The noise in our brain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of neuroimaging and signal-detection studies on source monitoring in psychosis
Open accessAbstract
Noisy thoughts or perceptions are characteristics of psychosis (PSY) and, they are deeply related to source monitoring (SM) — the ability to discriminate the origin of internal/external experiences. This MOOSE, PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis compared SM performances in PSY compared to healthy controls (HC) focusing on signal-to-noise discrimination in order to: i) test whether neuroimaging procedures (fMRI/EEG) might be a group-specific source of noise for SM; ii) compare error- and accuracy-based indexes; iii) to meta-analyze signal-detection measures (i.e., discrimination index and response bias); iv) to determine the best index capturing SM deficits in psychosis. We conducted a 3-level meta-analysis for each aim to estimate pooled effect-sizes (Cohen's d). SM type, source discrimination and stimulus modality were used as meta-regressors. Heterogeneity (I2), publication bias (Egger's test) and multiple comparisons (Bonferroni correction) were considered. Sixteen neuroimaging, 44 error/accuracy-based behavioral and 7 signal-detection trials were included (2297 PSY, age range = 18.78–52.6; 1745 HC, age range = 21.1–53.3). The noise generated by neuroimaging procedures slightly influenced error, but not accuracy. Accuracy-based (d = -0.83), but not error-based, indexes showed significant and large SM impairments in PSY compared to HC. Overall SM performance differences between PSY and HC were larger in discrimination index (d = -0.65) and accuracy (d = -0.61), followed by response bias (d = −0.59, ns) and error-based (d = 0.35) indexes. Although both accuracy and discrimination indexes differentiate patients with PSY from HC, discrimination index is more reliable and may better capture the bi-directional nature of the internal/external source confusion.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Alterations of brain predictive mechanisms, specifically decreased precision in prior beliefs and sensory perception, may contribute to the formation of delusions and hallucinations.
“alterations of brain predictive mechanisms (i.e., decreased precision in both prior beliefs and sensory perception) may contribute to the formation of delusions and halluci nations (Damiani et al., 2022, 2024; Sterzer et al., 2018).”
From Predictive coding in neuropsychiatric disorders: a systematic transdiagnostic review. (2025) · cites this paper as Damiani et al., 2024
The Aim 2a synthesis (p. 6) suggests that altered cognitive control of sensory signals and source attribution could underlie source-monitoring deficits in psychosis. It does not identify decreased precision in prior beliefs or sensory perception as the mechanism of delusions and hallucinations; the Conclusion (p. 8) provisionally excludes deficits in bottom-up sensory processing. (LLM, conf=0.84)
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 9
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P., Rothstein, H.R., 2021. Introduction to MetaAnalysis. John Wiley & Sons. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0022-3956(2300551-4/sref7)
- Gaebel, W., Zielasek, J., 2022. Focus on psychosis. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0022-3956(2300551-4/sref23)
- Hedges, L.V., Olkin, I., 2014. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Academic press. Johnson, M.K., Hashtroudi, S., Lindsay, D.S., 1993. Source monitoring. Psychol. Bull. 114 (1), 3 -28.
- Authors
- Damiani, S., Cavicchioli, M., Guiot, C., Donadeo, A., Scalabrini, A., Grecuzzo, V., Bergamaschini, I., Provenzani, U., Politi, P., & Fusar-Poli, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Pavia (IT)
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University (IT)
- University of Bergamo (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Damiani, Stefano
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Psychiatric Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-01
- Volume
- 169
- Pages
- 142-151
- ISSN
- 0022-3956 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4388966975
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 0.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Aisberg (University of Bergamo) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hallucinations in medical conditions
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
- Keywords
- psychosis, source monitoring, signal detection theory, discrimination index, response bias, functional MRI, EEG
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Middle Aged, Psychotic Disorders, Young Adult, 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