Cited by 146Narrative Theory and AnalysisMedia Influence and HealthNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Fact vs fiction—how paratextual information shapes our reading processes

Open access
Altmann, Ulrike, Bohrn, Isabel C., Lubrich, Oliver, Menninghaus, Winfried, Jacobs, Arthur M.·2014·Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

Abstract

Our life is full of stories: some of them depict real-life events and were reported, e.g. in the daily news or in autobiographies, whereas other stories, as often presented to us in movies and novels, are fictional. However, we have only little insights in the neurocognitive processes underlying the reading of factual as compared to fictional contents. We investigated the neurocognitive effects of reading short narratives, labeled to be either factual or fictional. Reading in a factual mode engaged an activation pattern suggesting an action-based reconstruction of the events depicted in a story. This process seems to be past-oriented and leads to shorter reaction times at the behavioral level. In contrast, the brain activation patterns corresponding to reading fiction seem to reflect a constructive simulation of what might have happened. This is in line with studies on imagination of possible past or future events.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/scan/nss098

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Fictional narratives may enhance individuals' capacity for perspective-taking, a phenomenon closely linked to the brain's mechanisms for constructing and comprehending narrative contexts.

    “Moreover, fictional narratives may enhance individuals’ capacity for perspective-taking, a phenomenon closely linked to the brain’s mechanisms for constructing and comprehending narrative contexts (38).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Altmann, U., Bohrn, I. C., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A. M.
Affiliations
University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Altmann, Ulrike
Venue
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
Published
2012-09-29
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
22-29
ISSN
  • 1749-5016 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-5024
OpenAlex
W2163608125
Cited by
146
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4
FWCI
124.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Narrative Theory and Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
narrative reading, narrative comprehension, reaction time, brain activation patterns
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Brain, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Imagination, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Oxygen, Reading, Semantics, Narration

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