CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 113Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryFree Will and Agency

Anticipating the future: Automatic prediction failures in schizophrenia

Open access
Ford, Judith M., Mathalon, Daniel H.·2012·International Journal of Psychophysiology
DOI 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.004PMC PMC3288329
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

People with schizophrenia often misperceive sensations and misinterpret experiences, perhaps contributing to psychotic symptoms. These misperceptions and misinterpretations might result from an inability to make valid predictions about expected sensations and experiences. Healthy normal people take advantage of neural mechanisms that allow them to make predictions unconsciously, facilitating processing of expected sensations and distinguishing the expected from the unexpected. In this paper, we focus on two types of automatic, unconscious mechanisms that allow us to predict our perceptions. The first involves predictions made via innate mechanisms basic to all species in the animal kingdom—the efference copy and corollary discharge mechanisms. They accompany our voluntary movements and allow us to suppress sensations resulting from our actions. We study this during talking, and show that auditory cortical response to the speech sounds during talking is reduced compared to when they are played back. This suppression is reduced in schizophrenia, suggesting a failure to predict the sensations resulting from talking. The second mechanism involves implicitly learning what to expect from the current context of events. We study this by observing the brain's response to an unexpected repetition of an event, when a change would have been predicted. That patients have a reduced response suggests they failed to predict that it was time for a change. Both types of predictions should happen automatically and effortlessly, allowing for economic processing of expected events and orientation to unexpected ones. These prediction failures characterize the diagnosis of schizophrenia rather than reflecting specific symptoms.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Ford reviews ERP/EEG evidence that schizophrenia involves failures of automatic prediction via efference copy/corollary discharge and implicit contextual learning. Patients show reduced suppression of self-generated sensations and reduced neural responses to contextually unexpected events, though these deficits do not map cleanly onto specific symptoms.

Key findings

  • In the Talk/Listen paradigm, healthy controls show reduced auditory cortical response (N1/M100) during talking versus listening; patients with schizophrenia show diminished suppression, suggesting a failure to predict sensations resulting from talking.
  • Pre-speech beta (~16 Hz) phase synchrony at about 100 ms before speech-sound onset is greater during talking than listening in controls; patients have significantly less phase synchrony, and less synchrony is moderately but significantly related to hallucination tendency.
  • In a 3-stimulus auditory oddball (targets p=.15, novels p=.15, standards p=.70; sequential standard probability from p=1.0 for the 1st standard to .16 for the 4th in a row), controls develop a CNV/SPN after the 3rd standard and then P3a and N2b/MMN to the 4th standard; patients show smaller CNV/SPN, P3a, and N2b/MMN, consistent with failing to predict “time for a change.”
  • In a self-paced button-press task, patients show deficient pre-press neural synchrony interpreted as deficient efference copy; deficient pre-press synchrony is associated with greater avolition and apathy in patients, and the normal association between pre-press synchrony and post-press ERP suppression is absent in patients.

Methods

  • Design: narrative review/synthesis of ERP and EEG studies in schizophrenia and controls, including Talk/Listen, self-delivery/expectancy manipulations, auditory oddball, and self-paced button press.
  • Data or sample: not a single new dataset; the paper cites prior studies from the author and others. Specific sample sizes and demographic/clinical details are not stated in this review.
  • Main analysis: ERP components (N1, M100, P3a, N2b/MMN, CNV/SPN), time-frequency phase synchrony, EEG coherence, and multiple regression controlling for expectancy and agency; oddball probabilities are reported as above.

Limitations

  • Stated: the paper reports difficulty finding relationships with symptoms because symptom quantification is imperfect and medication may decouple symptoms from neurobiology; no relationships were found between the oddball ERP abnormalities and clinical symptoms, and N1 suppression during talking was not significantly related to hallucination severity.
  • Stated: it is difficult to distinguish whether patients fail to orient to unexpected events or fail to predict from context that an event is unexpected; normal P300s to isolated targets and startling noises argue against a simple orienting failure, but the ambiguity remains.
  • Evident: as a narrative review, it relies on previously published studies and does not report sample sizes, effect sizes, or a systematic search strategy; some proposed tests, such as comparing talking versus self-delivery suppression early versus later in a session, are suggested but not reported.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.004

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 51 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    In schizophrenia, suppression of auditory cortical response during talking is reduced compared to healthy controls.

    “This suppression is reduced in schizophrenia, suggesting a failure to predict the sensations resulting from talking.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Auditory cortical response to speech sounds during talking is reduced compared to when they are played back.

    “We study this during talking, and show that auditory cortical response to the speech sounds during talking is reduced compared to when they are played back.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingcitation

    The N1 suppression effect due to talking was only slightly reduced when expectancy and agency were controlled for with multiple regression analysis.

