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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
28 Not checked yet · 19 Own interpretation · 12 Own result · 10 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected, prior knowledge resulted in a significant improvement in the ability to distinguish between test and control images (Fig. 3A left plot; paired t test, df = 39, t = 7.08, P < 0.001).”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The relation between a delusion-like style of thinking and performance benefit due to prior knowledge disappeared once an observer's anomalous perceptual experiences were taken into account (firstorder partial correlation, r = 0.19, df = 37, t = 1.17, not significant).”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similar to the previous experiment, we also observed a criterion shift (Fig. 3A, Right; paired t test, df = 39, t = 4.11, P < 0.001).”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, a significant relation between CAPS and performance benefit remained even when PDI was controlled for (r = 0.35, df = 37, t = 2.28, P < 0.05).”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additional analyses showed that, on average, observers in both groups had a stronger response bias (as measured by a criterion shift) to report seeing an object after being given relevant image information compared with before [F(1,32) = 37.77, P < 0.001; Fig. 1D, Right].”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Critically, this main effect was qualified by an interaction between group and block, indicating that the improvement in performance differed between the groups [F(1,32) = 5.02, P < 0.05].”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected, a mixed 2 × 2 ANOVA with the between-subjects factor group and the within-subjects factor block found an overall increased ability to distinguish between test and control images measured in terms of d′ after having viewed template images in comparison with before having seen them [F(1,32) = 29.27,P < 0.001].”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As can be seen in the left plot in Fig. 1D and supported by post hoc tests, both groups showed an improvement in performance (paired t test, controls: df = 15, t = 2.17, P < 0.05; clinical group: df = 17, t = 5.60, P < 0.001), but this was on average more than twice as large in the clinical group (mean ± SE: 0.35 ± 0.06) compared with controls (0.14 ± 0.07).”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, we identified a shift in visual information-processing in early psychosis and in psychosis-prone healthy individuals.In both cases, top-down prior knowledge was favored over bottom-up sensory evidence.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding did not differ between groups [F(1,32) < 1, not significant) and is an expected change given that observers received additional information to solve the task and were therefore more confident in the After than in the Before Block.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 18
- Probably not a substantial claim. 28
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is noteworthy that the increased benefit in the clinical group was observed in the absence of an overall difference between groups [F(1,32) < 1, not significant] and was not due to a difference in baseline performance in the Before block (Welch's two-sample t test, before clinical vs. before controls: df = 31.16,t = 0.19, not significant).”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although performance improvements due to prior knowledge were increased in the clinical group in study 1, these individuals were no worse (than controls) in their ability to discriminate ambiguous two-tone images without prior knowledge.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As well as offering a purer assessment of the emergence of psychotic experiences, this approach is inspired by growing evidence suggesting that psychosis lies on a continuum with normality (19,20) and is associated with a range of different psychiatric disorders (15,21).”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“These findings fit neatly with and support current conceptual and computational models of psychotic symptoms (8)(9)(10)(11)(12).”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“According to this perspective, existing diagnostic categories group biologically heterogeneous syndromes with potentially different pathophysiological mechanisms into one disorder (22); this may obfuscate our attempts to understand the neurobiological underpinnings of mental illness.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, and also critically, this comparison is not confounded by the effects of antipsychotic medication or the impact of chronic illness, allowing us, as purely as possible, to explore the mechanisms of early psychosis.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although, in the current experimental task, this shift conferred a performance benefit, under most natural viewing situations, it may provoke anomalous perceptual experiences.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For instance, it has been hypothesized that a single core disturbance relating to the balance between bottom-up and top-down processing can explain both the hallucinatory experiences and the bizarre delusional beliefs of psychotic patients (8,11).”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“It has long been known that altered perceptual experiences form a key part of the emergence of psychosis (29).”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Note that, although other schizotypy scales such as Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences (O-LIFE) (27) and Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ) (28) characterize a number of schizotypal features, CAPS and PDI are specific to clinical features relating to hallucinations and delusions respectively.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although schizotypy is a marker for psychosis proneness as ascertained by previous longitudinal studies (18), it is important to acknowledge that individuals in study 2 were not suffering from psychosis or even a diagnosed mental illness.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although, at the time of testing, these individuals fell below the threshold for a categorical diagnosis, they already showed symptoms and have an increased risk for transitioning to a severe mental illness such as schizophrenia or an affective disorder (15).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to such models, at the perceptual level, an undue reliance on prior knowledge in perception may lead to the emergence of aberrant perceptions such as hallucinations.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
In the paper
“Schizotypy refers to a personality measure that has established predictive value for psychotic and other mental illnesses (18).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, we show that, on the perceptual level, a shift in this balance toward prior knowledge is present both in a clinical group of individuals with early psychosis and even associated with psychosis proneness in the general population.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Conceptual and computational models of psychosis have hypothesized that an imbalance in the combination of bottom-up sensory evidence and top-down prior knowledge is at the core of this altered state of mind (8)(9)(10)(11)(12).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
In the paper
“Although the conventional view focuses preferentially on auditory hallucinations in psychosis, epidemiological evidence indicates that hallucinations in the visual domain are very common in, for example, schizophrenia (13).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the current study, we ran an extensive piloting phase to generate appropriate images.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Observers.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“Some authors argue that, on a neuronal level, the bottom-up/ top-down balance is implemented by neuromodulatory gain control of feedforward and feedback neuronal circuitries; adopting this approach, psychosis may thus be understood in terms of atypicalities in these control mechanisms (35).”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This approach is part of a more general move in translational research aimed at developing our understanding of the mechanisms by which symptoms arise (22); this is seen as a necessary prelude to a successful classificatory system in psychiatry.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The changes in information processing we report here might be among the influences that, in concert with other factors, contribute to the emergence of major mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and affective disorders.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This similarity highlights the notion that predictive coding might provide a common framework within which to understand mental illness more generally.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In schizophrenia, one important diagnostic category associated with psychosis, both increased and decreased susceptibility to various visual illusions is observed (37)(38)(39)(40)(41).”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites (37)(38)(39)(40)(41)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The groups were matched on age and IQ, using Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Observers.
