Cited by 267Schizophrenia research and treatmentHallucinations in medical conditionsNeural dynamics and brain function

Corollary discharge dysfunction in schizophrenia: Can it explain auditory hallucinations?

Ford, Judith M., Mathalon, Daniel H.·2005·International Journal of Psychophysiology

Abstract

Failure of corollary discharge, a mechanism for distinguishing self-generated from externally generated percepts, has been posited to underlie certain positive symptoms of schizophrenia, including auditory hallucinations. Although originally described in the visual system, corollary discharge may exist in the auditory system, whereby signals from motor speech commands prepare auditory cortex for self-generated speech. While associated with sensorimotor systems, it might also apply to inner speech or thought, regarded as our most complex motor act. In this paper, we describe the results of a series of studies in which we have shown that: (1) event-related brain potentials (ERPs) can be used to demonstrate the corollary discharge phenomenon during talking, (2) corollary discharge is abnormal in patients with schizophrenia, (3) EEG gamma band coherence between frontal and temporal lobes is greater during talking than listening and is disrupted by distorted feedback during talking in normals, and (4) patients with schizophrenia do not show this pattern for EEG gamma coherence. While these studies have identified ERPs and EEG gamma coherence indices of the efference copy/corollary discharge system and documented abnormalities in these systems in patients with schizophrenia, we have so far had limited success in establishing a relationship between these neurobiologic indicators of corollary discharge abnormality and reports of hallucinations in patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.01.014

Cites

35 of 35 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ford, J. M., & Mathalon, D. H.
Affiliations
Veterans Health Administration (US)
Corresponding author
Ford, Judith M.
Venue
International Journal of Psychophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-11
Volume
58
Issue
2-3
Pages
179-189
ISSN
0167-8760 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1964551378
Cited by
267
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Psychophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH 58262, MH40052)
  • National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hallucinations in medical conditions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
corollary discharge, schizophrenia, auditory hallucinations, efference copy, event-related potentials, positive symptoms, inner speech
MeSH terms
Auditory Cortex, Efferent Pathways, Evoked Potentials, Hallucinations, Humans, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Speech

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