Abstract
In this work, we investigate the complex interplay of auditory expectations, perceptual judgments, and hallucination proclivity, challenging conventional ideas and illuminating the underlying cognitive processes affecting our sensory experiences. We want to know if expectations have the potential to change perception and if these biases are heightened in people who have hallucinations. We are using predictive theories of perception to find out. Our inquiry is guided by two hypotheses: the influence of expectations on judgments, the relationship between hallucination proneness, and the influence of expectations on clarity assessments. Our well-structured experiment uses the Cardiff Anomalous Perceptions Scale with an auditory expectation task. Auditory stimuli—clear and ambiguous noises—are presented to participants, and various beep sequences are meant to elicit expectation manipulation. The findings highlight varied situations where expectations match or differ from cognitive processing standards. We negotiate the delicate relationship between auditory expectancies, hallucination proclivity, and reaction times using statistical methods such as linear regression and t-tests. Investigating reaction times and hallucination ratings yields multiple scenarios, providing a full view of the delicate dance between expectations and perception. The data navigates the landscape of prediction theories, confirming and questioning current assumptions while presenting a complex and nuanced picture. The study’s openness and humility are emphasized by acknowledging limitations such as the probabilistic nature of auditory expectations and confounding variables. Our abstract concludes with broad findings that contribute to our understanding of auditory perception, posing fascinating research challenges for the future. While we provide a comprehensive account, the abstract may benefit from more explicit linkages between observed situations and their implications for hypotheses. Establishing a better link between identified constraints and their possible impact on generalizability would improve overall completeness without jeopardizing the essence of our study.
Introduction
The convergence of belief systems and sensory experiences constitutes the basis of a fascinating inquiry into the complicated tapestry of human perception. This research goes into auditory expectations, attempting to uncover the perplexing interplay between what we believe and how we experience sounds. Our experiment, based on the expanding field of predictive theories of perception, tries to answer a crucial question: Does our anticipation of auditory stimuli impact how we interpret and respond to what we hear? By investigating the impact of expectations on perceptual judgments, we start on a trip that challenges conventional thinking and provides essential insights into the systems that regulate our daily interactions with the aural environment.
This study’s significance extends beyond theoretical investigation, delving into the practical consequences of comprehending uncommon perceptual experiences such as hallucinations. We wonder if those who are predisposed to hallucinations are more susceptible to the influence of their beliefs on subjective hearing. Our research bridges the gap between predicted theories of vision and the exciting occurrence of hallucinations by offering insight into the probable cognitive basis of these events. As we embark on this intellectual journey, our research will add to the developing field of perceptual psychology and have the potential to inform clinical perspectives on hallucination-prone individuals and the larger spectrum of human aural experiences.
a) Setting the Scene: General areas of interest
Our knowledge of how ideas impact our perception has shifted dramatically in the complex perception environment. Contemporary theories offer a more subtle link between anticipation and experience, departing from the notion that our senses merely reflect the external world.
b) Implication of the relevant theories
Predictive perception theories have recently gained popularity, implying that human experiences combine sensory input and top-down expectations. The premise is that what we expect to experience can influence our perception, calling the traditional concept of a passive perceptual system into question.
c) Is There Evidence to Support These Theory(s)?
For example, Corlett et al. (2019) investigated predictive coding explanations of perception. These findings show that perception is characterized by adopting hypotheses based on previous knowledge and that when these priors are more exact than sensory inputs, they dominate inference. According to Corlett et al. (2019), this dominance could lead to hallucinations in which past predictions substantially impact perceptual inferences.
d) Study Importance
Olawole-Scott and Yon (2022) investigated the impact of expectations on visual experiences and found that expectations might skew subjective visual perceptions. This lays the ground for our investigation into whether comparable biases exist in auditory perceptions and whether they are exacerbated in those who are prone to hallucinations.
e) Unanswered Question(s) and Rationale
Our investigation is guided by two key questions: Can our expectations affect our vision according to what we anticipate? Do those who are prone to hallucination-like experiences have more significant biases toward perceiving what they expect? The reasoning for the study aims to bridge the gap between predictive theories of perception, existing research on visual expectancies, and the occurrence of hallucinations in mental illnesses.
f) How the study addresses the unanswered questions
The current experiment expands the work of Olawole-Scott and Yon (2022) in two dimensions: It investigates the influence of expectations on beliefs about auditory stimuli and the relationship between these processes and hallucinatory experiences.
g) Predictions/Hypotheses Based on Experimentation
Our hypotheses are consistent with the broader goal. Expectations will strongly influence participants’ perceptions about what they can hear, leading to faster judgments on expected trials than unexpected trials (Drayson, 2018). Individuals more prone to hallucinations will experience enhanced expectation effects on subjective hearing, anticipating clarity ratings.
