Background An infodemic is an overflow of information of varying quality that surges across digital and physical environments during an acute public health event. It leads to confusion, risk-taking, and behaviors that can harm health and lead to erosion of trust in health authorities and public health responses. Owing to the global scale and high stakes of the health emergency, responding to the infodemic related to the pandemic is particularly urgent. Building on diverse research disciplines and expanding the discipline of infodemiology, more evidence-based interventions are needed to design infodemic management interventions and tools and implement them by health emergency responders. Objective The World Health Organization organized the first global infodemiology conference, entirely online, during June and July 2020, with a follow-up process from August to October 2020, to review current multidisciplinary evidence, interventions, and practices that can be applied to the COVID-19 infodemic response. This resulted in the creation of a public health research agenda for managing infodemics. Methods As part of the conference, a structured expert judgment synthesis method was used to formulate a public health research agenda. A total of 110 participants represented diverse scientific disciplines from over 35 countries and global public health implementing partners. The conference used a laddered discussion sprint methodology by rotating participant teams, and a managed follow-up process was used to assemble a research agenda based on the discussion and structured expert feedback. This resulted in a five-workstream frame of the research agenda for infodemic management and 166 suggested research questions. The participants then ranked the questions for feasibility and expected public health impact. The expert consensus was summarized in a public health research agenda that included a list of priority research questions. Results The public health research agenda for infodemic management has five workstreams: (1) measuring and continuously monitoring the impact of infodemics during health emergencies; (2) detecting signals and understanding the spread and risk of infodemics; (3) responding and deploying interventions that mitigate and protect against infodemics and their harmful effects; (4) evaluating infodemic interventions and strengthening the resilience of individuals and communities to infodemics; and (5) promoting the development, adaptation, and application of interventions and toolkits for infodemic management. Each workstream identifies research questions and highlights 49 high priority research questions. Conclusions Public health authorities need to develop, validate, implement, and adapt tools and interventions for managing infodemics in acute public health events in ways that are appropriate for their countries and contexts. Infodemiology provides a scientific foundation to make this possible. This research agenda proposes a structured framework for targeted investment for the scientific community, policy makers, implementing organizations, and other stakeholders to consider.

Written by Michelle A. Amazeen, Fabrício Benevenuto, Nadia M. Brashier, Robert M. Bond, Lia C. Bozarth, Ceren Budak, Ullrich K. H. Ecker, Lisa K. Fazio, Emilio Ferrara, Andrew J. Flanagin, Ales-sandro Flammini, Deen Freelon, Nir Grinberg, Ralph Hertwig, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Kenneth Jo-seph, Jason J. Jones, R. Kelly Garrett, Daniel Kreiss, Shannon McGregor, Jasmine McNealy, Drew Margolin, Alice Marwick, FiIippo Menczer, Miriam J. Metzger, Seungahn Nah, Stephan Lewan-dowsky, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Pablo Ortellado, Irene Pasquetto, Gordon Pennycook, Ethan Porter, David G. Rand, Ronald Robertson, Briony Swire-Thompson, Francesca Tripodi, Soroush Vosoughi, Chris Vargo, Onur Varol, Brian E. Weeks, John Wihbey, Thomas J. Wood, & Kai-Cheng Yang

