ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2022
Modeling and Comparing Brain Processes in Message and Earned Source Credibility Evaluation.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating the Impact of Guided Imagery on Stress, Brain Functions, and Attention: A Randomized Trial.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Trial
- Neurocognitive mechanisms of source credibility: how work experience and patient ratings modulate the processing of medical veracity cues.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
- Investigating brain cortical activity in patients with post-COVID-19 brain fog.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
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.
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 who make credibility evaluations. This article reports the results of an experiment during which we have measured brain activity during credibility evaluation using EEG. In the experiment, participants had to learn source credibility of fictitious students based on a preparatory stage, during which they evaluated message credibility with perfect knowledge. 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). We are also able to model and predict message credibility evaluations with perfect knowledge, and to compare both models obtained from a single experiment.
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.