    “The talking effects were only slightly reduced when expectancy and agency were controlled for.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ford, Gray, Faustman, Roach, & Mathalon, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingown data

    Talking produces more suppression of cortical responses to speech sounds than simple expectancy effects based on visual warning or simple agency effects based on self-delivery of those sounds.

    “Further, we found that talking produces more suppression of cortical responses to speech sounds than simple expectancy effects based on visual warning, or simple agency effects based on self-delivery of those sounds.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ford, Gray, Faustman, Roach, & Mathalon, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingcitation

    The effect of agency in our experiment was smaller than the effects reported in the literature when subjects press a button to hear a tone.

    “It is important to add that the effect of agency in our experiment was smaller than the effects reported in the literature when subjects press a button to hear a tone (Baess, Horvath, Jacobsen, & Schroger, 2011; Martikainen, Kaneko, & Hari, 2005; McCarthy & Donchin, 1976; Schafer & Marcus, 1973).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Baess, Horvath, Jacobsen, & Schroger, 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Martikainen, Kaneko, & Hari, 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites McCarthy & Donchin, 1976

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims. 13
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 9

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In an overt sentence reading task, controls had greater EEG coherence between left frontal and left temporal areas during talking than listening to a playback, and this effect was reduced in patients with schizophrenia, especially those who tended to hallucinate.

    “We found that controls had greater coherence during talking than listening to a playback of it; this effect was reduced in patients with schizophrenia, especially those who tended hallucinate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ford, Mathalon, Whitfield, Faustman, & Roth, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    There was no significant relationship between hallucination severity and N1 suppression to the speech sound during talking; patients who tend to hallucinate did not have less suppression of N1.

    “We were not able to find a significant relationship with hallucination severity, that is, the patients who tend to hallucinate did not have less suppression of N1 to the speech sound during talking (Ford, Gray, Faustman, Roach, & Mathalon, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ford, Gray, Faustman, Roach, & Mathalon, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There were some significant relationships between neurophysiological measures and symptoms, but there were consistent group differences in ERP indices of prediction.

    “While there were some significant relationships between neurophysiological measures and symptoms, there were consistent group differences in our ERP indices of prediction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Implicit contextual learning allows us to make predictions unconsciously; we predict future events based on what we have learned about the past and present context.

    “Another automatic process that allows us to make predictions unconsciously is implicit contextual learning; we predict future events based on what we have learned about the past and present context.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The efference copy and corollary discharge mechanisms accompany voluntary movements and allow us to suppress sensations resulting from our actions.

    “The first involves predictions made via innate mechanisms basic to all species in the animal kingdom—the efference copy and corollary discharge mechanisms. They accompany our voluntary movements and allow us to suppress sensations resulting from our actions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Von Holst & Mittelstaedt, 1950 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sperry, 1950 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Crapse & Sommer, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The efference copy and corollary discharge systems allow all species in the animal kingdom to predict and thereby suppress sensations that result from voluntary motor actions and tag these sensations as coming from self.

    “They allow all species in the animal kingdom to predict, and thereby suppress sensations that result from voluntary motor actions and tag these sensations as coming from “self” (see review by Crapse & Sommer, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Crapse & Sommer, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Dysfunctions of the efference copy and corollary discharge mechanisms in schizophrenia are not limited to the speech-auditory system but may affect other motor-sensory systems as well and map onto system-specific symptoms.

    “This suggests that dysfunctions of the efference copy and corollary discharge mechanisms in schizophrenia are not limited to the speech-auditory system, but may affect other motor-sensory systems as well, and map onto system-specific symptoms.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Dysfunction of the efference copy/corollary discharge mechanism may underlie the positive symptoms of schizophrenia, in particular auditory verbal hallucinations.

    “Feinberg suggested that dysfunction of the efference copy/corollary discharge mechanism may underlie the positive symptoms of schizophrenia, in particular auditory verbal hallucinations (Feinberg, 1978).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Feinberg, 1978 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Both types of predictions should happen automatically and effortlessly, allowing for economic processing of expected events and orientation to unexpected ones.

    “Both types of predictions should happen automatically and effortlessly, allowing for economic processing of expected events and orientation to unexpected ones.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Predictions can be made strategically, via conscious, executive mechanisms such as selective attention, or they can be made automatically, via unconscious and innate mechanisms.

    “Predictions can be made strategically, via conscious, executive mechanisms such as selective attention, or they can be made automatically, via unconscious and innate mechanisms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    An efference copy of the motor command is used to anticipate and cancel the sensory effects of movement.

    “Wolpert and colleagues proposed that an efference copy of the motor command is used to anticipate and cancel the sensory effects of movement (Miall, Weir, Wolpert, & Stein, 1993; Wolpert, Ghahramani, & Jordan, 1995; Wolpert, Miall, & Kawato, 1998).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Miall, Weir, Wolpert, & Stein, 1993 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Wolpert, Ghahramani, & Jordan, 1995 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Wolpert, Miall, & Kawato, 1998 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Examination of otherwise identical stimuli that derive their deviance solely from local sequential probabilities may provide a purer means for examining prediction, and disabilities in processing physical features often seen in schizophrenia will not affect the assessment of their abilities to make predictions.

