Cited by 117Hallucinations in medical conditionsSchizophrenia research and treatmentNeuroscience and Music Perception

The brain’s voices: comparing nonclinical auditory hallucinations and imagery

Open access
Linden, David E. J., Thornton, Katy, Kuswanto, Carissa N., Johnston, Stephen J., van de Ven, Vincent, Jackson, Michael C.·2011·Cerebral Cortex

Abstract

Although auditory verbal hallucinations are often thought to denote mental illness, the majority of voice hearers do not satisfy the criteria for a psychiatric disorder. Here, we report the first functional imaging study of such nonclinical hallucinations in 7 healthy voice hearers comparing them with auditory imagery. The human voice area in the superior temporal sulcus was activated during both hallucinations and imagery. Other brain areas supporting both hallucinations and imagery included fronto temporal language areas in the left hemisphere and their contralateral homologues and the supplementary motor area (SMA). Hallucinations are critically distinguished from imagery by lack of voluntary control. We expected this difference to be reflected in the relative timing of prefrontal and sensory areas. Activity of the SMA indeed preceded that of auditory areas during imagery, whereas during hallucinations, the 2 processes occurred instantaneously. Voluntary control was thus represented in the relative timing of prefrontal and sensory activation, whereas the sense of reality of the sensory experience may be a product of the voice area activation. Our results reveal mechanisms of the generation of sensory experience in the absence of external stimulation and suggest new approaches to the investigation of the neurobiology of psychopathology.

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 · 10.1093/cercor/bhq097

Cites

57 of 57 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?

  • Linden et al. (2011) did not find any parietal activation in their fMRI study of auditory imagery.

    “In their fMRI study of auditory imagery, Linden et al. (2011) did not find any parietal activation either.”

    From The ConDialInt Model: Condensation, Dialogality, and Intentionality Dimensions of Inner Speech Within a Hierarchical Predictive Control Framework (2019) · cites this paper as Linden et al. (2011)

    The Whole-Brain and Voice Area ROI Analysis for Imagery (page unavailable) says the study found no activity in the inferior parietal areas during auditory imagery. That supports the claim for those areas, but not its broader assertion that there was no parietal activation of any kind; the auditory-imagery map also lists activation at the temporoparietal junction. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Linden et al. (2011) observed bilateral activation in the superior temporal sulcus, IFG, SMA, ACC and cuneus.

    “Using a region of interest analysis, they observed bilateral activation in the superior temporal sulcus (the voice selective region). In addition, they found bilateral activation in IFG, SMA, ACC and cuneus.”

    From The ConDialInt Model: Condensation, Dialogality, and Intentionality Dimensions of Inner Speech Within a Hierarchical Predictive Control Framework (2019) · cites this paper as Linden et al. (2011)

    The imagery ROI analysis reports significant activation in voice-selective areas along the bilateral STS. Table 2 also lists IFG activation in both hemispheres, but lists SMA/pre-SMA in the left hemisphere and ACC and cuneus across the midline; it does not establish bilateral activation in all the additional regions claimed. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Linden et al. (2011) found auditory imagery for familiar voices, such as conversations with family members, associated with bilateral activation in IFG, STS, SMA and anterior cingulate cortex in healthy participants.

    “Similarly, in an AVH study by Linden et al. (2011), auditory imagery for familiar voices, such as conversations with family members, was associated with bilateral activation in IFG, superior temporal sulcus (STS), SMA and anterior cingulate cortex in healthy participants.”

    From The brain's conversation with itself: neural substrates of dialogic inner speech (2016) · cites this paper as Linden et al. (2011)

    The AI Participants section says healthy participants commonly imagined familiar people, including family members in conversation. Table 2 reports auditory-imagery activation in both hemispheres for IFG and STS, but lists SMA/pre-SMA only under the left hemisphere and anterior cingulate cortex across the midline. The claim is supported except insofar as it describes SMA and anterior cingulate activation as bilateral. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Linden et al. (2011) found significant right hemisphere activation in fronto-temporal regions during voluntary auditory imagery.

    “Linden et al. (2011) also found significant right hemisphere activation in fronto-temporal regions during voluntary auditory imagery.”
  • The experience of non-clinical voice-hearing likely also involves regions associated with the generation and monitoring of speech-motor imagery, as well as sensorimotor processes, such as the supplementary and pre-supplementary motor areas.

    “The experience of NCVH likely also involves regions associated with the generation and monitoring of speech-motor imagery, as well as sensorimotor processes, such as the supplementary and pre-supplementary motor areas (SMA/pre-SMA; Linden et al., 2011;Lima et al., 2016).”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Linden, D. E. J., Thornton, K., Kuswanto, C. N., Johnston, S. J., van de Ven, V., & Jackson, M. C.
Affiliations
Bangor University (GB)
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2010-06-07
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
330-337
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W2153783985
Cited by
117
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 16
FWCI
6.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hallucinations in medical conditions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
Keywords
auditory verbal hallucinations, auditory imagery, voice hearing, superior temporal sulcus, supplementary motor area, prefrontal cortex activation, volitional control, temporal dynamics of brain activity
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Cues, Female, Hallucinations, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Imagination, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Oxygen, Reaction Time, Time Factors, Voice, Young Adult

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