Content uploaded by Ruvanee Vilhauer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ruvanee Vilhauer on Oct 31, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Cognition and Neurosciences
Characteristics of inner reading voices
RUVANEE P. VILHAUER
New York University, New York, USA
Vilhauer, R. P. (2017). Characteristics of inner reading voices. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.
This study examined the phenomenological characteristics of inner speech during silent reading (inner reading voices or IRVs), a type of inner speechthat
may be particularly amenable to empirical study. A survey was conducted in the general population to assess IRV frequency, location, number, identity,
and controllability, and auditory qualities of IRVs. Of 570 survey respondents, 80.7% reported sometimes or always hearing an inner voice during silent
reading, and the remaining 19.3% reported always understanding words being read without hearing an inner voice. Results indicated that IRVs are a
routine experience for many, with 34.2% of respondents with IRVs hearing an IRV every time something was read, and 45% reporting an IRV often. Most
respondents reported IRVs with specific auditory qualities such as gender, accent, pitch, loudness, and emotional tone. IRVs were reported in participants’
own voices, as well as in the voices of other people. Some respondents reported being unable to control any aspect of their IRVs, while others could
control one or several aspects. These results indicate that there is considerable individual variation in inner speech during silent reading.
Key words: Inner speech, auditory hallucination, silent reading, intrusive thoughts, inner reading voice, subvocal speech.
Ruvanee P.Vilhauer,New York University,6 Washington Place,New York 10003,USA. E-mail: ruvanee.vilhauer@nyu.edu
INTRODUCTION
Although inner speech is difficult to study, significant advances
have been made in recent years. Many authors now consider inner
speech to have both articulatory (motor or subvocalization) and
auditory (sensory or imagery) components (Alderson-Day &
Fernyhough, 2015; Evans, McGuire & David, 2000; Hurlburt,
Heavey & Kelsey 2013; Perrone-Bertolotti, Rapin, Lachaux,
Baciu & Loevenbruck, 2014). Thus, inner speech could be
defined as the “subjective phenomenon of talking to oneself, of
developing an auditory-articulatory image of speech without
uttering a sound”(Levine et al., 1982, p. 391).
One factor that motivates interest in inner speech is its potential
connection to auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs), which are
considered symptomatic of several psychological disorders
(American Psychiatric Association, 2013), but also occur in
individuals without a diagnosable disorder (cf. Johns, Kompus,
Connell et al., 2014). Many theories posit that AVHs arise when
inner speech is misattributed to a source other than the self
(cf. Allen, Aleman & Mcguire, 2007; Garrett & Silva, 2003).
Similarities between inner speech and AVHs are important
considerations when considering the plausibility of these theories.
In fact, some objections to these theories (Jones, 2010; Wu, 2012)
are based on the grounds that AVHs usually have auditory
qualities (e.g. Nayani & David, 1996) such as gender and
loudness, and often occur in voices distinct from the hearer’s own
voice, while inner speech is assumed to not have these properties
(Jones, 2010: Wu, 2012).
Until recently, limited evidence has been available to contradict
these assumptions. Langdon et al. (2009) found that 37.9% of
clinically-diagnosed individuals with AVHs and 24.5% of healthy
controls with no AVHs reported inner speech that sometimes had
the sound quality of a voice, but did not explore these vocal
qualities further. Hurlburt et al. (2013), using Descriptive
Experience Sampling, found that inner speech often has the vocal
qualities of speech spoken aloud, such as volume, inflection,
hesitations and emotion, but occurs only rarely in other people’s
voices. However, studies using the Varieties of Inner Speech
Questionnaire (VISQ) suggested that inner speech in other
people’s voices occurs in a substantial minority of individuals
(Alderson-Day & Fernyhough, 2015; McCarthy-Jones &
Fernyhough, 2011). A recent qualitative study (Vilhauer, 2016)
provided additional evidence by demonstrating that, while reading
silently, many people experience inner voices that are not only
subjectively audible, but often have identities distinct from the
hearer.
Although interest in inner speech during silent reading has a
long history (Pintner, 1913), few empirical studies have examined
the auditory quality of inner speech while reading (Perrone-
Bertolotti et al., 2014). Some brain-imaging studies have
demonstrated activation of voice-selective areas in the auditory
cortex during silent reading (Perrone-Bertolotti, Kujala, Vidal
et al., 2012; Yao, Belin & Scheepers, 2011), and some
experimental work suggests that readers who engage in auditory
imagery may hear words as they read silently (Alexander &
Nygaard, 2008; Kurby, Magliano & Rapp, 2009). Others have
shown that features of overt speech, such as accents, are
preserved in inner speech during silent reading (Filik & Barber,
2011).