    “Thus, examination of otherwise identical stimuli, that derive their deviance solely from local sequential probabilities, may provide a purer means for examining prediction. Accordingly, disabilities in processing physical features often seen in schizophrenia (e.g., (Dias, Butler, Hoptman, & Javitt, 2011; Rosburg, Boutros, & Ford, 2008) will not affect the assessment of their abilities to make”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Dias, Butler, Hoptman, & Javitt, 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rosburg, Boutros, & Ford, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Healthy controls made a prediction that the 4th standard would be a change, and that prediction was violated.

    “This positivity suggests that controls made a prediction and that the prediction was violated.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The amplitude of the P3a directly reflects the violation of a prediction.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Patients with schizophrenia have deficits in probabilistic reasoning that affect their beliefs.

    “In a review and synthesis of the literature “Perceiving is believing: a Bayesian approach to explaining the positive symptoms of schizophrenia”, Fletcher and Frith suggest that patients have deficits in probabilistic reasoning that affect their beliefs (Fletcher & Frith, 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fletcher & Frith, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    These same prediction failures may be seen in other diagnoses involving psychosis, like psychotic depression, mania, and some forms of dementia.

    “As such, these same prediction failures may be seen in other diagnoses involving psychosis, like psychotic depression, mania, and some forms of dementia.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A normally functioning mechanism that updates context with new information is critical for accurate perception and inference.

    “They suggested that a normally functioning mechanism that updates context with new information is critical for accurate perception and inference.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fletcher & Frith, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Patients with schizophrenia failed to learn the context implicitly and predict that it was time for a change.

    “Because patients fail to generate a large brain response to the repeated stimulus, we argued that they failed to learn the context implicitly and predict that it was time for a change.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These prediction failures do not map neatly onto the expected symptoms, but they do more generally reflect a propensity for psychosis, or simply the diagnosis of schizophrenia itself.

    “Although these prediction failures do not map neatly onto the expected symptoms, they do more generally reflect a propensity for psychosis, or simply the diagnosis of schizophrenia itself.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
18 of 18

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    People with schizophrenia often misperceive sensations and misinterpret experiences, and these contribute to psychotic symptoms.

    “People with schizophrenia often misperceive sensations and misinterpret experiences, perhaps contributing to psychotic symptoms.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Predictions can be made strategically, via conscious, executive mechanisms such as selective attention, or automatically, via unconscious and innate mechanisms.

    “Predictions can be made strategically, via conscious, executive mechanisms such as selective attention, or they can be made automatically, via unconscious and innate mechanisms.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The amplitude of the CNV/SPN directly reflects the strength of anticipation of an upcoming change.

    “A significantly smaller CNV/SPN developed in the patients, suggesting they were not anticipating a change as strongly as the controls.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The amplitude of the P3a directly reflects the violation of a prediction.

    “This positivity suggests that controls made a prediction and that the prediction was violated.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The amplitude of the N2b/MMN directly reflects preconscious registration of a prediction error.

    “This negativity suggests a preconscious registration of a prediction error in the healthy controls.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Reaction times reflect expectations.

    “It is important to add that reaction times also reflect expectations”
6 of 6

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?

  • Hallucinations in schizophrenia patients correlated with a perceptual bias reflecting increased weighting of prior beliefs; this bias could be pharmacologically induced by amphetamine and strongly correlated with striatal dopamine release.

    “Hallucinations in schizophrenia patients correlated with a perceptual bias that reflected increased weighting of prior beliefs. This bias could be pharmacologically induced by amphetamine and strongly correlated with striatal dopamine release.”

    From The Predictive Coding Account of Psychosis (2018) · cites this paper as [85]

    Section 2.4.2 reports a moderate, significant relationship between reduced pre-speech neural synchrony and a tendency to hallucinate in patients with schizophrenia. It does not identify that measure as a perceptual bias toward prior beliefs. The Discussion proposes a possible link between prediction errors and midbrain dopamine, but does not report amphetamine induction or a correlation with measured striatal dopamine release (pages unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ford, J. M., & Mathalon, D. H.
Affiliations
San Francisco VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Ford, Judith M.
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Psychophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-02
Volume
83
Issue
2
Pages
232-239
ISSN
0167-8760 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.004
PMC
PMC3288329
OpenAlex
W2092335727
Semantic Scholar
64f86542c0529f150fe0a4e23a253324583f0549
Cited by
113
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • International Journal of Psychophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • NIMH (R01, K02)
  • VA (Merit Review
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
schizophrenia, prediction failure, efference copy, corollary discharge, auditory cortex, event-related potentials, expectations, sensory prediction, misunderstanding
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Animals, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Forecasting, Humans, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Anticipation, Psychological

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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