No abstract

Interdisciplinary approaches to identifying, understanding, and remediating people's reliance on inaccurate information that they should know to be wrong. Our lives revolve around the acquisition of information. Sometimes the information we acquire—from other people, from books, or from the media—is wrong. Studies show that people rely on such misinformation, sometimes even when they are aware that the information is inaccurate or invalid. And yet investigations of learning and knowledge acquisition largely ignore encounters with this sort of problematic material. This volume fills the gap, offering theoretical and empirical perspectives on the processing of misinformation and its consequences. The contributors, from cognitive science and education science, provide analyses that represent a variety of methodologies, theoretical orientations, and fields of expertise. The chapters describe the behavioral consequences of relying on misinformation and outline possible remediations; discuss the cognitive activities that underlie encounters with inaccuracies, investigating why reliance occurs so readily; present theoretical and philosophical considerations of the nature of inaccuracies; and offer formal, empirically driven frameworks that detail when and how inaccuracies will lead to comprehension difficulties. Contributors Peter Afflerbach, Patricia A. Alexander, Jessica J. Andrews, Peter Baggetta, Jason L. G. Braasch, Ivar Bråten, M. Anne Britt, Rainer Bromme, Luke A. Buckland, Clark A. Chinn, Byeong-Young Cho, Sidney K. D'Mello, Andrea A. diSessa, Ullrich K. H. Ecker, Arthur C. Graesser, Douglas J. Hacker, Brenda Hannon, Xiangen Hu, Maj-Britt Isberner, Koto Ishiwa, Matthew E. Jacovina, Panayiota Kendeou, Jong-Yun Kim, Stephan Lewandowsky, Elizabeth J. Marsh, Ruth Mayo, Keith K. Millis, Edward J. O'Brien, Herre van Oostendorp, José Otero, David N. Rapp, Tobias Richter, Ronald W. Rinehart, Yaacov Schul, Colleen M. Seifert, Marc Stadtler, Brent Steffens, Helge I. Strømsø, Briony Swire, Sharda Umanath

No abstract

This study investigated the effectiveness of head cooling on cognitive performance after 30 min and 60 min of running in the heat. Ten moderately-trained, non-heat-acclimated, male endurance athletes (mean age: 22 ± 6.6 y; height: 1.78 ± 0.10 m; body-mass: 75.7 ± 15.6 kg; VO2peak: 51.6 ± 4.31 mL-1>kg-1>min) volunteered for this study. Participants performed two experimental trials: head cooling versus no-cooling (within-subjects factor with trial order randomized). For each trial, participants wore a head-cooling cap for 15 min with the cap either cooled to 0°C (HC) or not cooled (22°C; CON). Participants then completed 2 × 30 min running efforts on a treadmill at 70% VO2peak in hot conditions (35°C, 70% relative humidity), with a 10 min rest between efforts. Working memory was assessed using an operation span (OSPAN) task immediately prior to the 15 min cooling/no-cooling period (22°C, 35% RH) and again after 30 min and 60 min of running in the heat. Numerous physiological variables, including gastrointestinal core temperature (Tc) were assessed over the protocol. Scores for OSPAN were similar between trials, with no interaction effect or main effects for time and trial found (p = 0.58, p = 0.67, p = 0.54, respectively). Forehead temperature following precooling was lower in HC (32.4 ± 1.6°C) compared with CON (34.5 ± 1.1°C) (p = 0.01), however, no differences were seen in Tc, skin temperature, heart rate and ratings of perceived exertion between HC and CON trials at any time point assessed (p > 0.05). In conclusion, despite HC reducing forehead temperature prior to exercise, it did not significantly improve cognitive performance during (half-time break) or after subsequent exercise in hot environmental conditions, compared to a no cooling control.

Misinformation can continue to influence reasoning after correction; this is known as the continued influence effect (CIE). Theoretical accounts of the CIE suggest failure of two cognitive processes to be causal, namely memory updating and suppression of misinformation reliance. Both processes can also be conceptualised as subcomponents of contemporary executive function (EF) models; specifically, working-memory updating and prepotent-response inhibition. EF may thus predict susceptibility to the CIE. The current study investigated whether individual differences in EF could predict individual differences in CIE susceptibility. Participants completed several measures of EF subcomponents, including those of updating and inhibition, as well as set shifting, and a standard CIE task. The relationship between EF and CIE was then assessed using a correlation analysis of the EF and CIE measures, as well as structural equation modelling of the EF-subcomponent latent variable and CIE latent variable. Results showed that EF can predict susceptibility to the CIE, especially the factor of working-memory updating. These results further our understanding of the CIE’s cognitive antecedents and provide potential directions for real-world CIE intervention.

No abstract