Thanks for the interesting post! Yttri et al.'s proposal seems very strange, given how commonplace fairly perception-like auditory hallucinations seem to be. Moreover, insofar as an experience is not perception-like it is not clear why one would call it "auditory".
Thanks for the comment. I agree that they might go too far. But I understand (and value) their basic point, which is that many patients may be influenced to characterize their experience in auditory terms by the manner in which clinicians interview them. (If I'm having a confusing experience of words that seem to be entering my mind unbidden and from elsewhere and somebody in scrubs asks "are you hearing voices?" I might be inclined to say 'yes' even if I wouldn't have described the experience that way unprompted.)
But your point stands, and I think it is basically also Mortiz et al.'s point. They emphasize that if Yttri et al's position is taken too far, it would erase any distinction between 'auditory hallucination' and 'thought insertion', and I do think that the 'perceptual qualities' of the former are an important ingredient in making that distinction.
Thanks for the interesting post! Yttri et al.'s proposal seems very strange, given how commonplace fairly perception-like auditory hallucinations seem to be. Moreover, insofar as an experience is not perception-like it is not clear why one would call it "auditory".
Thanks for the comment. I agree that they might go too far. But I understand (and value) their basic point, which is that many patients may be influenced to characterize their experience in auditory terms by the manner in which clinicians interview them. (If I'm having a confusing experience of words that seem to be entering my mind unbidden and from elsewhere and somebody in scrubs asks "are you hearing voices?" I might be inclined to say 'yes' even if I wouldn't have described the experience that way unprompted.)
But your point stands, and I think it is basically also Mortiz et al.'s point. They emphasize that if Yttri et al's position is taken too far, it would erase any distinction between 'auditory hallucination' and 'thought insertion', and I do think that the 'perceptual qualities' of the former are an important ingredient in making that distinction.