ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2026
Metacognition and metacognitive monitoring in aging.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metacognitive monitoring, or the capacity to assess and regulate one's cognitive activities, is essential for maintaining optimal mental functioning. Metacognitive monitoring may be particularly important for individuals as they age, fostering self-awareness of cognitive strengths and limitations, guiding strategy selection to enhance performance, compensating for age-related changes to cognitive abilities, and identifying the earliest cognitive symptoms of disease. By evaluating one's own understanding, individuals can align their confidence with actual ability, promoting better decision making and behavioral control. This review synthesizes the current literature on age-related differences in the accuracy of metacognitive monitoring across different types of metacognitive judgments, including judgments of learning, feelings of knowing, and post-decision confidence. We begin by discussing two key components of metacognitive monitoring: metacognitive sensitivity and metacognitive calibration. Then, we examine existing studies to address two main questions: whether age-related differences in one component (e.g., metacognitive calibration) can be explained by variations in the other (e.g., metacognitive sensitivity), and whether these differences can be attributed to age-related changes in underlying cognitive or perceptual processes. We find that the current literature does not provide definitive evidence for or against the decline of metacognitive monitoring in older adults. Rather, findings suggest that aging may differentially affect metacognitive accuracy depending on the type of judgment and task demands, with some domains showing preserved or even enhanced performance. These mixed findings underscore the conceptual and methodological complexity of studying metacognition in aging. We conclude by outlining key theoretical and empirical directions to clarify mechanisms and advance the field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.