Cited by 65Schizophrenia research and treatmentHallucinations in medical conditionsMental Health and Psychiatry

Psychotic Experiences in Schizophrenia and Sensitivity to Sensory Evidence

Open access
Weilnhammer, Veith, Röd, Lukas, Eckert, Anna-Lena, Stuke, Heiner, Heinz, Andreas, Sterzer, Philipp·2020·Schizophrenia Bulletin

Abstract

Perceptual inference depends on an optimal integration of current sensory evidence with prior beliefs about the environment. Alterations of this process have been related to the emergence of positive symptoms in schizophrenia. However, it has remained unclear whether delusions and hallucinations arise from an increased or decreased weighting of prior beliefs relative to sensory evidence. To investigate the relation of this prior-to-likelihood ratio to positive symptoms in schizophrenia, we devised a novel experimental paradigm which gradually manipulates perceptually ambiguous visual stimuli by disambiguating stimulus information. As a proxy for likelihood precision, we assessed the sensitivity of individual participants to sensory evidence. As a surrogate for the precision of prior beliefs in perceptual stability, we measured phase duration in ambiguity. Relative to healthy controls, patients with schizophrenia showed a stronger increment in congruent perceptual states for increasing levels of disambiguating stimulus evidence. Sensitivity to sensory evidence correlated positively with the individual patients' severity of perceptual anomalies and hallucinations. Moreover, the severity of such experiences correlated negatively with phase duration. Our results indicate that perceptual anomalies and hallucinations are associated with a shift of perceptual inference toward sensory evidence and away from prior beliefs. This reduced prior-to-likelihood ratio in sensory processing may contribute to the phenomenon of aberrant salience, which has been suggested to give rise to the false inferences underlying psychotic experiences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/schbul/sbaa003

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Weilnhammer, V., Röd, L., Eckert, A.-L., Stuke, H., Heinz, A., & Sterzer, P.
Affiliations
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Weilnhammer, Veith
Venue
Schizophrenia Bulletin
Published
2020-02-24
Volume
46
Issue
4
Pages
927-936
ISSN
  • 0586-7614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-1701
OpenAlex
W3009027713
Cited by
65
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4
FWCI
5.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Schizophrenia Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Berlin Institute of Health
  • Deutsche Forschergemeinschaft (HE 2597/19-1, STE 1430/8-1)
  • Einstein Center for Neurosciences
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
schizophrenia, psychotic experiences
MeSH terms
Adult, Bayes Theorem, Female, Hallucinations, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Perceptual Disorders, Psychotic Disorders, Schizophrenia, Vision Disparity, 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