Evidence for Reduced Sensory Precision and Increased Reliance on Priors in Hallucination-Prone Individuals in a General Population Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that people with hallucinations overweight perceptual beliefs relative to incoming sensory evidence. Past work demonstrating prior overweighting has used simple, nonlinguistic stimuli. However, auditory hallucinations in psychosis are often complex and linguistic. There may be an interaction between the type of auditory information being processed and its perceived quality in engendering hallucinations. STUDY DESIGN: We administered a linguistic version of the conditioned hallucinations (CH) task to an online sample of 88 general population participants. Metrics related to hallucination-proneness, hallucination severity, stimulus thresholds, and stimulus detection rates were collected. Data were used to fit parameters of a Hierarchical Gaussian Filter (HGF) model of perceptual inference to determine how latent perceptual states influenced task behavior. STUDY RESULTS: Replicating past results, higher CH rates were observed both in those with recent hallucinatory experiences as well as participants with high hallucination-proneness; CH rates were positively correlated with increased prior weighting; and increased prior weighting was related to hallucination severity. Unlike past results, participants with recent hallucinatory experiences as well as those with higher hallucination-proneness had higher stimulus thresholds, lower sensitivity to stimuli presented at the highest threshold, and had lower response confidence, consistent with lower precision of sensory evidence. CONCLUSIONS: We replicate the finding that increased CH rates and recent hallucinations correlate with increased prior weighting using a linguistic version of the CH task. Results support a role for reduced sensory precision in the interplay between prior weighting and hallucination-proneness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".