Cited by 266Schizophrenia research and treatmentHallucinations in medical conditionsMental Health and Psychiatry

Electrophysiological evidence of corollary discharge dysfunction in schizophrenia during talking and thinking

Ford, Judith M., Mathalon, Daniel H.·2004·Journal of Psychiatric Research

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. We had four aims in the studies summarized in this paper: (1) to demonstrate the corollary discharge phenomenon during talking and inner speech in human volunteers using event-related brain potentials (ERPs), (2) to demonstrate that the corollary discharge is abnormal in patients with schizophrenia, (3) to demonstrate the role of frontal speech areas in the corollary discharge during talking, and (4) to relate the dysfunction of the corollary discharge in schizophrenia to auditory hallucinations. Using EEG and ERP measures, we addressed each aim in patients with schizophrenia (DSM IV) and healthy control subjects. The N1 component of the ERP reflected dampening of auditory cortex responsivity during talking and inner speech in control subjects but not in patients. EEG measures of coherence indicated inter-dependence of activity in the frontal speech production and temporal speech reception areas during talking in control subjects, b…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-3956(03)00095-5

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Ford et al. (2004) found that repeated sentences elicited a smaller N1 component when participants engaged in inner speech compared to when they did not.

    “Ford et al., found that the sentences elicited a smaller N1-component when participants engaged in inner speech compared to when they did not, consistent with the results of the present study.”

    From Neurophysiological evidence of efference copies to inner speech (2017) · cites this paper as Ford and Mathalon, 2004

  • The few studies that reported sensory attenuation deficits to inner speech in schizophrenia patients did not include a mismatch condition, raising the possibility that these deficits reflect attentional deficits.

    “Furthermore, the few studies that did report sensory attenuation deficits to inner speech in patients with schizophrenia did not include a ‘mismatch’ condition, raising the possibility that these sensory attenuation deficits ultimately reflect attentional deficits in the patient group (Ford and Mathalon, 2004; Ford et al., 2001d).”

    From Neurophysiological evidence of efference copies to inner speech (2017) · cites this paper as Ford and Mathalon, 2004

  • Several studies have reported dampened neural response in auditory cortex during inner speech and silently mouthed speech compared with speech perception.

    “Several studies have reported dampened neural response in auditory cortex during inner speech and silently mouthed speech compared with speech perception (e.g., Ford and Mathalon, 2004; Agnew et al., 2013).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ford, J. M., & Mathalon, D. H.
Affiliations
  • VA Palo Alto Health Care System (US)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Ford, Judith M.
Venue
Journal of Psychiatric Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-01
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
37-46
ISSN
0022-3956 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2073086800
Cited by
266
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01mh058262-17)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH040052, MH-58262, MH40052)
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
corollary discharge, schizophrenia, auditory hallucinations, inner speech, auditory cortex, N1 component, EEG coherence, positive symptoms, event-related potentials
MeSH terms
Adult, Auditory Pathways, Auditory Perceptual Disorders, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Dominance, Cerebral, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Female, Fourier Analysis, Frontal Lobe, Hallucinations, Humans, Internal-External Control, Male, Middle Aged, Neural Inhibition, Reference Values, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Speech, Speech Perception, Temporal Lobe, Thinking

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