PMC

Frequency distributions of discrepancy scores between the Test of Practical Judgment and Neuropsychological Assessment Battery Judgment subtest non-demographically adjusted T-scores and Test of Practical Judgment and Neuropsychological Assessment Battery Judgment subtest demographically adjusted T-scores. Note. TOPJ = Test of Practical Judgment T-score; NAB = Neuropsychological Assessment Battery, Judgment subtest T-score.

Confidence judgment. (A–I) Large faces. (J–R) Small faces. (A,J) Percentage of trials reporting each level of confidence. (B,K) RT of emotion judgment for each confidence level. (C,L) RT of confidence judgment for each confidence level. (D,M) Confidence rating for each morph level. (E,N) RT of emotion judgment for each morph level. (F,O) RT of confidence judgment for each morph level. (G,P) Confidence rating for each ambiguity level. (H,Q) RT of emotion judgment for each ambiguity level. (I,R) RT of confidence judgment for each ambiguity level. Error bars denote ±SEM across subjects.

X-axis: In each trial 8 judgments from two different viewpoints were made. Y-axis: one-dimensional spatial coordinates in arbitrary units for illustration. In the J condition two participants took turn providing location judgments in four judgment cycles. In a given trial, participant 1 provided judgments on odd turns (1, 3, 5, and 7, in light grey) and participant 2 provided judgments on even turns (2, 4, 6, and 8, in dark grey). The impact of participant 2’s judgment on turn 2 on participant’s 1 judgment on turn 3 (i.e. the weight of participant 2’s judgment at the first iteration of judgment revision, W_R1) was computed as the ratio of the spatial difference between participant 1’s judgment on turn 3 and participant 1’s judgment on turn 1 and the spatial difference between participant 2’s judgment 1 on turn 2 and participant 1’s judgment on turn 1. If a participant’s initial judgment on turn 1 was 10, the judgment from another viewpoint on turn 2 was 30, and the participant’s revised judgment on turn 3 was 20, then the impact of judgment 2 was 0.5 ((20–10)/(30–10)). The impact of another’s judgement 4 and 6 from a different viewpoint on judgment 5 and 7 was computed in the same way with judgment 3 and 5 as the respective base. The cumulative weight W^cumulative was computed as the ratio of the spatial distance between participant 1’s judgment on turn 7 and participant 1’s judgment on turn 1 and the spatial distance between participant 2’s judgment 1 on turn 2 and participant 1’s judgment on turn 1. If the final judgment of participant 1 was 24, the cumulative weight was 0.7((24–10)/(30–10)), reflecting additional influence exerted during reciprocal interactions.

Comparison between emotional judgment, non‐emotional judgment, and baseline. A: Direct comparisons: emotional versus non‐emotional judgment; non‐emotional versus emotional judgment. B: Separate comparisons with baseline: emotional judgment versus baseline, non‐emotional judgment versus baseline. EJ, emotional judgment; NonEJ, non‐emotional judgment. Only activated foci with Z > 3.32 (P < 0.001 uncorrected, voxel level; P < 0.05 corrected, cluster level) are described. MNI coordinates and Z‐scores are similar to those described in Figure . The depicted bar diagrams represent average values as calculated from the values of the single subjects. For each subject and contrast the maximum voxel value within the respective region (VLPFC, (d)LPFC, VMPFC, DMPFC) was used. Accordingly, the magnitudes displayed in (B) do not precisely sum to the magnitudes displayed in (A). Values from right and left side were averaged for VLPFC and (d)LPFC respectively. Note that direct comparisons between emotional and non‐emotional judgment conditions showed relative signal changes, as demonstrated in separate comparisons with baseline. Relative signal increases in VMPFC/DMPFC in emotional judgment compared non‐emotional judgment were due to smaller true signal decreases (below baseline) in emotional judgment. In contrast, relative signal increases in VLPFC/(d)LPFC in non‐emotional judgment compared to emotional judgment were due to higher true signal increases (above baseline) in non‐emotional judgment (note higher values in percent signal change in non‐emotional judgment).