Inclusions/Improvements:
The introduction effectively establishes the framework for the experiment, providing essential theories and studies, posing open questions, and describing hypotheses. Other scholars can consider reinforcing the links between previous studies and the current research to ensure a smooth transition between theoretical foundations and experimental focus.
Methods:Experiencing the Cognitive Dance of Auditory Expectations and Perception
Our experiment was methodically prepared and implemented to understand the delicate link between auditory expectations, perceptual judgments, and hallucination proneness. The methodological plan included various critical parts, ranging from experimental design to participant recruitment, to ensure a thorough investigation of our study topics. The following parts introduce the materials, tasks, and techniques employed in the experiment and give further details on the same, as well as an examination of the rationale behind our choice of the approaches employed.
Design
The experiment incorporated the use of a mixed approach, which carefully combines within as well as between subject characteristics. Our independent variables (IV) included auditory expectation, ranging from expected to unexpected trials, and hallucination proneness, as measured by participants’ Cardiff Anomalous Perceptions Scale (CAPS) scores. The dependent variable (DV), in this experiment, was used to represent the reaction time in milliseconds, which in turn reflects the time participants used to rate the clarity of words they heard during the experiment.
The counterbalancing of the ‘expect clear’ or ‘expect ambiguous’ speaker across participants was critical to the concept. This deliberate step attempted to reduce potential biases related to the order in which certain expectations were exposed (Gavett et al., 2020). Furthermore, randomizing the mapping of beep sequences to clear or ambiguous noises offered an element of unpredictability, bolstering the experiment’s validity.
Making Experiment Design Decisions: Creating a Strict Framework for Validity and Reliability
The design of the experiment is the foundation of any scientific investigation, and our choices were rigorously calibrated to achieve the highest validity and reliability in investigating the intricate nexus between auditory expectations and perceptual judgments.
Probabilistic Manipulation of Auditory Expectations: The introduction of a probabilistic manipulation of auditory expectations was crucial to our experimental design. The need to instill explicit and robust expectations motivated the decision to expose participants to distinct beep sequences before clear or ambiguous noises. We aimed to mimic real-world settings where people generate predictions based on past knowledge using probabilistic correlations(Miranda et al., 2021). This design choice is consistent with predictive perception theories, which contend that our beliefs actively impact how we see sensory stimuli.
Our manipulation’s probabilistic nature, with an unexpected trial ratio of 10%, was an intentional choice. This delicate balancing of injecting an element of surprise while keeping a dominant foundation of predicted trials contributes significantly to the study’s internal validity. The unpredictable trials were intentionally placed to assess participants’ adaptability and determine if the influence of expectations would endure in the face of unpredictability.
Balancing Expected and Unexpected Trials: A significant design feature is the distribution of expected and unexpected trials in the test phase, which should be 75% to 25%. This deliberate bias toward expected trials provides a solid foundation for evaluating the impact of auditory expectations on perceptual judgments. A higher proportion of predicted trials allows for a more detailed analysis that captures the complexities of how participants incorporate their beliefs into the perceptual process (Davies et al., 2018). Meanwhile, including unexpected trials strategically provides variety, promoting ecological validity and ensuring that participants remain aware of the changing nature of their auditory environment.
Integration of a Practice Phase and a Sound Check: A combined commitment to participant familiarity and data quality drove the inclusion of a practice phase consisting of eight expected trials and a sound check. The practice phase acted as an acclimatization period for participants, allowing them to grasp the mechanics of the activity and create preliminary expectations. Simultaneously, the sound check reduced any confounds caused by variances in participant hearing acuity or equipment discrepancies(Sürücü & Maslakci, 2020). This design option increases the external validity of our findings by guaranteeing that participants participate in the experiment on an equal footing.
Overall Impact on Validity and Reliability: Carefully selecting design features improves the study’s validity and reliability. The probabilistic manipulation of auditory expectations is consistent with the intrinsic variety in human perception, mimicking the intricacies of everyday situations (De Lange et al., 2018). The mix of expected and unexpected trials allows for a more detailed analysis of the interaction of beliefs and perceptions, capturing the nuances that may develop in real-world circumstances.
