Title |
What visual illusions teach us about schizophrenia
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, August 2014
|
DOI | 10.3389/fnint.2014.00063 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Charles-Edouard Notredame, Delphine Pins, Sophie Deneve, Renaud Jardri |
Abstract |
Illusion, namely a mismatch between the objective and perceived properties of an object present in the environment, is a common feature of visual perception, both in normal and pathological conditions. This makes illusion a valuable tool with which to explore normal perception and its impairments. Although still debated, the hypothesis of a modified, and typically diminished, susceptibility to illusions in schizophrenia patients is supported by a growing number of studies. The current paper aimed to review how illusions have been used to explore and reveal the core features of visual perception in schizophrenia from a psychophysical, neurophysiological and functional point of view. We propose an integration of these findings into a common hierarchical Bayesian inference framework. The Bayesian formalism considers perception as the optimal combination between sensory evidence and prior knowledge, thereby highlighting the interweaving of perceptions and beliefs. Notably, it offers a holistic and convincing explanation for the perceptual changes observed in schizophrenia that might be ideally tested using illusory paradigms, as well as potential paths to explore neural mechanisms. Implications for psychopathology (in terms of positive symptoms, subjective experience or behavior disruptions) are critically discussed. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 11% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 11% |
Ireland | 1 | 6% |
Belgium | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 12 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 14 | 78% |
Scientists | 3 | 17% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Germany | 4 | 1% |
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
Australia | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Sweden | 1 | <1% |
Iceland | 1 | <1% |
Japan | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 269 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 59 | 21% |
Researcher | 43 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 41 | 15% |
Student > Master | 39 | 14% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 4% |
Other | 38 | 14% |
Unknown | 49 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 73 | 26% |
Neuroscience | 67 | 24% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 8% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 7% |
Computer Science | 7 | 2% |
Other | 36 | 13% |
Unknown | 56 | 20% |