Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40437302›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2025

Processing of veracity cues: how processing difficulty affects the memory of event description and judgment of confidence.

Nicole Antes, Stephan Schwan, Markus Huff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nicole AntesLeibniz-Institut Für Wissensmedien, Schleichstraße 6, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. n.antes@iwm-tuebingen.de.ORCID 0000-0002-4112-2026
Stephan SchwanLeibniz-Institut Für Wissensmedien, Schleichstraße 6, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Markus HuffLeibniz-Institut Für Wissensmedien, Schleichstraße 6, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In today's rapid dissemination of information, discerning truth from falsehood is crucial. We investigated how cues signaling information veracity influence memory accuracy and confidence in coherent narratives. Two studies manipulated perceptual difficulty in distinguishing true-labeled from false-labeled information in event descriptions using font color as a cue. Study 1 (N = 198) revealed that the presence of veracity cues reduces memory accuracy for the event description. Study 2 (N = 248) showed that when differentiating veracity cues became more challenging, false-labeled information was more frequently misidentified and less accurately remembered. Confidence ratings decreased with the presence of veracity cues (Study 1) but resulted in disproportionately high confidence for sentences labeled as false that were confused as true (Study 2). False-labeled information was less retained, yielding initially more accurate event representation. However, once stored, false-labeled information was recalled with confidence as true, leading to a false representation. Therefore, mechanisms such as highlighting the veracity of information within coherent news articles on social media should be used with consideration.

Indexed as

CuesDeceptionJudgmentMental RecallMetacognitionAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultConfidenceEvent descriptionMemoryProcessing fluencyTruth biasVeracity cue

Identifiers

PMID40437302
PMCPMC12119432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.