Cited by 308Schizophrenia research and treatmentVisual perception and processing mechanismsHallucinations in medical conditions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 49 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals

Open access
Teufel, Christoph, Subramaniam, Naresh, Dobler, Veronika, Perez, Jesus, Finnemann, Johanna, Mehta, Puja R., Goodyer, Ian M., Fletcher, Paul C.·2015·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: Perceiving things that are not there and holding unfounded, bizarre beliefs (hallucinations and delusions, respectively) are psychotic symptoms that occur in particular syndromes including affective psychoses, paranoid states, and schizophrenia. We studied the emergence of this loss of contact with reality based on current models of normal brain function. Working with clinical individuals experiencing early psychosis and nonclinical individuals with high levels of psychosis proneness, we show that their visual perception is characterized by a shift that favors prior knowledge over incoming sensory evidence. Given that these alterations in information processing are evident early on in psychosis and even in association with subtle perceptual changes indicating psychosis proneness, they may be important factors contributing to the emergence of severe mental illnesses.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In two complementary studies, early-psychosis individuals and psychosis-prone healthy people showed a stronger reliance on prior knowledge over sensory evidence in visual perception. This shift improved performance on an ambiguous two-tone discrimination task, suggesting a basic information-processing alteration that may contribute to psychotic experiences.

Key findings

  • Study 1: after template exposure, both groups improved in discrimination sensitivity (d′), but the improvement was more than twice as large in the early-psychosis/ARMS group (mean ± SE: 0.35 ± 0.06) than in controls (0.14 ± 0.07); group × block interaction: F(1,32) = 5.02, P < 0.05.
  • Study 1 also found a criterion shift after prior knowledge overall (F(1,32) = 37.77, P < 0.001), with no group difference.
  • Study 2: prior knowledge improved d′ in healthy observers (paired t test, df = 39, t = 7.08, P < 0.001), and the benefit correlated with anomalous perceptual experiences on CAPS (r = 0.42, df = 38, t = 2.98, P < 0.01) and delusion-like thinking on PDI (r = 0.33, df = 38, t = 2.14, P < 0.05).
  • In partial correlations, the PDI relation disappeared when CAPS was controlled (r = 0.19, df = 37, t = 1.17, not significant), whereas the CAPS relation remained when PDI was controlled (r = 0.35, df = 37, t = 2.28, P < 0.05).

Methods

  • Study 1 was a case-control study with 34 participants from the CAMEO early intervention service: 16 healthy volunteers (9 males) and 18 at-risk mental state individuals (13 males), matched on age and IQ. Observers performed a yes/no discrimination task on briefly presented two-tone images before and after viewing color template images, with signal detection theory measures d′ and criterion.
  • Study 2 recruited 40 healthy observers from the local population and used the same task, extended to 16 sessions and with two image categories (people and animals), relating performance benefit to schizotypy scales CAPS and PDI.
  • Main analyses included mixed 2 × 2 ANOVA, paired t tests, product-moment correlations, and first-order partial correlations.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the findings cannot distinguish whether the shift reflects atypically strong knowledge representations or an unusually noisy sensory system; it also notes that neuromodulatory gain control was not directly measured.
  • The paper states that study 2 participants were not suffering from psychosis or a diagnosed mental illness, and that the clinical group differed from controls on a range of psychiatric measures, making specificity difficult.
  • The paper notes that early and midlevel visual function was not directly probed, and that performance cannot be directly compared across the two experiments because of design differences; the small clinical sample is evident from the reported group sizes.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1503916112

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

28 Not checked yet · 19 Own interpretation · 12 Own result · 10 Own method

Verify all 49 references — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 18
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 28
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
35 of 35
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Visual illusions in schizophrenia can be explained by processes within the visual system rather than by influences on visual function from higher-level knowledge areas outside the visual system.

    “Critically, however, most researchers agree that these visual illusions can be explained by processes within the visual system, rather than by influences on visual function from higherlevel knowledge areas outside the visual system.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Performance on the two-tone discrimination task, analysed with signal detection theory, validly characterizes the balance between bottom-up sensory evidence and top-down prior knowledge.

    “we used a yes/no task with an analysis derived from signal detection theory to characterize the balance between bottom-up and top-down processing in our observers.”
2 of 2

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?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(1, 32) = 29.27reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,32) = 29.27,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 32) = 5.02reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .032

    “F(1,32) = 5.02, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 32) = 37.77reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,32) = 37.77, p < .001”

3 of 3

Self-check

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

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Citations

Cites

Show all 62 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. RB Cattell, AK Cattell Measuring Intelligence with the Culture Fair Tests (Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, IL, 1973).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 308

Metadata

Authors
Teufel, C., Subramaniam, N., Dobler, V., Perez, J., Finnemann, J., Mehta, P. R., Goodyer, I. M., & Fletcher, P. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • National Health Service (GB)
  • Developmental Psychiatry Section, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 8AH, United Kingdom;
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2015-10-12
Volume
112
Issue
43
Pages
13401-13406
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2114577133
Cited by
308
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 15
FWCI
17.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (WT095692MA)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hallucinations in medical conditions
Keywords
early psychosis, psychosis proneness, schizotypy, top-down processing, bottom-up processing, prior knowledge, perceptual bias, visual perception, hallucinations, delusions, perceptual anomalies
MeSH terms
Delusions, Female, Hallucinations, Humans, Male, Mental Processes, Models, Psychological, Photic Stimulation, Psychotic Disorders, Visual Perception, Case-Control Studies, Recognition, Psychology

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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