Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28375719›Full record

ReviewAnnual review of clinical psychology2017

Predictive Processing, Source Monitoring, and Psychosis.

Juliet D Griffin, Paul C Fletcher

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annual review of clinical psychology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Environmental Exposures and Computational Mechanisms in Psychosis Risk: Insights from a Multi-Site Cohort.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Juliet D GriffinDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SZ, United Kingdom; email: jdg48@cam.ac.uk , pcf22@cam.ac.uk.
Paul C FletcherDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SZ, United Kingdom; email: jdg48@cam.ac.uk , pcf22@cam.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 095692Wellcome Trust 095844
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A comprehensive understanding of psychosis requires models that link multiple levels of explanation: the neurobiological, the cognitive, the subjective, and the social. Until we can bridge several explanatory gaps, it is difficult to explain how neurobiological perturbations can manifest in bizarre beliefs or hallucinations, or how trauma or social adversity can perturb lower-level brain processes. We propose that the predictive processing framework has much to offer in this respect. We show how this framework may underpin and complement source monitoring theories of delusions and hallucinations and how, when considered in terms of a dynamic and hierarchical system, it may provide a compelling model of several key clinical features of psychosis. We see little conflict between source monitoring theories and predictive coding. The former act as a higher-level description of a set of capacities, and the latter aims to provide a deeper account of how these and other capacities may emerge.

Indexed as

Cognitive DysfunctionDelusionsHallucinationsHumansPsychotic DisordersSchizophreniapredictive codingpsychosisschizophreniasource monitoring

Identifiers

PMID28375719
PMCPMC5424073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.