ArticleBrain sciences2026
Comparing Brain Responses to Moral and Semantic Violations.
Article in Brain sciences, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe processing and evaluation of behavior, actions or events that go against social (moral) norms can be assumed to operate on mental representations of the world and of how people typically behave. These mechanisms and representations may therefore be shared by the processing of meaning in general. The current study investigated whether the processing of deviations of morality can be distinguished from processing of semantic inconsistencies.
methodsEvent-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded from English speakers while they read short written texts in English for comprehension. Texts contained words that constituted moral violations, semantic violations and neutral controls depending on the context, allowing for a direct comparison.
resultsUsing trial-based analyses, we found different ERP responses to semantic and moral violations: the moral violation elicited a long-lasting, posterior Late Positive Component (LPC) starting at around 300 ms, whereas the semantic violation elicited a positivity that started later and was descriptively more frontally distributed. Furthermore, the LPC amplitudes could be explained by the moral acceptance scores over and above plausibility scores, but not vice versa.
conclusionsThe outcomes are compatible with the view that the processing of moral deviations engages at least some mechanisms that are different from the processing of semantic deviations.
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.