Inner speech while reading (which will be referred to hereafter
as inner reading voices, or IRVs), like other types of inner
speech, could potentially provide insight into AVHs. IRVs could
be especially useful because they may be more conducive to
empirical study than other types of inner speech. As other
researchers have noted (Alderson-Day & Fernyhough, 2015), the
study of inner speech presents methodological challenges. Self-
report instruments that require participants to generalize their
experiences of inner speech, such as questionnaires and diaries,
© 2017 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2017 DOI: 10.1111/sjop.12368
provide useful information, but data may be distorted by recall
biases and participants’preconceptions about inner speech
(Alderson-Day & Fernyhough, 2015; Hurlburt et al., 2013).
Experience sampling, a method which requires participants to
describe their experiences at randomly sampled moments, is a
promising alternative to studying inner speech, but is still subject
to self-report biases. Although some have argued that a variation
of this method, Descriptive Experience Sampling, can circumvent
these biases by iteratively training participants to describe their
experiences (Hurlburt et al., 2013), it is possible that such
training may also affect the way participants respond.
Because of these methodological problems, as noted elsewhere,
inner speech may be best studied using a combination of methods
(Alderson-Day & Fernyhough, 2015). Unfortunately, most
spontaneous inner speech is difficult to study experimentally.
IRVs, on the other hand, can be studied experimentally, because
unlike other types of inner speech, they can both arise
spontaneously and yet be tied to a specific activity, namely
reading (i.e., in some individuals, IRVs arise whenever reading
occurs, so it would be possible to elicit spontaneous inner speech
in such individuals by having them read silently during an
experimental situation). However, more needs to be known about
the phenomenology of IRVs before we can develop standardized
instruments to measure this type of inner speech, and go beyond
surveys to design experimental studies.
The objective of the present study was to examine IRV
phenomenology, using a survey design. The research question
addressed was, “What are the phenomenological characteristics of
IRVs?”The intent was not to assess the prevalence of IRVs or
their characteristics in a random sample, but rather to describe the
phenomenon of IRVs in as much detail as possible.
METHOD
Instrument
IRVs were defined as inner voices experienced while reading without
moving the lips. As no standardized questionnaire about IRVs currently
exists, an instrument, the Inner Experiences While Reading Questionnaire
(IEWR), was designed to address the research question, following
established guidelines for questionnaire design. Content of questionnaire
items was based partly on results of a qualitative study of IRVs (Vilhauer,
2016). Content validity was further addressed by seeking input from
individuals who reported having IRVs. The researcher’s familiarity with
the published literature on AVHs also contributed to questionnaire
construction; an effort was made to include items that would enable
exploration of phenomenological similarities and differences between
AVHs and IRVs. The draft questionnaire was piloted on a small sample
that included both individuals with and without IRVs. The questionnaire
was revised based on the adequacy of questionnaire items to capture these
individuals’inner experiences of reading. The revised questionnaire was
piloted on another small sample to ensure face validity.
Questionnaire items 1–6 assessed demographic variables, including
age, gender, and enjoyment and frequency of reading. A 4-point scale
was used to assess enjoyment of reading, from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very
much), and reading frequency (of print books, print periodicals, and
digital content), from 0 (never) to 3 (very often). Item 7 asked whether
respondents heard an imagined inner voice while reading the
questionnaire or just understood the questions without hearing an
imagined inner voice. Item 8 asked whether respondents ever heard an
IRV. Respondents who answered affirmatively to item 8 were directed
to additional items. Item 9 asked about reading occasions in which
IRVs were heard. Items 10–13 asked about IRV frequency, location,
identity and number, respectively. Items 14–18 assessed auditory quality
of IRVs by asking about gender, accent, pitch, loudness, and emotional
tone of voices heard. Item 19 also attempted to assess auditory quality
of IRVs, by asking whether respondents thought IRVs like theirs could
be present in congenitally deaf individuals. Items 20 and 21 were open-
ended, and asked respondents to explain their affirmative or negative
answers to item 19. Item 22 and 23 asked whether IRVs were
controllable, and if so, which qualities were controllable. Item 24 and
25 asked, respectively, whether IRVs positively or negatively affect
reading experience, with response choices being “yes,”“no”and
“unsure.”Respondents who were unsure were asked to explain why.
Item 26 asked whether respondents thought others had IRVs.
