Cited by 139Hallucinations in medical conditionsVisual perception and processing mechanismsPhilosophy and Theoretical Science

Hallucinations as Top-Down Effects on Perception

Open access
Powers, Albert R., Kelley, Megan, Corlett, Philip R.·2016·Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging

Abstract

The problem of whether and how information is integrated across hierarchical brain networks embodies a fundamental tension in contemporary cognitive neuroscience, and by extension, cognitive neuropsychiatry. Indeed, the penetrability of perceptual processes in a 'top-down' manner by higher-level cognition-a natural extension of hierarchical models of perception-may contradict a strictly modular view of mental organization. Furthermore, some in the cognitive science community have challenged cognitive penetration as an unlikely, if not impossible, process. We review the evidence for and against top-down influences in perception, informed by a predictive coding model of perception and drawing heavily upon the literature of computational neuroimaging. We extend these findings to propose a way in which these processes may be altered in mental illness. We propose that hallucinations - perceptions without stimulus - can be understood as top-down effects on perception, mediated by inappropriate perceptual priors.

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 · 10.1016/j.bpsc.2016.04.003

Cites

121 of 121 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?

  • Current models of autism are strikingly similar to the predictive coding account of psychosis.

    “For example, current models of autism are strikingly similar to the predictive coding account of psychosis (118–120)”

    From The Predictive Coding Account of Psychosis (2018) · cites this paper as [120]

    The Introduction section on brain lesions, modularity, connectivity and hallucinations describes a predictive-coding approach to psychosis, but does not compare it with models of autism. Searches for autism, autistic-spectrum models, and that comparison found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed similarity; page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    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 122 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [3]Fodor JA 1983 The modularity of mind: an essay on faculty psychology Cambridge, Mass MIT Press
  2. [62]Sutton R 1992 Proceedings of the 7th Yale Workshop on Adaptive and Learning Systems New Haven, Connecticut Yale University Press 161 166
  3. [86]Fodor J 1983 The Modularity of Mind: An essay on faculty psychology Harvard MIT Press
  4. [102]Teufel C Subramaniam N Dobler V Perez J Finnemann J Mehta PR 2015 Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 13401 13406 26460044 PMC4629373

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Powers, A. R., Kelley, M., & Corlett, P. R.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Corlett, Philip R.
Venue
Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-09
Volume
1
Issue
5
Pages
393-400
ISSN
2451-9022 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2344384217
Cited by
138
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2
FWCI
8.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000142)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH067073, T32MH019961)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hallucinations in medical conditions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Keywords
hallucinations, top-down processing, cognitive penetration, predictive coding, perceptual priors, perceptual integration, mental illness, computational 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