In addition, incorporating a practice phase and sound check serves as a quality control mechanism, bolstering our outcomes’ internal and external legitimacy. Participants who have been appropriately primed and sensitized to the experimental dynamics are better positioned to offer trustworthy data, reducing confounding effects and strengthening the overall robustness of our findings.
In essence, our experimental design decisions are a precise orchestration that balances the intricacies of human cognition with the need for methodological rigor. Each element was intentionally woven into the study’s fabric, adding to the validity and dependability required to advance our understanding of the complex link between auditory expectations and perceptual judgments.
Participants
Our subjects, at the heart of this investigation, were carefully selected through a rigorous recruitment process. We collected anonymous IDs, completion status, answer counts, and the standard demographic information of gender and age in the main job for careful data filtering. This multidimensional approach improved our understanding of the sample and offered a solid platform for screening out people who needed to be completed or inattentive.
Materials/Stimuli
The auditory expectation task was the central focus of our work. In each trial, participants heard one or two beeps before hearing clear or unclear recordings of “Pie” or “Tie.” The continuous rating scale, a complex interface that required participants to move a marker along a spectrum from ‘ambiguous’ to ‘clear,’ provides a deep understanding of their perceptual judgments.
The probabilistic modification of beep sequences was a critical component. One beep sequence was more likely to come before unclear sounds, whereas the other was more likely to come before more precise sounds. Because of this meticulous calibration, participants could establish expectations about the subsequent auditory stimuli, introducing an anticipatory aspect that mimicked real-world perceptual experiences.
The experiment was divided into three parts:
- a practice phase to acquaint participants
- a training period of 160 trials to establish expectations
- a test phase of 320 trials to balance expected and unexpected trials
Regular breaks kept participants engaged throughout the trial, and progress updates helped to contextualize the total time.
After the experiment, participants completed an electronic version of the Cardiff Anomalous Perceptions Scale (CAPS), which is a reliable measure of hallucination-like experiences in the general population(Rodriguez & Moratti, 2022). While not diagnostic, the scale enabled us to assess participants’ proclivity for aberrant perceptual experiences.
Procedure
Participants started on a precisely planned trip through an auditory expectation assignment, which served as the foundation of our inquiry. Participants were exposed to an online information sheet detailing the goal and procedures of the study at the start of the experiment. Informed consent was then obtained, and participants were guided through a series of ‘attention check’ questions to ensure their interest and comprehension.
The auditory expectation test was divided into two parts that immersed participants in a barrage of sensory inputs. The initial practice phase had eight expected trials, laying the groundwork for the subsequent challenges (Haarsma et al., 2020). A sound check allowed participants to become more comfortable with the auditory stimuli, increasing familiarity and reducing potential confounds.
The following training phase, a crucible of auditory experiences, consisted of 160 trials aimed at conditioning people to identify different beep sequences with either clear or ambiguous sounds. The goal of this probabilistic manipulation was to create expectations regarding the character of upcoming auditory stimuli. The unpredictable character of the 10% unexpected trials added an element of surprise to the participants’ perceptual judgments, encouraging flexibility.
The experiment’s apex occurred during the test phase, which included 320 trials in which the union of auditory expectations and perceptual assessments reached its pinnacle. Participants navigated through a rich tapestry of auditory stimuli with 75% expected and 25% unexpected trials, giving the raw data required to investigate the impact of expectations on reaction times.
Rationale
Our methodological choices were motivated by carefully examining the cognitive processes at work and a desire to extract essential insights. The auditory expectation task, inspired by the work of Olawole-Scott and Yon (2022), is a powerful tool for changing expectations and assessing their impact on subjective hearing.
Using distinct beep sequences before auditory inputs was an intentional choice intended to instill explicit expectations. We attempted to simulate real-world settings in which prior knowledge impacts perceptual outcomes by associating specific tones with clear or ambiguous noises. This design choice is consistent with predictive theories of perception, which contend that our expectations shape our sensory experiences in intricate ways.
Alternative approaches were carefully assessed, with variations in the probabilistic manipulation of expectations considered. Although our preferred design had a 10% unexpected trial ratio, other ratios were considered(Drayson, 2018). Finally, we decided to strike a balance between incorporating surprise aspects to elicit genuine reactions while retaining a solid basis of expected trials for meaningful comparisons.
In conclusion, our methodology emerged as a sophisticated dance of auditory stimuli, expectancies, and perceptual judgments, providing a rich dataset for uncovering the secrets of human cognition. Our thoughtful choices in developing the auditory expectation task and modifying expectations demonstrate our dedication to a comprehensive knowledge of the relationship between beliefs and perception.
