Literature DB >> 28987910

Exploring the neural substrates of misinformation processing.

Andrew Gordon1, Jonathan C W Brooks2, Susanne Quadflieg3, Ullrich K H Ecker4, Stephan Lewandowsky5.   

Abstract

It is well known that information that is initially thought to be correct but then revealed to be false, often continues to influence human judgement and decision making despite people being aware of the retraction. Yet little research has examined the underlying neural substrates of this phenomenon, which is known as the 'continued influence effect of misinformation' (CIEM). It remains unclear how the human brain processes critical information that retracts prior claims. To address this question in further detail, 26 healthy adults underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while listening to brief narratives which either involved a retraction of prior information or not. Following each narrative, subjects' comprehension of the narrative, including their inclination to rely on retracted information, was probed. As expected, it was found that retracted information continued to affect participants' narrative-related reasoning. In addition, the fMRI data indicated that the continued influence of retracted information may be due to a breakdown of narrative-level integration and coherence-building mechanisms implemented by the precuneus and posterior cingulate gyrus.
Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Continued influence effect; Memory updating; Misinformation

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28987910     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.10.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  10 in total

1.  Continued influence of misinformation in times of COVID-19.

Authors:  Dian van Huijstee; Ivar Vermeulen; Peter Kerkhof; Ellen Droog
Journal:  Int J Psychol       Date:  2021-08-26

2.  Comparing the use of open and closed questions for Web-based measures of the continued-influence effect.

Authors:  Saoirse Connor Desai; Stian Reimers
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2019-06

3.  Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect.

Authors:  Ullrich K H Ecker; Luke M Antonio
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-01-15

4.  Timing matters when correcting fake news.

Authors:  Nadia M Brashier; Gordon Pennycook; Adam J Berinsky; David G Rand
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-02-02       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  You don't have to tell a story! A registered report testing the effectiveness of narrative versus non-narrative misinformation corrections.

Authors:  Ullrich K H Ecker; Lucy H Butler; Anne Hamby
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2020-12-09

6.  Vaccination against misinformation: The inoculation technique reduces the continued influence effect.

Authors:  Mikołaj Buczel; Paulina D Szyszka; Adam Siwiak; Malwina Szpitalak; Romuald Polczyk
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 3.752

7.  Does explaining the origins of misinformation improve the effectiveness of a given correction?

Authors:  Saoirse Connor Desai; Stian Reimers
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2022-09-20

8.  Examining the role of information integration in the continued influence effect using an event segmentation approach.

Authors:  Jasmyne A Sanderson; Simon Farrell; Ullrich K H Ecker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-18       Impact factor: 3.752

9.  Corrections of political misinformation: no evidence for an effect of partisan worldview in a US convenience sample.

Authors:  Ullrich K H Ecker; Brandon K N Sze; Matthew Andreotta
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 10.  Movies and narratives as naturalistic stimuli in neuroimaging.

Authors:  Iiro P Jääskeläinen; Mikko Sams; Enrico Glerean; Jyrki Ahveninen
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 6.556

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.