Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2207.08376

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

Cagri Arisoy·Anuradha Mandal·Nitesh Saxena
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

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

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.CRcs.CYcs.HCcs.SI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Cagri Arisoy, Anuradha Mandal, Nitesh Saxena. 2022-07-18. Human Brains Can't Detect Fake News: A Neuro-Cognitive Study of Textual Disinformation Susceptibility. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.08376

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MultiViewDx: Evidence-Linked Multi-View Clinical Diagnosis

Medical multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can perform well on existing medical visual question answering (MedVQA) benchmarks, but their training data often does not match clinical diagnosis. Most supervision is organized around isolated images or short QA pairs, leaving two structures weakly specified: how evidence leads to a decision, and how views, series, modalities, and patient context from the same case are linked. We introduce MultiViewDx, a partly physician-validated multimodal instruction dataset for evidence-linked multi-view medical imaging diagnosis. MultiViewDx uses the clinical case as the supervision unit. It links imaging studies with patient context, normalizes heterogeneous reports into an evidence-linked workflow (evidence -> findings -> differential discussion -> diagnosis), and uses a unified image-text retriever to constrain instruction synthesis to source-supported evidence. It covers X-ray, CT, MRI, ultrasound, histopathology, and other clinical visual sources. We fine-tune MultiViewDx-8B-AN and evaluate it on both existing MedVQA benchmarks and real-world case-based diagnostic reasoning. Across four MedVQA benchmarks, it achieves the best average accuracy among compared systems (79.0%), outperforming HuatuoGPT-Vision-34B (66.7%) and Claude3-Opus (55.7%). Beyond MedVQA, on JAMA Clinical Challenge cases, it receives the strongest overall rating under a physician-designed rubric for key clinical points, diagnostic inference, and evidence grounding. Controlled ablations and clinician evaluation show that both case-level multi-view organization and evidence-linked reasoning targets contribute to the gain.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Foundations of Large Language Models

This is a book about large language models. As indicated by the title, it primarily focuses on foundational concepts rather than comprehensive coverage of all cutting-edge technologies. The book is structured into six main chapters, each exploring a key area: pre-training, generative models, prompting, alignment, inference, and reasoning. It is intended for college students, professionals, and practitioners in natural language processing and related fields, and can serve as a reference for anyone interested in large language models.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Interactive In-Meeting Speaker Correction with Human Feedback

Most automatic speech processing systems operate in ``open loop'' mode without user feedback about who said what, yet human-in-the-loop workflows can potentially enable higher accuracy. We propose an LLM-assisted in-meeting speaker correction system that lets users fix speaker attribution errors through brief corrective feedback. After performing streaming ASR and diarization, the system presents concise LLM-generated summaries to help users identify important speaker errors, and it incorporates user feedback by updating the speaker-attributed transcript and adding online speaker enrollments. To make this workflow effective despite errors in speech processing, LLM analysis, and user feedback, we developed several mechanisms to identify the intended correction more precisely. Further, we built an LLM-driven user feedback simulation to evaluate the workflow reprodubilty and at scale. Applied to the AMI headset test set, our system substantially reduces the DER from a streaming baseline (Google ASR + ECAPA) by 31.99% and speaker substitution error by 52.68%. Results of a pilot usability study suggest several avenues to improve the user experience.

cs.CL↗