This seems like an elaborate way to state the really obvious, and doesn't really do much IMO to get at the specific question they're trying to answer. People learn from feedback...I mean, duh. But the issue is why we value one source of feedback versus another, which this study doesn't seem to address at all. I also think the focus on the most recent feedback is misleading in this case. If people guessed wrong about a shape a bunch, but if as they adjusted they started consistently getting it right, why wouldn't they base their definition of this made-up word on the ones they got right? I don't understand why this is surprising, or why it has anything to do with the bigger issue they're attempting to study.
That's not at all what the scientists are saying. They're saying that recent learning takes precedent over past learning in learning confidence. derived for high-level logical domains like Boolean concept learning. It appears that certainty estimation primarily makes use of behavioral and overt task features, but that some model predictors are also relevant. In contrast, perceptual certainty and certainty involving one’s memory of a fact (such as asking which country has a higher population; Sanders et al., 2016) seem to default to using predictors derived from ideal learning models. https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/opmi_a_00017In conjunction with past research, our results paint a picture of how subjective certainty is