Dataset Information

The mechanisms underlying conditioning of phantom percepts differ between those with hallucinations and synesthesia.

ABSTRACT: There are many different kinds of 'phantom' percepts but it is unknown whether they are united by common mechanisms. For example, synaesthesia (e.g., numbers evoking colour) and hallucinations appear conceptually and phenomenologically similar: both result in a percept that does not have an environmental correlate. Here, people with synaesthesia (n = 66) performed a conditioned hallucinations paradigm known to be sensitive to hallucination susceptibility, and we asked whether synaesthetes would show the same behavioural profile as hallucinators in this task. Repeated pairing of checkerboards with tones, and gratings with colours encourages the participant to draw on prior knowledge when asked to report on the presence of the difficult-to-detect target stimulus. Synaesthetes show increased modelled expectancies for the stimulus association across the board, resulting in a higher number of detections at all stimulus intensities. This is in contrast to the pattern observed in hallucinators, who weigh their prior beliefs more strongly than controls, giving rise to more conditioned hallucinations. Results indicate that fundamentally different perceptual processes may be at the core of these seemingly similar experiences.

SUBMITTER: Del Rio M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10920618 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The mechanisms underlying conditioning of phantom percepts differ between those with hallucinations and synesthesia.

Del Rio Magdalena M Kafadar Eren E Fisher Victoria V D'Costa Rhys R Powers Albert A Ward Jamie J

Scientific reports 20240307 1

There are many different kinds of 'phantom' percepts but it is unknown whether they are united by common mechanisms. For example, synaesthesia (e.g., numbers evoking colour) and hallucinations appear conceptually and phenomenologically similar: both result in a percept that does not have an environmental correlate. Here, people with synaesthesia (n = 66) performed a conditioned hallucinations paradigm known to be sensitive to hallucination susceptibility, and we asked whether synaesthetes would ...[more]

PMID: 38453946

Similar Datasets

Project description:Ischemic preconditioning represents the most powerful mechanism of cardioprotection. The mechanisms mediating the second window of preconditioning (SWOP) differ from those mediating first window preconditioning. We hypothesized that chronic ischemia induced by repetitive ischemic stimuli would be mediated by yet different molecular mechanisms. Accordingly, conscious, chronically instrumented pigs (n=5/group) were submitted to a protocol of classical SWOP (two 10-min episodes of coronary artery occlusion followed by 24 hr reperfusion) and compared to pigs submitted to repetitive occlusion/reperfusion (RCO) by repeating 6 episodes of SWOP 12 hrs apart, and to a model of repetitive coronary stenosis (RCS), in which 6 episodes of 90 min coronary stenosis were performed 12 hrs apart. Microarray analysis was performed on the three models. There was an 85% homology in gene response between both models of RCO and RCS, whereas SWOP was qualitatively different. Both models of RCO and RCS but not SWOP showed a down-regulation of genes encoding proteins involved in oxidative metabolism, and an up-regulation of genes involved in protein synthesis and unfolded protein response, autophagy, heat shock response, protein secretion, and a strong activation of the NF-ÎºB signaling pathway. Two thirds of the genes regulated in the three models showed a gradual pattern of up- or down-regulation, in which RCO was quantitatively intermediary between RCS and SWOP. Therefore, the regulated genes in response to chronic, repetitive episodes of ischemia differ radically from classical first or second window preconditioning. Four groups of pigs were used for the study, i.e., control (n=5), SWOP (n=5), RCO (n=5), and RCS (n=5). SWOP was induced by two episodes of 10 min coronary artery occlusion (CAO), each followed by 10 min coronary artery reperfusion (CAR). RCO was induced by the same stimulus as SWOP (two cycles of 10 min CAO and 10 min CAR), but repeated six times every 12 hrs. RCS was induced by 90 min low-flow ischemia repeated six times every 12 hrs.

Dataset Information

The mechanisms underlying conditioning of phantom percepts differ between those with hallucinations and synesthesia.

Publications

The mechanisms underlying conditioning of phantom percepts differ between those with hallucinations and synesthesia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets