Cited by 24Memory Processes and InfluencesPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceCognitive Functions and Memory

The neural signature of reality‐monitoring: A meta‐analysis of functional neuroimaging studies

Open access
Lavallé, Layla, Brunelin, Jérôme, Jardri, Renaud, Haesebaert, Frédéric, Mondino, Marine·2023·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

Distinguishing imagination and thoughts from information we perceived from the environment, a process called reality‐monitoring, is important in everyday situations. Although reality monitoring seems to overlap with the concept of self‐monitoring, which allows one to distinguish self‐generated actions or thoughts from those generated by others, the two concepts remain largely separate cognitive domains and their common brain substrates have received little attention. We investigated the brain regions involved in these two cognitive processes and explored the common brain regions they share. To do this, we conducted two separate coordinate‐based meta‐analyses of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies assessing the brain regions involved in reality‐ and self‐monitoring. Few brain regions survived threshold‐free cluster enhancement family‐wise multiple comparison correction ( p < .05), likely owing to the small number of studies identified. Using uncorrected statistical thresholds recommended by Signed Differential Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images, the meta‐analysis of reality‐monitoring studies ( k = 9 studies including 172 healthy subjects) revealed clusters in the lobule VI of the cerebellum, the right anterior medial prefrontal cortex and anterior thalamic projections. The meta‐analysis of self‐monitoring studies ( k = 12 studies including 192 healthy subjects) highlighted the involvement of a set of brain regions including the lobule VI of the left cerebellum and fronto‐temporo‐parietal regions. We showed with a conjunction analysis that the lobule VI of the cerebellum was consistently engaged in both reality‐ and self‐monitoring. The current findings offer new insights into the common brain regions underlying reality‐monitoring and self‐monitoring, and suggest that the neural signature of the self that may occur during self‐production should persist in memories.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hbm.26387

Cites

117 of 117 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • To strengthen methodological rigour, the reporting quality of included neuroimaging studies was evaluated using a 17-item checklist.

    “To strengthen methodological rigour, we evaluated the reporting quality of included neuroimaging studies using a 17-item checklist98.”

    From Meta-analysis of computerised working memory training: behavioural gains, training parameters, transfer mechanisms, and neural correlates (2026) · cites this paper as [98]

    The Methods section (‘Quality assessment’) says the source paper used a checklist to assess study quality, but explicitly states that its final checklist had 18 items, not 17. The cited paper therefore does not support the attributed checklist length. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 118 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lavallé, L., Brunelin, J., Jardri, R., Haesebaert, F., & Mondino, M.
Affiliations
  • Lyon 1 Université (FR)
  • Inserm (FR)
Corresponding author
Mondino, Marine
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-05-29
Volume
44
Issue
11
Pages
4372-4389
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
OpenAlex
W4378639924
Cited by
24
References
118
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 4
FWCI
0.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
reality monitoring, self-monitoring, cerebellar lobule VI, anterior medial prefrontal cortex
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Cerebellum, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Parietal Lobe, Prefrontal Cortex, Neuroimaging, Functional Neuroimaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review