The effects of voice content on stress reactivity: A simulation paradigm of auditory verbal hallucinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Psychosis is associated with increased subjective and altered endocrine and autonomic nervous system stress-reactivity. Psychosis patients often experience auditory verbal hallucinations, with negative voice content being particularly associated with distress. The present study developed a voice-simulation paradigm and investigated the effect of simulated voices with neutral and negative content on psychophysiological stress-reactivity, and the effect of mindful voice-appraisals on stress-reactivity. METHOD: Eighty-four healthy participants completed the Montreal Imaging Stress Task with simultaneous presentation of one of three randomly allocated auditory stimuli conditions: negative voices, neutral voices or non-voice ambient sounds. Subjective stress-levels and mindful voice-appraisals were assessed using questionnaire measures, and cortisol and α-amylase levels were measured using saliva samples. RESULTS: ANOVA revealed a significant effect of condition on subjective stress-levels (p = .002), but not cortisol (p = .63) or α-amylase (p = .73). Post-hoc analyses showed that negative voices increased subjective stress-levels relative to neutral voices (p = .002) and ambient sounds (p = .01), which did not differ from each other (p = .41). Mindful voice-appraisals were associated with less distress across conditions (p = .003), although negative voices were also associated with less mindful appraisals (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Negative voice content, rather than voices or auditory stimuli per se, is linked to greater subjective but not physiological stress-reactivity. Mindful appraisals may partially moderate this effect. These findings highlight the importance of voice content for the impact of voice-hearing, and highlight the potential value of mindfulness training to treat voice distress in psychosis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".