Replicability and enhancements
While the approach provides a solid framework for replication, we acknowledge that there is still potential for improvement. More information on the creation of beep sequences and their precise linkage with clear or ambiguous sounds, in particular, could improve the experiment’s clarity and replicability.
Finally, our strategy expertly handled the perplexing landscape of perceptual research. Every aspect of the study, from the strategic design to participant engagement and the seamless integration of auditory exercises and questionnaires, was created to illuminate the intricate interplay between expectation, perception, and hallucination proneness(Haarsma et al., 2020). Because of the robustness of our method, future researchers are encouraged not only to repeat but also to build on our investigation, contributing to our ever-evolving understanding of human vision.
Results
The investigation of our hypotheses revealed fascinating insights into the interaction of auditory expectations, perceptual judgments, and hallucination proclivity.
The Influence of Expectations on Reaction Times, Hypothesis 1
We discovered two separate scenarios by examining participants’ reaction times in response to clear or ambiguous sounds. We saw occasions in the first scenario when unexpected trial reaction times were faster than expected. This finding means that participants’ cognitive processing time increased when they heard an audio stimulus that differed from their expectations. This departure from the expected appeared to add cognitive stress, resulting in a delayed judgment of clarity.
The second situation, on the other hand, revealed a different story. We discovered no significant difference in reaction times between predicted and surprise trials. In these cases, participants processed clear and ambiguous sounds with equivalent efficiency, regardless of their expectations’ congruence. This intriguing result calls for a more in-depth investigation of the subtle aspects impacting cognitive processing when confronted with unexpected auditory inputs.
Histogram 1 below shows the reaction times for the expected and unexpected for hypothesis 1, scenario 1. The results suggest that the hypothesis is false. This means that the participants will not incorporate their expectations into their judgments about what they are hearing.
Figure 1: Histogram showing the reaction times for expected and unexpected for hypothesis 1scenario 1
Histogram 2 below shows the reaction times for the expected and unexpected for hypothesis 1, scenario 2. The results suggest that the reaction times for both expected and unexpected have no difference. As a result, we need to reject the hypothesis. This, therefore, changes the predictive theories of perception.
Figure 2: Histogram showing the reaction times for expected and unexpected for hypothesis 1 scenario 2
Hypothesis 2: The Connection between Hallucination and Effects of Proneness and Reaction Time
The investigation of the second hypothesis led us to two distinct scenarios, each revealing various aspects of the relationship between hallucination proclivity and the effect of auditory expectations on reaction times. Scenario 1 demonstrates a strong positive relationship between the unexpected-predicted difference in reaction times and participants’ hallucination scores. This link shows that people who are more prone to hallucinations have a bigger influence on their reaction times. This is consistent with the theoretical paradigm that proposes that those who rely more heavily on their expectations may have atypical perceptual experiences.
The following graph shows the relationship between the two variables.
Figure 3: Scatter plot showing the relationship between the difference between unexpected and expected and the CAPS score for hypothesis 2 Scenario 1
Scenario 2 yields a null result, showing no meaningful association between hallucination ratings and the influence of expectation on reaction times. This intriguing discovery calls into question the assumption that disparities in dependence on expectations directly lead to out-of-the-ordinary perceptual experiences. The lack of a link calls into question the delicate dynamics between auditory expectations and hallucination proclivity.
The following figure shows the relationship between the hallucination ratings and the influence of expectation on reaction time variables in this second scenario.
Figure 4: Scatter plot showing the relationship between the difference between unexpected and expected and the CAPS score for hypothesis 2 scenario 2
These observations were strengthened by statistical analysis using linear regression. The following sections will review the p-values linked with the correlation coefficients, providing a quantitative lens to supplement our qualitative views.
Discussion
a) Summary of Findings
We explore the complicated environment of auditory expectations, perceptual judgments, and hallucination proneness to condense our findings’ core. The various scenarios found in both hypotheses highlight the multidimensional nature of these interactions, creating a rich tapestry for future investigation.
b) Hypothesis Support
Our journey through the results enables us to draw valuable conclusions about the support for our hypothesis. The observed scenarios of reaction times that correspond with or deviate from expectations give a detailed picture of how cognitive processing develops in the face of unexpected auditory inputs for Hypothesis 1. The specific patterns shown by the histograms determine whether this hypothesis is supported or rejected.
