated in decision-making (LIP) and theory of mind (TPJ and dmPFC). These results reveal an interplay between self- and other-related processes during a social confidence computation.

Reverse engineering of metacognition

The human ability to introspect on thoughts, perceptions or actions − metacognitive ability − has become a focal topic of both cognitive basic and clinical research. At the same time it has become increasingly clear that currently available quantitative tools are limited in their ability to make unconfounded inferences about metacognition. As a step forward, the present work introduces a comprehensive modeling framework of metacognition that allows for inferences about metacognitive noise and metacognitive biases during the readout of decision values or at the confidence reporting stage. The model assumes that confidence results from a continuous but noisy and potentially biased transformation of decision values, described by a confidence link function. A canonical set of metacognitive noise distributions is introduced which differ, amongst others, in their predictions about metacognitive sign flips of decision values. Successful recovery of model parameters is demonstrated, and the model is validated on an empirical data set. In particular, it is shown that metacognitive noise and bias parameters correlate with conventional behavioral measures. Crucially, in contrast to these conventional measures, metacognitive noise parameters inferred from the model are shown to be independent of performance. This work is accompanied by a toolbox (ReMeta) that allows researchers to estimate key parameters of metacognition in confidence datasets.

Metacognition is a person’s ability to think about their own thoughts. For example, imagine you are walking in a dark forest when you see an elongated object. You think it is a stick rather than a snake, but how sure are you? Reflecting on one’s certainty about own thoughts or perceptions – confidence – is a prime example of metacognition. While our ability to think about our own thoughts in this way provides many, perhaps uniquely human, advantages, confidence judgements are prone to biases. Often, humans tend to be overconfident: we think we are right more often than we actually are. Internal noise of neural processes can also affect confidence.

Understanding these imperfections in metacognition could shed light on how humans think, but studying this phenomenon is challenging. Current methods are lacking either mechanistic insight about the sources of metacognitive biases and noise or rely on unrealistic assumptions. A better model for how metacognition works could provide a clearer picture.

Guggenmos developed a mathematical model and a computer toolbox to help researchers investigate how humans or animals estimate confidence in their own thoughts and resulting decisions . The model splits metacognition apart, allowing scientists to explore biases and sources of noise at different phases in the process. It takes two kinds of data: the decisions study participants make, and how sure they are about their decision being correct. It then recreates metacognition in three phases: the primary decision, the metacognitive readout of the evidence, and the confidence report. This allows investigators to see where and when noise and bias come into play. Guggenmos tested the model using independent data from a visual discrimination task and found that it was able to predict how confident participants reported to be in their decisions.

Metacognitive ability can change in people with mental illness. People with schizophrenia have often been found to be overconfident in their decisions, while people with depression can be underconfident. Using this model to separate the various facets of metacognition could help to explain why. It could also shed light on human thinking in general.

Divergent effects of absolute evidence magnitude on decision accuracy and confidence in perceptual judgements

Whether people change their mind after making a perceptual judgement may depend on how confident they are in their decision. Recently, it was shown that, when making perceptual judgements about stimuli containing high levels of 'absolute evidence' (i.e., the overall magnitude of sensory evidence across choice options), people make less accurate decisions and are also slower to change their mind and correct their mistakes. Here we report two studies that investigated whether high levels of absolute evidence also lead to increased decision confidence. We used a luminance judgment task in which participants decided which of two dynamic, flickering stimuli was brighter. After making a decision, participants rated their confidence. We manipulated relative evidence (i.e., the mean luminance difference between the two stimuli) and absolute evidence (i.e., the summed luminance of the two stimuli). In the first experiment, we found that higher absolute evidence was associated with decreased decision accuracy but increased decision confidence. In the second experiment, we additionally manipulated the degree of luminance variability to assess whether the observed effects were due to differences in perceived evidence variability. We replicated the results of the first experiment but did not find substantial effects of luminance variability on confidence ratings. Our findings support the view that decisions and confidence judgements are based on partly dissociable sources of information, and suggest that decisions initially made with higher confidence may be more resistant to subsequent changes of mind.