Beliefs about hearing voices

People who experience auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs) vary in whether they believe their AVHs are self-generated or caused by external agents. It remains unclear whether these differences are influenced by the "intensity" of the voices, such as their frequency or volume, or other aspects of their phenomenology. We examined 35 patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who experienced AVHs. Patients completed a detailed structured interview about their AVHs, including beliefs about their cause. In response, 20 (57.1%) reported that their AVHs were self-generated, 9 (25.7%) were uncertain, and 6 (17.1%) reported that their AVHs were caused by external agents. Several analytical approaches revealed little or no evidence for associations between either AVH intensity or phenomenology and beliefs about the AVH's cause; the evidence instead favoured the absence of these associations. Beliefs about the cause of AVHs are thus unlikely to be explained solely by the phenomenological qualities of the AVHs.13 page(s

German and English Bodies: No Evidence for Cross-Linguistic Differences in Preferred Orthographic Grain Size

Previous studies have found that words and nonwords with many body neighbours (i.e., words with the same orthographic body, e.g., 'cat, brat, at') are read faster than items with fewer body neighbours. This body-N effect has been explored in the context of cross-linguistic differences in reading where it has been reported that the size of the effect differs as a function of orthographic depth: readers of English, a deep orthography, show stronger facilitation than readers of German, a shallow orthography. Such findings support the psycholinguistic grain size theory, which proposes that readers of English rely on large orthographic units to reduce ambiguity of print-to-speech correspondences in their orthography. Here we re-examine the evidence for this pattern and find that there is no reliable evidence for such a cross-linguistic difference. Re-analysis of a key study (Ziegler et al., 2001), analysis of data from the English Lexicon Project (Balota et al., 2007), and a large-scale analysis of nine new experiments all support this conclusion. Using Bayesian analysis techniques, we find little evidence of the body-N effect in most tasks and conditions. Where we do find evidence for a body-N effect (lexical decision for nonwords), we find evidence against an interaction with language