ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026
Eye of the beholder: Pupillary response reflects how subjective prior beliefs shape reinforcement learning with fake news.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Information selection plays a crucial role in how individuals navigate online content. While confirmation bias has been implicated in this phenomenon, its interaction with reinforcement learning dynamics and internal confidence signals remains poorly understood. Here, we examined how veracity judgments and confidence shape choices when probabilistic rewards are tied to different epistemic attributes of news headlines. Participants completed a three-phase paradigm that combined news classification, a probabilistic learning task with varying reward contingencies, and a final reevaluation phase. Using real and false headlines judged for veracity and confidence, we created personalized sets of stimulus categories that were later used in a two-armed bandit task. In different blocks of trials, reinforcement was probabilistically associated with either the perceived truthfulness or confidence of each item. Across all experimental phases, pupil dilation provided neurophysiological signatures of belief-related processing. At a behavioral level, participants showed higher accuracies and learning rates when rewards were contingent on their previous judgments of veracity, whereas performance was markedly reduced when reinforcement favored confidence, especially low-confidence options. Pupillometric data revealed predecisional modulations tied to subjective confidence, while computational modeling showed that participants relied on feature-based generalization when veracity predicted reward and shifted toward valence-sensitive updating when contingencies no longer matched their prior epistemic structure. Together, these results reveal how veracity and confidence jointly guide reinforcement-driven choices and modulate the flexibility of belief-related decisions. By integrating cognitive, computational, and physiological data, our study provides a mechanistic understanding of how prior beliefs shape learning in complex and misinformation-rich contexts.
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.