Neurophysiological Studies of Auditory Verbal Hallucinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We discuss 3 neurophysiological approaches to study auditory verbal hallucinations (AVH). First, we describe "state" (or symptom capture) studies where periods with and without hallucinations are compared "within" a patient. These studies take 2 forms: passive studies, where brain activity during these states is compared, and probe studies, where brain responses to sounds during these states are compared. EEG (electroencephalography) and MEG (magnetoencephalography) data point to frontal and temporal lobe activity, the latter resulting in competition with external sounds for auditory resources. Second, we discuss "trait" studies where EEG and MEG responses to sounds are recorded from patients who hallucinate and those who do not. They suggest a tendency to hallucinate is associated with competition for auditory processing resources. Third, we discuss studies addressing possible mechanisms of AVH, including spontaneous neural activity, abnormal self-monitoring, and dysfunctional interregional communication. While most studies show differences in EEG and MEG responses between patients and controls, far fewer show symptom relationships. We conclude that efforts to understand the pathophysiology of AVH using EEG and MEG have been hindered by poor anatomical resolution of the EEG and MEG measures, poor assessment of symptoms, poor understanding of the phenomenon, poor models of the phenomenon, decoupling of the symptoms from the neurophysiology due to medications and comorbidites, and the possibility that the schizophrenia diagnosis breeds truer than the symptoms it comprises. These problems are common to studies of other psychiatric symptoms and should be considered when attempting to understand the basic neural mechanisms responsible for them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".