Yale researchers have discovered that paranoid thinking patterns may have roots in basic visual perception, suggesting that a straightforward visual test could potentially help identify individuals at risk of developing psychotic symptoms.
Published in Communications Psychology | Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
Using a simple test where participants watched dots moving across a screen, researchers found that individuals prone to paranoid thinking were more likely to perceive one dot as “chasing” another when no such pursuit was occurring. This finding opens new possibilities for early screening of conditions like schizophrenia through basic visual tests.
“We’re really interested in how the mind is organized,” said Philip Corlett, associate professor of psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine and member of the Wu Tsai Institute. “Chasing or other intentional behaviors are what you might think of as experiences perceived at a very high-level in the brain, that someone might have to reason through and deliberate. In this study, we can see them low down in the brain, in vision, which we think is exciting and interesting — and has implications for how those mechanisms might be relevant for schizophrenia.”
The study examined two types of thought patterns: paranoid thinking (believing others intend harm) and teleological thinking (ascribing excessive meaning and purpose to events). While both involve misattributing intentions, they manifested differently in the visual tests. People with paranoid tendencies struggled specifically to identify which dot was being chased, while those with high teleological thinking had difficulty identifying which dot was doing the chasing.
The research team’s findings carry particular weight given an intriguing observation: very few people with congenital blindness develop schizophrenia. This suggests that visual processing may play a crucial role in how psychotic symptoms develop.
The experimental setup was deceptively simple: participants watched dots moving on a screen and had to determine whether one dot was chasing another. In some trials, there was genuine pursuit; in others, there wasn’t. The key finding was that individuals scoring higher on measures of paranoid and teleological thinking were more confident in seeing chases that weren’t actually happening – essentially experiencing what the researchers termed “social hallucinations.”
While the immediate therapeutic applications aren’t clear, the research opens new avenues for risk assessment. “One thing we’re thinking about now is whether we can find eye tests that predict someone’s risk for psychosis,” Corlett noted. “Maybe there is some very quick perceptual task that can identify when someone might need to talk to a clinician.”
Glossary
- Paranoid thinking
- A pattern of thought characterized by believing others intend to cause harm
- Teleological thinking
- The tendency to excessively attribute purpose and meaning to events or actions
- Social hallucination
- Perceiving social interactions or intentions where none actually exist
Test Your Knowledge
What was the basic task participants had to perform in the study?
Participants had to watch dots moving on a screen and determine whether one dot was chasing another dot.
How did paranoid thinking and teleological thinking differ in the study results?
People with paranoid thinking had trouble identifying which dot was being chased, while those with high teleological thinking struggled to identify which dot was doing the chasing.
What is the significance of the observation about congenital blindness in relation to schizophrenia?
The fact that very few people with congenital blindness develop schizophrenia suggests that visual processing may play an important role in how psychotic symptoms develop.
How might these findings impact future clinical practice according to the researchers?
The researchers suggest that simple visual perception tests could potentially be developed to help identify individuals who might be at risk for psychosis and need clinical evaluation.
Enjoy this story? Subscribe to our newsletter at scienceblog.substack.com.