ArticleFrontiers in neuroinformatics2020
Whom to Believe? Understanding and Modeling Brain Activity in Source Credibility Evaluation.
Article in Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neurocognitive mechanisms of source credibility: how work experience and patient ratings modulate the processing of medical veracity cues.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Authority reliance vs. deliberative assessment in processing online rumors: evidence from fNIRS.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Recurrent and convolutional neural networks in classification of EEG signal for guided imagery and mental workload detection.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Using ERPs to unveil the authenticity evaluation and neural response to online rumors.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Investigating brain cortical activity in patients with post-COVID-19 brain fog.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Modeling and Comparing Brain Processes in Message and Earned Source Credibility Evaluation.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding how humans evaluate credibility is an important scientific question in the era of fake news. Source credibility is among the most important aspects of credibility evaluations. One of the most direct ways to understand source credibility is to use measurements of brain activity of humans performing credibility evaluations. Nevertheless, source credibility has never been investigated using such a method before. This article reports the results of an experiment during which we have measured brain activity during source credibility evaluation, using EEG. The experiment allowed for identification of brain areas that were active when a participant made positive or negative source credibility evaluations. Based on experimental data, we modeled and predicted human source credibility evaluations using EEG brain activity measurements with F1 score exceeding 0.7 (using 10-fold cross-validation).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.