Cited by 30Hallucinations in medical conditionsSchizophrenia research and treatmentParanormal Experiences and Beliefs

Continuities and discontinuities in the cognitive mechanisms associated with clinical and nonclinical auditory verbal hallucinations

Open access
Moseley, Peter, Alderson-Day, Ben, Common, Stephanie, Dodgson, Guy, Lee, Rebecca, Mitrenga, Kaja, Moffatt, Jamie, Fernyhough, Charles·2022·Clinical Psychological Science

Abstract

Auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs) are typically associated with schizophrenia but also occur in individuals without any need for care (nonclinical voice hearers [NCVHs]). Cognitive models of AVHs posit potential biases in source monitoring, top-down processes, or a failure to inhibit intrusive memories. However, research across clinical/nonclinical groups is limited, and the extent to which there may be continuity in cognitive mechanism across groups, as predicted by the psychosis-continuum hypothesis, is unclear. We report two studies in which voice hearers with psychosis ( n = 31) and NCVH participants reporting regular spiritual voices ( n = 26) completed a battery of cognitive tasks. Compared with non-voice-hearing groups ( ns = 33 and 28), voice hearers with psychosis showed atypical performance on signal detection, dichotic listening, and memory-inhibition tasks but intact performance on the source-monitoring task. NCVH participants, however, showed only atypical signal detection, which suggests differences between clinical and nonclinical voice hearers potentially related to attentional control and inhibition. These findings suggest that at the level of cognition, continuum models of hallucinations may need to take into account continuity but also discontinuity between clinical and nonclinical groups.

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 · 10.1177/21677026211059802

Cites

55 of 55 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?

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
Moseley, P., Alderson-Day, B., Common, S., Dodgson, G., Lee, R., Mitrenga, K., Moffatt, J., & Fernyhough, C.
Affiliations
  • Northumbria University (GB)
  • Department of Psychology, Durham University
  • National Health Service (GB)
  • Cumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Durham University (GB)
  • University of Sussex (GB)
Corresponding author
Moseley, Peter
Venue
Clinical Psychological Science
Published
2022-01-17
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
752-766
ISSN
  • 2167-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 2167-7034
OpenAlex
W3162334988
Cited by
30
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychological Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (WT108720)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hallucinations in medical conditions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
Keywords
auditory verbal hallucinations, schizophrenia, source monitoring, signal detection, dichotic listening, memory inhibition, attentional control

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