Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41989855›Full record

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.

Silvana Lozito, Valentina Piga, Sara Lo Presti, Angelica Scuderi, Fabrizio Doricchi, Massimo Silvetti, Stefano Lasaponara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

7 authors.

Silvana Lozito *Department of Psychology, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome 00185, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0344-7513
Valentina Piga *Department of Psychology, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome 00185, Italy.ORCID 0009-0005-1408-2013
Sara Lo PrestiDepartment of Psychology, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome 00185, Italy.
Angelica ScuderiDepartment of Psychology, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome 00185, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6364-9411
Fabrizio DoricchiDepartment of Psychology, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome 00185, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1535-9046
Massimo SilvettiComputational and Translational Neuroscience Lab, Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, National Research Council, Rome 00196, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2925-0615
Stefano LasaponaraDepartment of Psychology, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome 00185, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5325-2621

Funding

Sapienza Università di Roma (Sapienza) Seed Grant 2022
6 · The paper itself

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

LearningPupilReinforcement, PsychologyAdultFemaleHumansJudgmentMaleReinforcement Machine LearningRewardYoung Adultbelief updatingconfirmation biasfake newspupillometryreinforcement learning

Identifiers

PMID41989855
PMCPMC13099573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.