Misattribution of external speech in patients with hallucinations and delusions
Abstract
Background One of the main cognitive models of positive symptoms in schizophrenia proposes that they arise through impaired self-monitoring. This is supported by evidence of behavioural deficits on tasks designed to engage self-monitoring, but these deficits could also result from an externalising response bias. We examined whether patients with hallucinations and delusions would demonstrate an externalising bias on a task that did not involve cognitive self-monitoring.Method Participants passively listened (without speaking) to recordings of single adjectives spoken in their own and another person's voice, and made self/nonself judgements about their source. The acoustic quality of recorded speech was experimentally manipulated by altering the pitch. Fifteen patients with schizophrenia who were currently experiencing hallucinations and delusions, 13 patients with schizophrenia not experiencing current hallucinations and delusions and 15 healthy controls were compared.Results When listening to distorted words, patients with hallucinations and delusions were more likely than both the group with no hallucinations and delusions and the control group to misidentify their own speech as alien (i.e. spoken by someone else). Across the combined patient groups, the tendency to misidentify self-generated speech as alien was positively correlated with current severity of hallucinations but not with ratings of delusions or positive symptoms in general.Conclusions These findings indicate that patients with hallucinations and delusions are prone to misidentifying their own verbal material as alien in a task which does not involve cognitive self-monitoring. This suggests that these symptoms are related to an externalising bias in the processing of sensory material, and not solely a function of defective self-monitoring.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A deficit in self-monitoring as measured by some tasks is not enough in itself to explain the misattribution to external sources, and there must be a specific bias towards labelling events as external.
“It has, however, been argued that a deficit in self-monitoring as measured by some of the aforementioned tasks is not enough in itself to explain the misattribution to external sources that has been proposed to explain AVHs, and that there must be a specific bias towards labelling events as external (Allen et al., 2004).”
From Auditory verbal hallucinations as atypical inner speech monitoring, and the potential of neurostimulation as a treatment option (2013) · cites this paper as Allen et al., 2004
Hallucinating patients are still more likely to make external misattributions on a pre-recorded distorted voice task.
“It was found that hallucinating patients were still more likely to make external misattributions.”
From Auditory verbal hallucinations as atypical inner speech monitoring, and the potential of neurostimulation as a treatment option (2013) · cites this paper as Allen et al., 2004
Previous findings may not simply be due to a disrupted verbal self-monitoring system, but at least partly due to an externalizing bias possibly due to disrupted top-down processing of auditory stimuli.
“The authors argued that previous findings may not simply be due to a disrupted verbal self-monitoring system, but at least partly due to an externalizing bias possibly due to disrupted top-down processing of auditory stimuli.”
From Auditory verbal hallucinations as atypical inner speech monitoring, and the potential of neurostimulation as a treatment option (2013) · cites this paper as Allen et al., 2004
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 24 · Cited by 163
- Authors
- Allen, P. P., Johns, L. C., Fu, C. H. Y., Broome, M. R., Vythelingum, G. N., & McGuire, P. K.
- Affiliations
- King's College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Allen, Paul P
- Venue
- Schizophrenia Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-08
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 2-3
- Pages
- 277-287
- ISSN
- 0920-9964 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2083494567
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 3.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Schizophrenia Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust
- Research Councils UK
- Medical Research Council
- 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
- hallucinations, delusions
- MeSH terms
- Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Auditory Perception, Delusions, Female, Hallucinations, Humans, Imagination, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Projection, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Reaction Time, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Self Concept, Speech, Word Association Tests
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