ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Authority reliance vs. deliberative assessment in processing online rumors: evidence from fNIRS.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to clarify how the authority of a fact-checker shapes neurocognitive processing of online rumors. Specifically, this study examined differences in neural responses to corrections provided by authoritative and non-authoritative sources. Approach: Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) was used to measure neural activity in the prefrontal cortex while participants evaluated information that had been fact-checked by either authoritative or non-authoritative third-party sources. Behavioral metrics, such as judgment accuracy, were collected alongside neural data to correlate brain activity with decision-making outcomes. Results/findings: Authoritative fact-checkers produced stronger activation in the left prefrontal cortex (LPFC) and improved overall judgment accuracy, suggesting a cognitive "fast track" that facilitates information acceptance. This enhanced accuracy was accompanied by increased LPFC engagement, indicating deeper analytical engagement. For true information, non-authoritative fact-checking led to reduced right prefrontal cortex (RPFC) activation and only marginal behavioral improvements, suggesting participants relied on heuristic shortcuts or "cognitive offloading" rather than rigorous deliberation. During false information processing, RPFC activation decreased across specific channels (e.g., Ch19), with non-authoritative sources yielding higher false-information judgment accuracy (59%) compared to authoritative sources (55%). This paradoxical effect suggests that lower source credibility can, in certain contexts, elicit more vigilant evaluation of false claims. The neural and behavioral responses to authoritative versus non-authoritative sources varied based on information veracity, consistent with cognitive dissonance theory, which posits adaptive shifts in processing strategies in response to credibility cues. Value: By linking source credibility to distinct neural signatures and accuracy outcomes, this work provides a neurocognitive account of how fact-checker authority influences belief updating. The findings highlight that credibility cues can promote heuristic acceptance or more careful analysis, depending on the situation. Furthermore, this evidence can inform more effective rumor-intervention strategies that are sensitive to both source attributes and information type.
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.