Going 'meta': a systematic review of metacognition and functional neurological disorder.

IF 4.1 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Brain communications Pub Date : 2025-01-13 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/braincomms/fcaf014
Anna Sadnicka, Ann-Marie Strudwick, John P Grogan, Sanjay Manohar, Glenn Nielsen
{"title":"Going 'meta': a systematic review of metacognition and functional neurological disorder.","authors":"Anna Sadnicka, Ann-Marie Strudwick, John P Grogan, Sanjay Manohar, Glenn Nielsen","doi":"10.1093/braincomms/fcaf014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In functional neurological disorder (FND), there is a fundamental disconnect between an apparently intact nervous system and the individuals' ability to consistently perform motor actions, perceive sensory signals and/or access effective cognition. Metacognition, the capacity to self-evaluate cognitive performance, appears highly relevant to FND pathophysiology. Poor metacognition is a potential mechanism via which abnormal models of self and the state of the world could arise and persist unchecked. There is therefore a justified enthusiasm that studies of metacognition may give substance to FND's intangible nature. However, many assume an impairment in metacognition even though experimental studies are still in their infancy. This systematic review provides an analytical checkpoint of the evidence after the first five years of experimental work. We firstly summarize current methods for testing metacognition, prerequisite knowledge that allows readers to independently evaluate the evidence. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we then screened the 21 articles on this topic and review the experimental data of the eight studies that specifically tested metacognition in subjects with FND. Questionnaire metrics used to estimate global metacognition and general confidence in FND revealed a mixed picture of low or normal confidence. Of the five studies that used performance-controlled metrics, the gold-standard to estimate local metacognition in FND, four found metacognition to be equivalent to healthy controls and one paper supported impaired metacognition. We consequently try and broaden the debate and discuss alternative headline scenarios. We review how positive studies may offer insight and debate whether null studies could represent false negatives. However, since most studies find equivalent metacognition to controls, we also discuss whether metacognition could be intact and how this could inform mechanistic models of FND and have potential clinical utility. In summary, this review highlights signal of interest within the data, exposes current limitations and flags the many open questions.</p>","PeriodicalId":93915,"journal":{"name":"Brain communications","volume":"7 1","pages":"fcaf014"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11775622/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcaf014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In functional neurological disorder (FND), there is a fundamental disconnect between an apparently intact nervous system and the individuals' ability to consistently perform motor actions, perceive sensory signals and/or access effective cognition. Metacognition, the capacity to self-evaluate cognitive performance, appears highly relevant to FND pathophysiology. Poor metacognition is a potential mechanism via which abnormal models of self and the state of the world could arise and persist unchecked. There is therefore a justified enthusiasm that studies of metacognition may give substance to FND's intangible nature. However, many assume an impairment in metacognition even though experimental studies are still in their infancy. This systematic review provides an analytical checkpoint of the evidence after the first five years of experimental work. We firstly summarize current methods for testing metacognition, prerequisite knowledge that allows readers to independently evaluate the evidence. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we then screened the 21 articles on this topic and review the experimental data of the eight studies that specifically tested metacognition in subjects with FND. Questionnaire metrics used to estimate global metacognition and general confidence in FND revealed a mixed picture of low or normal confidence. Of the five studies that used performance-controlled metrics, the gold-standard to estimate local metacognition in FND, four found metacognition to be equivalent to healthy controls and one paper supported impaired metacognition. We consequently try and broaden the debate and discuss alternative headline scenarios. We review how positive studies may offer insight and debate whether null studies could represent false negatives. However, since most studies find equivalent metacognition to controls, we also discuss whether metacognition could be intact and how this could inform mechanistic models of FND and have potential clinical utility. In summary, this review highlights signal of interest within the data, exposes current limitations and flags the many open questions.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信