plainn = 34- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“some authors argue that certain illusions rely on some form of top-down processing (40,41), a claim that has been contested (42,43).”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, this could either be due to atypically strong knowledge representations or, alternatively, to an unusually noisy sensory system.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Computational explanations of the balance between sensory evidence and prior knowledge as highlighted by our study are typically cast in terms of Bayesian models of perception and formalized within a predictive coding framework (5,31,32).”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given that our study did not directly measure neuromodulatory gain control, this assertion is speculative but it might provide a fruitful avenue for future research.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the integration of bottom-up and top-down signals is mediated by the relative amount of information each of these components provides: the stronger the sensory evidence is relative to prior knowledge, the more it will impact on the final processing output; conversely, if prior knowledge provides a relatively greater amount of information it will be weighted more strongly.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“independently of the underlying mechanisms, atypicalities within the visual system result in the outputs of the perceptual analysis being less well structured and less adaptive.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Test and control images had similar low-level statistical properties (SI Materials and Methods) but differed in whether or not they contained an embedded person.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Observers.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the same theme of an imbalance between bottom-up and top-down processing figures prominently in current debates about autism (33,34).”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“it contrasts with previous studies in patients with established schizophrenia who show reduced ability to spontaneously disambiguate two-tone images of faces without prior knowledge (46,47).”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Existing evidence suggests that both early psychosis and high schizotypal characteristics may be associated with poorer working memory (44,45).”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the current findings suggest that a shift in the opposite direction-i.e., either enhanced gain of feedback connections or reduced gain of feedforward connections-may account for perceptual changes associated with psychosis.”
§ Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“An additional (or complementary) mechanism could be related to an imbalance between priors at low and high levels of the predictive coding hierarchy, as suggested by a series of studies investigating perceptual inference in relation to delusions (72, 105–107).”
From The Predictive Coding Account of Psychosis (2018) · cites this paper as [107]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“People with an 'at risk' mental state (i.e. in early stages of psychosis) outperformed controls in their ability to identify objects in ambiguous, Mooney-style visual stimuli (Mooney, 1957), but only once they were given priming information about the objects.”
From Distinct processing of ambiguous speech in people with non-clinical auditory verbal hallucinations (2017) · cites this paper as Teufel et al., 2015
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”
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
An inventory for measuring depression
BECK, A. T. (1961) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031004 · Cited by 38,032
(1970) · Cited by 24,983
Brainard, D. H. (1997) · Spatial Vision · doi:10.1163/156856897x00357 · Cited by 20,012
The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory?
Friston, K. (2010) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2787 · Cited by 8,120 · cited 2×
“Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 2(5):580–593.”
MethodSelective Cortical Undercutting As a Means of Modifying and Studying Frontal Lobe Function in Man
Scoville, W. B. (1949) · Journal of neurosurgery · doi:10.3171/jns.1949.6.1.0065 · Cited by 7,374
Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science
Clark, A. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12000477 · Cited by 5,924
Detection Theory: A User's Guide
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991) · Cited by 5,415
Kleiner, M., Brainard, D. H., & Pelli, D. G. (2007) · MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) · Cited by 3,602
Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC
Cuthbert, B. N., & Insel, T. R. (2013) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-126 · Cited by 3,053
Detection theory: A user's guide
Lories, G. (1993) · Behavioural Processes · doi:10.1016/0376-6357(93)90083-4 · Cited by 2,903
Research works printed but not linked: 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
The Predictive Coding Account of Psychosis
Sterzer, P., Adams, R. A., Fletcher, P., Frith, C., Lawrie, S. M., Muckli, L., Petrovic, P., Uhlhaas, P., Voss, M., & Corlett, P. R. (2018) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.05.015 · Cited by 941
“An increased influence of learned high-level beliefs in relation to psychotic symptoms was also reported for the perception of images with impoverished sensory information where perceptual inference relies strongly on priors (107).”
BackgroundSelf-citationPavlovian conditioning-induced hallucinations result from overweighting of perceptual priors
Powers, A. R., Mathys, C., & Corlett, P. R. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aan3458 · Cited by 684
The dysconnection hypothesis (2016)
Friston, K., Brown, H. R., Siemerkus, J., & Stephan, K. E. (2016) · Schizophrenia Research · doi:10.1016/j.schres.2016.07.014 · Cited by 561
Hallucinations and strong priors
Corlett, P. R., Horga, G., Fletcher, P. C., Alderson-Day, B., Schmack, K., & Powers, A. R. (2019) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.12.001 · Cited by 534
Self-citationA perceptual inference mechanism for hallucinations linked to striatal dopamine
Cassidy, C. M., Balsam, P. D., Weinstein, J. J., Rosengard, R. J., Slifstein, M., Daw, N. D., Abi-Dargham, A., & Horga, G. (2018) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.12.059 · Cited by 176
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;
- ORCID
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
