ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Hum. Neurosci.
Sec. Cognitive Neuroscience
This article is part of the Research TopicAdvancing brain-computer interfaces through fNIRS and EEG integrationView all 3 articles
Authority Reliance vs. Deliberative Assessment in processing online rumors: Evidence from fNIRS
Provisionally accepted
- 1Zhejiang Financial College, Hangzhou, China
- 2Anhui Xinhua University, Hefei, China
- 3Anhui Polytechnic University, Wuhu, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Purpose: This study aimed to clarify how the authority of a fact-checker shapes neurocognitive processing of online rumors. Specifically, this study examined differences in neural responses to corrections provided by authoritative and non-authoritative sources. Approach: Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) was used to measure neural activity in the prefrontal cortex while participants evaluated information that had been fact-checked by either authoritative or non-authoritative third-party sources. Behavioral metrics, such as judgment accuracy, were collected alongside neural data to correlate brain activity with decision-making outcomes. Results/Findings: Authoritative fact-checkers produced stronger activation in the left prefrontal cortex (LPFC) and improved overall judgment accuracy, suggesting a cognitive "fast track" that facilitates information acceptance. This enhanced accuracy was accompanied by increased LPFC engagement, indicating deeper analytical engagement. For true information, non-authoritative fact-checking led to reduced right prefrontal cortex (RPFC) activation and only marginal behavioral improvements, suggesting participants relied on heuristic shortcuts or "cognitive offloading" rather than rigorous deliberation. During false information processing, RPFC activation decreased across specific channels (e.g., Ch19), with non-authoritative sources yielding higher false-information judgment accuracy (59%) compared to authoritative sources (55%). This paradoxical effect suggests that lower source credibility can, in certain contexts, elicit more vigilant evaluation of false claims. The neural and behavioral responses to authoritative versus non-authoritative sources varied based on information veracity, consistent with cognitive dissonance theory, which posits adaptive shifts in processing strategies in response to credibility cues. Value: By linking source credibility to distinct neural signatures and accuracy outcomes, this work provides a neurocognitive account of how fact-checker authority influences belief updating. The findings highlight that credibility cues can promote heuristic acceptance or more careful analysis, depending on the situation. Furthermore, this evidence can inform more effective rumor-intervention strategies that are sensitive to both source attributes and information type.
Keywords: fNIRS, Online rumors, Source credibility, tagging warnings, third-party fact-checkers
Received: 20 Nov 2025; Accepted: 06 Feb 2026.
Copyright: © 2026 Cheng, Yang and Ding. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Yi Ding
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.