ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Neurocognitive mechanisms of source credibility: how work experience and patient ratings modulate the processing of medical veracity cues.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inroduction: Source credibility is fundamental to how medical information is processed,yet the underlying neurocognitive mechanisms remain poorly understood. We investigated how two credibility cues - a doctor's expertise (years of work experience) and aggregate patient ratings (star ratings) - modulate brain responses to veracity cues ('True' vs. 'False') presented after health- related headlines. Methods: We recorded EEG from 36 participants while they evaluated true and false headlines across various medical topics (e.g., vitamins, GMOs, vaccination). Each headline was paired with a fictional doctor's profile that systematically varied in expertise (work experience) and patient ratings (star ratings). Results: Behaviorally, while both doctors' characteristics predicted opinion change and persuasiveness of veracity cues, patient ratings exerted a significantly stronger effect than work experience only on the persuasiveness of veracity cues. Critically, 'False' cues elicited a significantly stronger FRN(RewP)-like response when delivered by highly rated doctors compared to less rated ones; no such modulation was observed for 'True' cues. Source localization using standardized low-resolution electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA) identified frontal and posterior medial cortices as the likely neural generators of this effect. Discussion: Overall, our findings suggest that source credibility cues modulate the effectiveness of medical veracity feedback, revealing distinct neurocognitive mechanisms that underpin how credibility differentially shapes the processing confirmatory and disconfirmatory cues.
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.