Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22641838›Full record

ArticleBrain : a journal of neurology2012

A Bayesian account of 'hysteria'.

Mark J Edwards, Rick A Adams, Harriet Brown, Isabel Pareés, Karl J Friston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain : a journal of neurology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 315 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
315citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

315 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Functional neurological disorder, suggestion and virtual reality: neuroanatomical and computational perspectives.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2026
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Make diagnostic doubt visible in healthcare.Future healthcare journal · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

255 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mark J EdwardsSobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square House, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK. m.j.edwards@ucl.ac.uk
Rick A Adams
Harriet Brown
Isabel Pareés
Karl J Friston

Funding

Wellcome Trust 088130Wellcome Trust 091593
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article provides a neurobiological account of symptoms that have been called 'hysterical', 'psychogenic' or 'medically unexplained', which we will call functional motor and sensory symptoms. We use a neurobiologically informed model of hierarchical Bayesian inference in the brain to explain functional motor and sensory symptoms in terms of perception and action arising from inference based on prior beliefs and sensory information. This explanation exploits the key balance between prior beliefs and sensory evidence that is mediated by (body focused) attention, symptom expectations, physical and emotional experiences and beliefs about illness. Crucially, this furnishes an explanation at three different levels: (i) underlying neuromodulatory (synaptic) mechanisms; (ii) cognitive and experiential processes (attention and attribution of agency); and (iii) formal computations that underlie perceptual inference (representation of uncertainty or precision). Our explanation involves primary and secondary failures of inference; the primary failure is the (autonomous) emergence of a percept or belief that is held with undue certainty (precision) following top-down attentional modulation of synaptic gain. This belief can constitute a sensory percept (or its absence) or induce movement (or its absence). The secondary failure of inference is when the ensuing percept (and any somatosensory consequences) is falsely inferred to be a symptom to explain why its content was not predicted by the source of attentional modulation. This account accommodates several fundamental observations about functional motor and sensory symptoms, including: (i) their induction and maintenance by attention; (ii) their modification by expectation, prior experience and cultural beliefs and (iii) their involuntary and symptomatic nature.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremModels, PsychologicalPsychological TheoryBrainHumansHysteriaModels, Biological

Identifiers

PMID22641838
PMCPMC3501967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.