Cited by 84Schizophrenia research and treatmentHallucinations in medical conditionsMental Health and Psychiatry

Affectively salient meaning in random noise: A task sensitive to psychosis liability

Open access
Galdos, M., Simons, C., Fernandez-Rivas, A., Wichers, M., Peralta, C., Lataster, T., Amer, G., Myin-Germeys, I. +3 more·2011·Schizophrenia Bulletin

Abstract

Stable differences in the tendency to attribute meaning and emotional value to experience may represent an indicator of liability to psychosis. A brief task was developed assessing variation in detecting affectively meaningful speech (speech illusion) in neutral random signals (white noise) and the degree to which this was associated with psychometric and familial vulnerability for psychosis. Thirty patients, 28 of their siblings, and 307 controls participated. The rate of speech illusion was compared between cases and controls. In controls, the association between speech illusion and interview-based positive schizotypy was assessed. The hypothesis of a dose-response increase in rate of speech illusion across increasing levels of familial vulnerability for psychosis (controls, siblings of patients, and patients) was examined. Patients were more likely to display speech illusions than controls (odds ratio [OR] = 4.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4-11.7), also after controlling for neurocognitive variables (OR = 3.8, 95% CI = 1.04-14.1). The case-control difference was more accentuated for speech illusion perceived as affectively salient (positively or negatively appraised) than for neutrally appraised speech illusions. Speech illusion in the controls was strongly associated with positive schizotypy but not with negative schizotypy. In addition, the rate of speech illusion increased with increasing level of familial risk for psychotic disorder. The data suggest that the white noise task may be sensitive to psychometric and familial vulnerability for psychosis associated with alterations in top-down processing and/or salience attribution.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/schbul/sbq029

Cites

32 of 32 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
Galdos, M., Simons, C., Fernandez-Rivas, A., Wichers, M., Peralta, C., Lataster, T., Amer, G., Myin-Germeys, I., Allardyce, J., Gonzalez-Torres, M. A., & van Os, J.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
  • Hospital Universitario Son Dureta (ES)
Venue
Schizophrenia Bulletin
Published
2010-04-01
Volume
37
Issue
6
Pages
1179-1186
ISSN
  • 0586-7614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-1701
OpenAlex
W2128290118
Cited by
84
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Schizophrenia Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Delusions, Female, Hallucinations, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Psychotic Disorders, Risk Factors, Social Perception, Speech, Siblings, 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