Cited by 79Schizophrenia research and treatmentHallucinations in medical conditionsMental Health and Psychiatry

Experiential features used by patients with schizophrenia to differentiate voices from ordinary verbal thought

Hoffman, R. E., Varanko, M., Gilmore, J., Mishara, A. L.·2008·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Determining how patients distinguish auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs) from their everyday thoughts may shed light on neurocognitive processes leading to these symptoms. METHOD: Fifty patients reporting active AVHs ('voices') with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizo-affective disorder were surveyed using a structured questionnaire. Data were collected to determine: (a) the degree to which patients distinguished voices from their own thoughts; (b) the degree to which their thoughts had verbal form; and (c) the experiential basis for identifying experiences as voices versus their own verbal thoughts. Six characteristics of acoustic/verbal images were considered: (1) non-self speaking voice, (2) loudness, (3) clarity, (4) verbal content, (5) repetition of verbal content, and (6) sense of control. RESULTS: Four subjects were eliminated from the analysis because they reported absent verbal thought or a total inability to differentiate their own verbal thoughts from voices. For the remaining 46 patients, verbal content and sense of control were rated as most salient in distinguishing voices from everyday thoughts. With regard to sensory/perceptual features, identification of speaking voice as non-self was more important in differentiating voices from thought than either loudness or clarity of sound images. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with schizophrenia and persistent AVHs clearly distinguish these experiences from their everyday thoughts. An adequate mechanistic model of AVHs should account for distinctive content, recognizable non-self speaking voices, and diminished sense of control relative to ordinary thought. Loudness and clarity of sound images appear to be of secondary importance in demarcating these hallucination experiences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291707002395

Cites

39 of 39 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoffman, R. E., Varanko, M., Gilmore, J., & Mishara, A. L.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Hoffman, R. E.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2007-11-30
Volume
38
Issue
8
Pages
1167-1176
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2170364559
Cited by
79
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
FWCI
2.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R21MH063326, R21 MH 63326)
  • National Center for Research Resources (M01RR000125, RR00125)
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
auditory verbal hallucinations, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, voice, perceived control, verbal content
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Hallucinations, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Schizophrenia, Semantics, Thinking, Verbal Behavior, Self Efficacy, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

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