ReviewCognitive neuropsychiatry2019
Factor one, familiarity and frontal cortex: a challenge to the two-factor theory of delusions.
Review in Cognitive neuropsychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influencing factors of nursing discipline construction in a Chinese tertiary hospital: a qualitative study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Self-Reflection Protects Behavior from Volatile Beliefs Linked to Paranoia.Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- The role of nicotinic cholinergic neurotransmission in delusional thinking.NPJ schizophrenia · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTwo-factor theory suggests delusions require two neuropsychological impairments, one in perception (which furnishes content), and a second in belief evaluation (that augers formation and maintenance). Capgras delusion; the belief that one's loved one has been replaced by an imposter, then entails two independent processes; first a lack of skin conductance response to familiar faces so the loved one feels different. This has been demonstrated in four patients with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) but who do not have delusions. Thus two-factor theorists demand a second factor: a change in belief evaluation, which is associated with damage to the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (rDLPFC).
methodsLiterature review of foundational and related papers on the cognitive neuropsychology of delusions, perception and belief.
resultsThe four vmPFC patients appear together in another publication, uncited by two-factor theorists, in which the full extent of their damage is documented. These four cases not only lack skin responses to familiar faces, but lack responses to salient psychological stimuli more generally, which challenges factor one. They also have damage outside vmPFC, including damage to rDLPFC, which challenges factor two.
conclusionTwo-factor theory is found lacking and should be reappraised.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.