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.

Introduction Positive psychotic experiences are associated with increased rate of white noise speech illusions in patients and their relatives. However, findings have been conflicting to what degree speech illusions are associated with subclinical expression of psychosis in the general population. The aim of this study was to investigate the link between speech illusions and positive psychotic experiences in a general population sample. In addition, the hypothesis that speech illusions are on the pathway from known risk factors for psychosis (childhood adversity and recent life events) to subthreshold expression of psychosis, was examined. Methods In a follow-up design (baseline and 6 months) the association between the number of white noise speech illusions and self-reported psychotic experiences, assessed with the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE), was investigated in a general population sample (n = 112). In addition, associations between speech illusions and childhood adversity and life events, using the Childhood Experiences of Care and Abuse questionnaire and the Social Readjustment Rating Scale, were investigated. Results No association was found between the CAPE positive scale and the number of white noise speech illusions. The CAPE positive scale was significantly associated with childhood adversity between 12 and 16 years (B = 0.980 p = 0.001) and life events (B = 0.488 p = 0.044). The number of speech illusions showed no association with either life events or childhood adversity. Conclusion In the nonclinical population, the pathway from risk factors to expression of subclinical psychotic experiences does not involve white noise speech illusions as an intermediate outcome.

BackgroundThere is evidence that experimentally elicited auditory illusions in the general population index risk for psychotic symptoms. As little is known about underlying cortical mechanisms of auditory illusions, an experiment was conducted to analyze processing of auditory illusions in a general population sample. In a follow-up design with two measurement moments (baseline and 6 months), participants (n = 83) underwent the White Noise task under simultaneous recording with a 14-lead EEG. An auditory illusion was defined as hearing any speech in a sound fragment containing white noise.ResultsA total number of 256 speech illusions (SI) were observed over the two measurements, with a high degree of stability of SI over time. There were 7 main effects of speech illusion on the EEG alpha band—the most significant indicating a decrease in activity at T3 (t = −4.05). Other EEG frequency bands (slow beta, fast beta, gamma, delta, theta) showed no significant associations with SI.ConclusionSIs are characterized by reduced alpha activity in non-clinical populations. Given the association of SIs with psychosis, follow-up research is required to examine the possibility of reduced alpha activity mediating SIs in high risk and symptomatic populations.

People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement: