ArticleScientific reports2024
Using ERPs to unveil the authenticity evaluation and neural response to online rumors.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
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
Abstract
The rapid propagation of information in the digital epoch has brought a surge of rumors, creating a significant societal challenge. While prior research has primarily focused on the psychological aspects of rumors-such as the beliefs, behaviors, and persistence they evoke-there has been limited exploration of how rumors are processed in the brain. In this study, we experimented to examine both behavioral responses and EEG data during rumor detection. Participants evaluated the credibility of 80 randomly presented rumors, and only 22% were able to identify false rumors more accurately than by random chance. Our ERP findings reveal that truth judgments elicit stronger negative ERP responses (N400) compared to false judgments, while false judgments are associated with larger positive ERP responses (P2, P3, and LPP). Additionally, we identified gender differences in brain activity related to rumor detection, suggesting distinct cognitive strategies. Men demonstrated greater P2 and enhanced N400 responses, while women exhibited larger P3 and LPP amplitudes. This study is among the first to investigate the neural patterns underlying rumors recognition and to highlight gender disparities in decision-making related to rumors.
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.