Cited by 32Schizophrenia research and treatmentHallucinations in medical conditionsMental Health and Psychiatry

Novel evidence that attributing affectively salient signal to random noise is associated with psychosis

Open access
Catalan, Ana, Simons, Claudia J. P., Bustamante, Sonia, Drukker, Marjan, Madrazo, Aranzazu, de Artaza, Maider Gonzalez, Gorostiza, Iñigo, van Os, Jim +1 more·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

We wished to replicate evidence that an experimental paradigm of speech illusions is associated with psychotic experiences. Fifty-four patients with a first episode of psychosis (FEP) and 150 healthy subjects were examined in an experimental paradigm assessing the presence of speech illusion in neutral white noise. Socio-demographic, cognitive function and family history data were collected. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) was administered in the patient group and the Structured Interview for Schizotypy-Revised (SIS-R), and the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE) in the control group. Patients had a much higher rate of speech illusions (33.3% versus 8.7%, ORadjusted: 5.1, 95% CI: 2.3-11.5), which was only partly explained by differences in IQ (ORadjusted: 3.4, 95% CI: 1.4-8.3). Differences were particularly marked for signals in random noise that were perceived as affectively salient (ORadjusted: 9.7, 95% CI: 1.8-53.9). Speech illusion tended to be associated with positive symptoms in patients (ORadjusted: 3.3, 95% CI: 0.9-11.6), particularly affectively salient illusions (ORadjusted: 8.3, 95% CI: 0.7-100.3). In controls, speech illusions were not associated with positive schizotypy (ORadjusted: 1.1, 95% CI: 0.3-3.4) or self-reported psychotic experiences (ORadjusted: 1.4, 95% CI: 0.4-4.6). Experimental paradigms indexing the tendency to detect affectively salient signals in noise may be used to identify liability to psychosis.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0102520

Cites

19 of 19 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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [9]Peralta V, Cuesta MJ (1994) Validación de la Escala de los Síndromes Positivo y Negativo (PANSS) en una muestra de esquizofrénicos españoles. Actas Luso-Esp Neurol Psiquiatr 22: 171– 177. 7810373

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Catalan, A., Simons, C. J. P., Bustamante, S., Drukker, M., Madrazo, A., de Artaza, M. G., Gorostiza, I., van Os, J., & Gonzalez-Torres, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
  • University of the Basque Country (ES)
  • Hospital de Basurto (ES)
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-07-14
Volume
9
Issue
7
Pages
e102520
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1998848241
Cited by
32
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Communities in ADDI (University of the Basque Country) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Communities in ADDI (Universidad del Pais Vasco) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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
first-episode psychosis, affective salience, random noise, psychotic experiences, positive symptoms, schizotypy, psychosis risk, signal detection in noise, replication
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Female, Humans, Illusions, Intelligence, Male, Middle Aged, Noise, Psychotic Disorders, Risk Factors, Speech Perception

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