Table_2_Is badfiction processed differently by the human brain? An electrophysical study on reading experience.XLSX

Literary reception is a special case of language processing. The judgment of literature reveals deep social patterns with embodied cognition. In this study, we investigate how differences in literary quality resonate in the human brain. Modifying a series of stimuli previously used in studies of the emotional potential of Harry Potter, we alternate passages from the original novels with passages from imitative and intentionally poorly written fanfiction. EEG data shows how the three text types are processed differently by the brain. Comparing the brain activity of the readers for the various text types, we see a difference in the absolute power but not in the relative power of the frequency bands. Reading badfiction evokes the lowest activity. However, the functionality of this activity is the same for all texts since the relative power of the frequency bands does not differ. When comparing the participant groups, we observe the opposite situation. Here, different relative powers of the frequency bands reflect different judgments and reading habits of participants. For example, fans of Harry Potter, regular readers of fantasy texts, and generally frequent readers read the texts more attentively, which is reflected in a pronounced relative activity of the theta and alpha frequency bands. Non-frequent readers and readers who are not devoted to Harry Potter and fantasy in general have increased activity in the delta frequency band. This suggests their saliency detection is more prominent because they are less familiar with reading or the subject matter. To support our findings, we use the EEG data without averaging over stimuli and participants, capturing the participants' responses on the level of individual stimuli. A Kohonen self-organizing map trained on this more extensive data finds reliably detectable differences in the responses to passages from the original Harry Potter novels and fan- and badfiction. Our study allows for an interpretation of an adaptive brain response. Readers who enjoy Harry Potter or have experience with the fantasy genre show different reactions from those who do not. Thus, badfiction appears to be processed differently by the human brain, but not for all readers in the same way.

文学接受是语言处理的一个特殊范畴。对文学作品的评判能够揭示具身认知（embodied cognition）背后的深层社会模式。本研究旨在探究文学质量差异如何在人类大脑中引发响应。我们对此前用于《哈利·波特》（Harry Potter）情感潜能研究的一系列刺激材料进行改造，将原作章节与仿写作品及故意拙劣创作的同人小说（fanfiction）章节交替呈现。脑电图（Electroencephalogram, EEG）数据显示，大脑对三类文本的加工模式存在显著差异。对比不同文本类型下读者的脑活动特征，我们发现三类文本对应的脑活动频带绝对功率存在差异，但相对功率并无显著不同。阅读拙劣仿写作品时，脑活动水平最低。不过，由于频带相对功率未出现明显差异，三类文本对应的脑活动功能保持一致。当对比不同参与者群体时，我们观察到相反的结果：频带相对功率的差异能够反映参与者不同的评判倾向与阅读习惯。例如，《哈利·波特》粉丝、奇幻文本常读者以及整体阅读频率较高的群体，阅读时专注力更强，这一特征体现在θ频带（theta frequency band）与α频带（alpha frequency band）的显著相对活动上。而阅读频率较低、非《哈利·波特》粉丝且不常接触奇幻题材的参与者，其δ频带（delta frequency band）活动显著增强。这表明他们的显著性检测机制更为突出，原因在于他们对阅读行为或该题材本身较为陌生。为验证研究结论，我们采用未经过刺激与参与者平均处理的脑电图数据，在单个刺激层面精准捕捉参与者的反应。基于该更细分数据集训练的Kohonen自组织映射（Kohonen self-organizing map），能够可靠地检测出读者对《哈利·波特》原作章节、同人小说章节及拙劣仿写作品的反应差异。本研究可为大脑的适应性反应提供合理解释：喜爱《哈利·波特》或具备奇幻文本阅读经验的读者，其脑反应模式与不具备此类经验的读者存在显著差异。由此可见，人类大脑对拙劣仿写作品的加工方式存在差异，且并非所有读者的加工模式都完全一致。