Paper detail

Human Brains Can't Detect Fake News: A Neuro-Cognitive Study of Textual Disinformation Susceptibility

The spread of digital disinformation (aka "fake news") is arguably one of the most significant threats on the Internet which can cause individual and societal harm of large scales. The susceptibility to fake news attacks hinges on whether Internet users perceive a fake news article/snippet to be legitimate after reading it. In this paper, we attempt to garner an in-depth understanding of users' susceptibility to text-centric fake news attacks via a neuro-cognitive methodology. We investigate the neural underpinnings relevant to fake/real news through EEG. We run an experiment with human users to pursue a thorough investigation of users' perception and cognitive processing of fake/real news. We analyze the neural activity associated with the fake/real news detection task for different categories of news articles. Our results show there may be no statistically significant or automatically inferable differences in the way the human brain processes the fake vs. real news, while marked differences are observed when people are subject to (real/fake) news vs. resting state and even between some different categories of fake news. This neuro-cognitive finding may help to justify users' susceptibility to fake news attacks, as also confirmed from the behavioral analysis. In other words, the fake news articles may seem almost indistinguishable from the real news articles in both behavioral and neural domains. Our work serves to dissect the fundamental neural phenomena underlying fake news attacks and explains users' susceptibility to these attacks through the limits of human biology. We believe this could be a notable insight for the researchers and practitioners suggesting the human detection of fake news might be ineffective, which may also have an adverse impact on the design of automated detection approaches that crucially rely upon human labeling of text articles for building training models

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors5 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.