Cited by 78Hallucinations in medical conditionsSchizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and Psychiatry

The phenomenology of inner speech: comparison of schizophrenia patients with auditory verbal hallucinations and healthy controls

Open access
Langdon, R., Jones, S. R., Connaughton, E., Fernyhough, C.·2009·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite the popularity of inner-speech theories of auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs), little is known about the phenomenological qualities of inner speech in patients with schizophrenia who experience AVHs (Sz-AVHs), or how this compares to inner speech in the non-voice-hearing general population. METHOD: We asked Sz-AVHs (n=29) and a non-voice-hearing general population sample (n=42) a series of questions about their experiences of hearing voices, if present, and their inner speech. RESULTS: The inner speech reported by patients and controls was found to be almost identical in all respects. Furthermore, phenomenological qualities of AVHs (e.g. second- or third-person voices) did not relate to corresponding qualities in inner speech. CONCLUSIONS: No discernable differences were found between the inner speech reported by Sz-AVHs and healthy controls. Implications for inner-speech theories of AVHs are discussed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291708003978

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Clark-Carter D (1997). Doing Qualitative Psychological Research : From Design to Report. Psychological Press : East Sussex.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Langdon, R., Jones, S. R., Connaughton, E., & Fernyhough, C.
Affiliations
  • Sydney South West Area Health Service (AU)
  • Durham University (GB)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
Jones, S. R.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2008-07-30
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
655-663
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2131957247
Cited by
78
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
2.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • Economic and Social Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hallucinations in medical conditions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
inner speech, auditory verbal hallucinations, schizophrenia, voice hearing, phenomenology of hallucinations, healthy controls
MeSH terms
Adult, Awareness, Female, Hallucinations, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Language, Schizophrenic Psychology, Semantics, Speech, Speech Perception, 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