BACKGROUND: Hearing voices can be a distressing and disabling experience for some, whilst it is a valued experience for others, so-called 'healthy voice-hearers'. Cognitive models of psychosis highlight the role of memory, appraisal and cognitive biases in determining emotional and behavioural responses to voices. A memory bias potentially associated with distressing voices is the overgeneral memory bias (OGM), namely the tendency to recall a summary of events rather than specific occasions. It may limit access to autobiographical information that could be helpful in re-appraising distressing experiences, including voices. METHODS: We investigated the possible links between OGM and distressing voices in psychosis by comparing three groups: (1) clinical voice-hearers (N = 39), (2) non-clinical voice-hearers (N = 35) and (3) controls without voices (N = 77) on a standard version of the autobiographical memory test (AMT). Clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers also completed a newly adapted version of the task, designed to assess voices-related memories (vAMT). RESULTS: As hypothesised, the clinical group displayed an OGM bias by retrieving fewer specific autobiographical memories on the AMT compared with both the non-clinical and control groups, who did not differ from each other. The clinical group also showed an OGM bias in recall of voice-related memories on the vAMT, compared with the non-clinical group. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical voice-hearers display an OGM bias when compared with non-clinical voice-hearers on both general and voices-specific recall tasks. These findings have implications for the refinement and targeting of psychological interventions for psychosis.
BACKGROUND: Hearing voices can be a distressing and disabling experience for some, whilst it is a valued experience for others, so-called 'healthy voice-hearers'. Cognitive models of psychosis highlight the role of memory, appraisal and cognitive biases in determining emotional and behavioural responses to voices. A memory bias potentially associated with distressing voices is the overgeneral memory bias (OGM), namely the tendency to recall a summary of events rather than specific occasions. It may limit access to autobiographical information that could be helpful in re-appraising distressing experiences, including voices. METHODS: We investigated the possible links between OGM and distressing voices in psychosis by comparing three groups: (1) clinical voice-hearers (N = 39), (2) non-clinical voice-hearers (N = 35) and (3) controls without voices (N = 77) on a standard version of the autobiographical memory test (AMT). Clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers also completed a newly adapted version of the task, designed to assess voices-related memories (vAMT). RESULTS: As hypothesised, the clinical group displayed an OGM bias by retrieving fewer specific autobiographical memories on the AMT compared with both the non-clinical and control groups, who did not differ from each other. The clinical group also showed an OGM bias in recall of voice-related memories on the vAMT, compared with the non-clinical group. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical voice-hearers display an OGM bias when compared with non-clinical voice-hearers on both general and voices-specific recall tasks. These findings have implications for the refinement and targeting of psychological interventions for psychosis.
Authors: Kirstin Daalman; Marco P M Boks; Kelly M J Diederen; Antoin D de Weijer; Jan Dirk Blom; René S Kahn; Iris E C Sommer Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Max Birchwood; Maria Michail; Alan Meaden; Nicholas Tarrier; Shon Lewis; Til Wykes; Linda Davies; Graham Dunn; Emmanuelle Peters Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 27.083
Authors: Louise C Johns; Kristiina Kompus; Melissa Connell; Clara Humpston; Tania M Lincoln; Eleanor Longden; Antonio Preti; Ben Alderson-Day; Johanna C Badcock; Matteo Cella; Charles Fernyhough; Simon McCarthy-Jones; Emmanuelle Peters; Andrea Raballo; James Scott; Sara Siddi; Iris E Sommer; Frank Larøi Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Paul Chadwick; Clara Strauss; Anna-Marie Jones; David Kingdon; Lyn Ellett; Laura Dannahy; Mark Hayward Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 4.939