Neurophysiological Correlates of Real and Fake News Perception
Poster No:
718
Submission Type:
Late-Breaking Abstract Submission
Authors:
Tanisha Annamalai1, Adhya Neshaa Nedumaran1, Shuhan Wang1, Zhong Miao2, Sarah Ayub1, Dominique Makowski3, SH Annabel Chen4
Institutions:
1Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore, 2Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, Tianjin, 3University of Sussex, Sussex, Sussex, 4Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Not applicable
First Author:
Co-Author(s):
Introduction:
The rapid surge of fake news in the digital age, driven by the widespread use of social media and algorithmically curated content, poses a challenge to social harmony and cohesion by spreading misinformation and reinforcing divisive public narratives (Neubronner., 2017). Little is currently known about the cognitive processes that shape our perception of misinformation. Our study bridges this gap by investigating how the human mind distinguishes between real and fake news when considering news source (AI vs Human generated) and content ambiguity (ambiguous vs obvious) through neurophysiological measures.
Methods:
We employed a mixed design incorporating three independent variables: news source, veracity and ambiguity. Data from 54 participants, each assigned to read 40 news excerpts, were included in our analysis. We investigated participants' electroencephalography (EEG) and eye movements to understand how these measures reflect cognitive processing when engaging with both fake and real news. For EEG measurements, we focused on the theta and alpha bands due to their involvement in general cognitive processes, while also examining the beta band for its role in processing verbal information. These neural oscillations were prominent in the frontal and parietal regions. We conducted a three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine how time, veracity, and the source of the news affected brain activity at specific electrodes (Fz, Pz, and CPz) across the selected frequency bands. A five-way ANOVA was also conducted to examine how time, veracity, source, hemisphere, and electrodes influenced brain activity, providing a more comprehensive analysis of how these factors interact across different stages of the reading process. We also segmented the excerpt reading period into three-time intervals, highlighting the difference in brain activity during the initial engagement (1-5 seconds), the intermediate phase (5-10 seconds) and the final stage (10-14 seconds) of reading. For eye movements, we focused on fixation duration, a widely used metric for measuring attention allocation during a task, which reflects the depth and complexity of information processing (Just & Carpenter, 1976, Follet et al., 2011), which is also correlated with higher-level cognitive mechanisms, also known as cognitive loads (Lavie & Dalton, 2014; Liu et al., 2022) .We analysed this using linear mixed-effects models (LMMs).
Results:
We observed a significant difference in the EEG measurements when subjects were processing human-written obvious news. When processing real news as opposed to fake news, theta power decreased at Fz between 5-10 seconds and alpha power decreased at the left frontal regions and the bilateral frontocentral regions between 1-5 seconds. A decrease in alpha power during the first window is indicative of increased cognitive effort, while a decrease in theta power during the second window is indicative of decreased cognitive effort. Subjects thus exerted more effort during their initial reading of the real news. Participants spent more time fixating on ambiguous news excerpts that were real, showing that they were more attentive when reading these passages as opposed to the fake excerpts. Taken together, these findings suggest that an increased cognitive load and greater level of attention is associated with processing real news.
Conclusions:
These findings emphasise the complex interplay between neural engagement, cognitive effort, and physiological responses in shaping our perceptions of news realness. This study thus provides insights into the dynamic neural processes underlying real and fake news perception. Our study serves as a critical first step in discerning how people process deceptive information and advances discussions on fake news and misinformation. By improving awareness on how we perceive news, these insights could promote critical engagement with information.
Higher Cognitive Functions:
Decision Making 1
Executive Function, Cognitive Control and Decision Making 2
Modeling and Analysis Methods:
EEG/MEG Modeling and Analysis
Novel Imaging Acquisition Methods:
EEG
Keywords:
Cognition
Computational Neuroscience
Electroencephaolography (EEG)
Other - Decision making
1|2Indicates the priority used for review
·Theta band results
·Alpha band results
Abstract Information
By submitting your proposal, you grant permission for the Organization for Human Brain Mapping (OHBM) to distribute your work in any format, including video, audio print and electronic text through OHBM OnDemand, social media channels, the OHBM website, or other electronic publications and media.
The Open Science Special Interest Group (OSSIG) is introducing a reproducibility challenge for OHBM 2025. This new initiative aims to enhance the reproducibility of scientific results and foster collaborations between labs. Teams will consist of a “source” party and a “reproducing” party, and will be evaluated on the success of their replication, the openness of the source work, and additional deliverables. Click here for more information. Propose your OHBM abstract(s) as source work for future OHBM meetings by selecting one of the following options:
Please indicate below if your study was a "resting state" or "task-activation” study.
Healthy subjects only or patients (note that patient studies may also involve healthy subjects):
Was this research conducted in the United States?
Were any human subjects research approved by the relevant Institutional Review Board or ethics panel? NOTE: Any human subjects studies without IRB approval will be automatically rejected.
Were any animal research approved by the relevant IACUC or other animal research panel? NOTE: Any animal studies without IACUC approval will be automatically rejected.
Please indicate which methods were used in your research:
Which processing packages did you use for your study?
Provide references using APA citation style.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8(4), 441-480. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90015-3
Follet, B., Le Meur, O., & Baccino, T. (2011). New Insights into Ambient and Focal Visual Fixations using an Automatic Classification Algorithm. I-Perception (London), 2(6), 592–610. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0414
Lavie, N., & Dalton, P. (2014). Load theory of attention and cognitive control. In A. C. Nobre & S. Kastner (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Attention (pp. 56–75). Oxford University Press.
Liu, J.-C., Li, K.-A., Yeh, S.-L., & Chien, S.-Y. (2022). Assessing Perceptual Load and Cognitive Load by Fixation-Related Information of Eye Movements. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 22(3), 1187-. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22031187
Mirhoseini, M., Early, S., El Shamy, N., & Hassanein, K. (2023). Actively open-minded thinking is key to combating fake news: A multimethod study. Information & Management, 60(3), 103761.
Moravec, P., Minas, R., & Dennis, A. R. (2018). Fake news on social media: People believe what they want to believe when it makes no sense at all. Kelley School of Business research paper, 18-87.