Item-specific overlap between hallucinatory experiences and cognition in the general population: A three-step multivariate analysis of international multi-site data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive mechanisms hypothesized to underlie hallucinatory experiences (HEs) include dysfunctional source monitoring, heightened signal detection, or impaired attentional processes. HEs can be very pronounced in psychosis, but similar experiences also occur in nonclinical populations. Using data from an international multisite study on nonclinical subjects (N = 419), we described the overlap between two sets of variables - one measuring cognition and the other HEs - at the level of individual items, allowing extraction of item-specific signal which might considered off-limits when summary scores are analyzed. This involved using a statistical hypothesis test at the multivariate level, and variance constraints, dimension reduction, and split-half reliability checks at the level of individual items. The results showed that (1) modality-general HEs involving sensory distortions (hearing voices/sounds, troubled by voices, everyday things look abnormal, sensations of presence/movement) were associated with more liberal auditory signal detection, and (2) HEs involving experiences of sensory overload and vivid images/imagery (viz., HEs for faces and intense daydreams) were associated with other-ear distraction and reduced laterality in dichotic listening. Based on these results, it is concluded that the overlap between HEs and cognition variables can be conceptualized as modality-general and bi-dimensional: one involving distortions, and the other involving overload or intensity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".