Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30583945›Full record

ReviewTrends in cognitive sciences2019

Hallucinations and Strong Priors.

Philip R Corlett, Guillermo Horga, Paul C Fletcher, Ben Alderson-Day, Katharina Schmack, Albert R Powers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in cognitive sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 257 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
257citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

257 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  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. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

197 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

6 authors.

Philip R CorlettDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. Electronic address: philip.corlett@yale.edu.
Guillermo HorgaDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Paul C FletcherDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; The Cambridgeshire and Peteborough NHS Foundation Trust, Elizabeth House, Fulbourn Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Ben Alderson-DayDepartment of Psychology, Durham University, Durham, UK.
Katharina SchmackCold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, USA.
Albert R PowersDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.

Funding

Deficient Belief Updating as a Convergent Computational Mechanism of PsychosisR01MH114965 · NIMH · NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE DBA RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR MENTAL HYGIENE, INC · PI HORGA, GUILLERMO · 2018 to 2022
$3.6M
Predictive Coding as a Framework for Understanding PsychosisR01MH112887 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI CORLETT, PHILIP, GOLD, JAMES M. · 2018 to 2022
$3.6M
A Hearing Test for Hallucinations: Toward Development of Computational Markers for Early DiagnosisK23MH115252 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI POWERS, ALBERT R · 2018 to 2022
$983k
Neurocomputational Mechanisms of Auditory HallucinationsR21MH116258 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI CORLETT, PHILIP · 2019 to 2020
$404k
NIMH NIH HHS K23 MH115252NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH112887NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH114965NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH116258Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hallucinations, perceptions in the absence of objectively identifiable stimuli, illustrate the constructive nature of perception. Here, we highlight the role of prior beliefs as a critical elicitor of hallucinations. Recent empirical work from independent laboratories shows strong, overly precise priors can engender hallucinations in healthy subjects and that individuals who hallucinate in the real world are more susceptible to these laboratory phenomena. We consider these observations in light of work demonstrating apparently weak, or imprecise, priors in psychosis. Appreciating the interactions within and between hierarchies of inference can reconcile this apparent disconnect. Data from neural networks, human behavior, and neuroimaging support this contention. This work underlines the continuum from normal to aberrant perception, encouraging a more empathic approach to clinical hallucinations.

Indexed as

HallucinationsHumansIllusionsNerve NetSpeech Perceptionauditory verbal hallucinationshallucinationspredictive codingprior beliefspsychosis

Identifiers

PMID30583945
PMCPMC6368358

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.