Hypothesis 2: The correlation studies reveal several scenarios in which the connection between hallucination proclivity and reaction time effects vary. A strong positive association in Scenario 1 supports the idea that increased hallucination proclivity amplifies the influence of expectations on perceptual experiences. On the other hand, scenario 2’s null outcome calls into question the clear link between expectation reliance and unexpected perceptual events.
c) Theoretical Implications
The nuanced findings necessitate careful reflection on the implications for predictive models of perception and the role of past knowledge in molding our perceptual experiences. The observed circumstances give material for improving and expanding these theoretical frameworks, recognizing the complex dance between anticipation, perception, and individual differences in hallucination proclivity.
d) Recognize Your Limitations
No scientific investigation is without restrictions, and ours is no exception. We acknowledge the limitations of our technique, such as the probabilistic nature of auditory expectations and our dependence on self-reported hallucination-like experiences. Furthermore, more specific demographic information may be needed to allow the generalizability of our findings.
f) Proposing Limitation Solutions
While accepting these limitations, we propose ways to improve. Future versions of this study could include a more detailed measurement of auditory expectations, possibly using neuroimaging techniques to capture real-time brain responses to unexpected sounds. Furthermore, a more detailed demographic profile of individuals might improve the external validity of our findings.
f) Investigating Alternative Explanations
Alternative explanations for our findings are investigated in the spirit of scientific inquiry. The observed patterns could be explained by factors other than auditory expectations, such as individual differences in cognitive processing or attentional biases. Further research could detangle these potential confounding variables, allowing for a more complete explanation of the observed events.
g) Creating a Foundation for Future Research
Our investigation reveals exciting avenues for future research. Insights into the brain mechanisms underpinning the interplay of expectations and perception could help comprehend these processes’ complexities. Longitudinal studies that follow individuals with varied levels of hallucination proclivity may also provide a dynamic view of the genesis and progression of anomalous perceptual experiences.
h) Overarching Conclusions
The general conclusions highlight the richness of perceptual experiences by connecting the threads of our investigation. The findings add to our understanding of auditory expectations and their impact on perception and underscore the importance of taking individual differences in hallucination proneness into account.
i) Potential Discussion Enhancements
While the discussion provides a complete synthesis of our data, more focus on the interconnectedness of situations in both hypotheses could improve the narrative’s consistency. Furthermore, a more explicit link between the constraints stated and the potential impact on our findings’ generalizability would strengthen the robustness of our conclusions.
References
Drayson, Z. (2018). Direct perception and the predictive mind. Philosophical Studies, pp. 175, 3145–3164. https://philarchive.org/rec/DRADPA-2
De Lange, F. P., Heilbron, M., & Kok, P. (2018). How do expectations shape perception? Trends in cognitive sciences, 22(9), 764-779. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661318301396
Davies, D. J., Teufel, C., & Fletcher, P. C. (2018). Anomalous perceptions and beliefs are associated with shifts toward different types of prior knowledge in perceptual inference. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 44(6), 1245-1253. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29294128/
Gavett, B. E., Bucks, R. S., Weinborn, M., & Badcock, J. C. (2020). Factor structure and age invariance of the Cardiff Anomalous Perceptions Scale (CAPS) in healthy older and younger adults. Psychological Assessment, 32(12), 1095. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32924523/
Corlett, P. R., Horga, G., Fletcher, P. C., Alderson-Day, B., Schmack, K., & Powers, A. R. (2019). Hallucinations and strong priors. Trends in cognitive sciences, 23(2), 114-127. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30583945/
Rodriguez, I. A., & Moratti, S. (2022). Pavlovian conditioning-induced hallucinations reduce MMN amplitudes for duration but not frequency deviants. https://osf.io/preprints/hzusb/
Sürücü, L., & Maslakci, A. (2020). Validity and reliability in quantitative research. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(3), 2694-2726. https://www.bmij.org/index.php/1/article/view/1540
Haarsma, J., Knolle, F., Griffin, J. D., Taverne, H., Mada, M., Goodyer, I. M., … & Nspn Consortium. (2020). Influence of prior beliefs on perception in early psychosis: Effects of illness stage and hierarchical level of belief. Journal of abnormal psychology, 129(6), 581. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7409392/
Miranda, L., Swerts, M., Moraes, J., & Rilliard, A. (2021). The role of the auditory and visual modalities in the perceptual identification of Brazilian Portuguese statements and echo questions. Language and speech, 64(1), 3-23. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0023830919898886
Olawole-Scott, H., & Yon, D. (2023). Expectations about precision bias metacognition and awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-57855-001
write