White Noise Speech Illusions: A Trait-Dependent Risk Marker for Psychotic Disorder?

• Main Authors: Elaine Schepers, Richel Lousberg, Sinan Guloksuz, Lotta-Katrin Pries, Philippe Delespaul, Gunter Kenis, Jurjen J. Luykx, Bochao D. Lin, Alexander L. Richards, Berna Akdede, Tolga Binbay, Vesile Altınyazar, Berna Yalınçetin, Güvem Gümüş-Akay, Burçin Cihan, Haldun Soygür, Halis Ulaş, Eylem Şahin Cankurtaran, Semra Ulusoy Kaymak, Marina M. Mihaljevic, Sanja Andric Petrovic, Tijana Mirjanic, Miguel Bernardo, Bibiana Cabrera, Julio Bobes, Pilar A. Saiz, María Paz García-Portilla, Julio Sanjuan, Eduardo J. Aguilar, José Luis Santos, Estela Jiménez-López, Manuel Arrojo, Angel Carracedo, Gonzalo López, Javier González-Peñas, Mara Parellada, Nadja P. Maric, Cem Atbaşoğlu, Alp Ucok, Köksal Alptekin, Meram Can Saka, Celso Arango, Bart P.F. Rutten, Jim van Os
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-09-01
• Series: Frontiers in Psychiatry
• Subjects: white noise speech illusions; psychotic disorder; Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences; cognitive ability; childhood adversity; life events
• Online Access: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00676/full
• ISSN: 1664-0640

Introduction: White noise speech illusions index liability for psychotic disorder in case–control comparisons. In the current study, we examined i) the rate of white noise speech illusions in siblings of patients with psychotic disorder and ii) to what degree this rate would be contingent on exposure to known environmental risk factors (childhood adversity and recent life events) and level of known endophenotypic dimensions of psychotic disorder [psychotic experiences assessed with the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE) scale and cognitive ability].Methods: The white noise task was used as an experimental paradigm to elicit and measure speech illusions in 1,014 patients with psychotic disorders, 1,157 siblings, and 1,507 healthy participants. We examined associations between speech illusions and increasing familial risk (control -> sibling -> patient), modeled as both a linear and a categorical effect, and associations between speech illusions and level of childhood adversities and life events as well as with CAPE scores and cognitive ability scores.Results: While a positive association was found between white noise speech illusions across hypothesized increasing levels of familial risk (controls -> siblings -> patients) [odds ratio (OR) linear 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.21, p = 0.019], there was no evidence for a categorical association with sibling status (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79–1.09, p = 0.360). The association between speech illusions and linear familial risk was greater if scores on the CAPE positive scale were higher (p interaction = 0.003; ORlow CAPE positive scale 0.96, 95% CI 0.85–1.07; ORhigh CAPE positive scale 1.26, 95% CI 1.09–1.46); cognitive ability was lower (p interaction < 0.001; ORhigh cognitive ability 0.94, 95% CI 0.84–1.05; ORlow cognitive ability 1.43, 95% CI 1.23–1.68); and exposure to childhood adversity was higher (p interaction < 0.001; ORlow adversity 0.92, 95% CI 0.82–1.04; ORhigh adversity 1.31, 95% CI 1.13–1.52). A similar, although less marked, pattern was seen for categorical patient–control and sibling–control comparisons. Exposure to recent life events did not modify the association between white noise and familial risk (p interaction = 0.232).Conclusion: The association between white noise speech illusions and familial risk is contingent on additional evidence of endophenotypic expression and of exposure to childhood adversity. Therefore, speech illusions may represent a trait-dependent risk marker.