RECRUITMENT
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB)
at Felician University, where the study was initiated, and
subsequently exempted from review by the IRB at New York
University. The online tool SurveyMonkey was used to
administer the questionnaire, which was widely disseminated
online, via social networks and web forums. A link to the
questionnaire was posted, along with a brief explanatory message
and an invitation to share the link, on a number of Facebook
groups dealing with topics such as psychology, neuroscience,
reading, creative writing, and creativity. Because the study sought
to describe IRVs in the general population, Facebook groups
dealing specifically with psychopathology or voice hearing were
excluded. The explanatory message posted mentioned that only
those 18 or older were eligible to participate, that the
questionnaire was about the range of normal inner experiences
people had while reading, and that some people hear voices while
reading while others do not. The questionnaire link was also
posted on several personal Facebook pages of individuals known
to the author. These Facebook pages had large numbers of
‘friends’who were not associated with the author, and who were
highly diverse with respect to demographic variables such as age,
gender, education, relationship status, economic status,
occupation, racial/ethnic/religious background, and country of
residence. In addition, the link was posted on several online
reading-related forums with an international reach. The
questionnaire was anonymous, and usually took between 2 and 10
minutes to complete. Responses were collected between 8/29/14
and 11/23/14.
PARTICIPANTS
A total of 574 individuals began the questionnaire, and 571 and
570, respectively, responded to the two items that asked whether
IRVs were present, although only 414 completed the
questionnaire without skipping any items. The age distribution
(N =570) was: 17.5% 18–25 years, 29.7% 26–40, 41.1% 41–59,
and 11.8% 60 years or above. The sample was 69.6% female and
29.9% male, with 0.5% identifying as “other.”Reading
enjoyment was high, with 77.8% reporting enjoying reading very
much. A majority (62.4%) reported reading books very often, and
91.3% reported reading digital content, including Internet content
and text messages, very often. Frequency of reading print
periodicals was more widely distributed, with 40.6% reporting
reading them very often.
© 2017 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
2R. P. Vilhauer Scand J Psychol (2017)
RESULTS
Of 571 respondents, 68.7% reported hearing an inner voice while
reading the questionnaire, while 31.4% reported understanding the
words without hearing an inner voice. Four hundred and sixty
(80.7%) of 570 respondents reported that they sometimes or
always heard an inner voice while reading without moving the
lips, and the rest (19.3%) reported that they always understood
words being read without hearing an inner voice. Although all
460 respondents who reported having IRVs had the option to
complete the remainder of the questionnaire, 35 did not do so,
and others skipped one or more questions. Consequently, sample
size for the remaining questions, which addressed IRV
phenomenology, varied from 425 to 411 respondents, all of
whom reported having IRVs.
Significantly more females reported sometimes or always
having IRVs than did males (v
2
(df =1, N =566) =8.72, p=
0.003). The likelihood of having IRVs was different in different
age groups (v
2
(df =3, N=566) =32.48, p<= 0.001), with
progressively fewer individuals reporting IRVs as age increased.
Table 1 shows data relating to IRV frequency and Table 2
shows data relating to IRV location, number, and identity.
Table 3 shows data on auditory qualities of IRVs. A total of
422 participants responded to an additional item about emotional
tone of IRVs; of these, 97 respondents (23.9%) reported that
IRVs always had the same emotional tone no matter what was
read, while 294 (69.7%) reported that emotional tone varied, and
31 (7.4%) were unable to tell what the emotional tone was like.
Analysis of respondents’responses to Items 19–21 is beyond
the scope of this paper and will be reported elsewhere. Table 4
shows data relating to IRV controllability.
Out of a total of 411 who responded to the question about the
impact of IRVs on reading experience, most (311; 75.7%) agreed
that having an IRV enhanced reading experience (e.g. made it
more vivid, engaging, interesting or fun), while 54 (13.1%)
disagreed and 46 (11.2%) were unsure. Out of a total of 413 who
responded, a minority (114; 27.6%) agreed that having an IRV
Table 1. Frequency of IRVs
N Valid %
How often IRV is heard 427
Every time something is read 146 34.2
Often 192 45.0
Sometimes 86 20.1
Only a few times 2 0.5
Never
a
1 0.23
Reading occasions when IRV is heard
b
425
Print books 395 92.9
Print periodicals (newspapers, journals,
magazines)
274 64.5
Internet content such as blogs 298 70.1
Emails or text messages 282 66.4
Social network posts 271 63.8
Letters or notes (printed or handwritten) 315 74.1
Labels (food containers, medicine bottles, other
commercial products)
165 38.8
Signs (walls or shop windows) 162 38.1
Notes:
a
this response appears to have been selected in error, since
responses to other items indicate that this respondent does have IRVs.
b
respondents could select all options that applied.
Table 2. IRV location, number and identity
N Valid %
IRV location 428
Inside head 384 89.7
With ears 3 0.7
Both with ears and inside head 23 5.4
Neither with ears nor inside head 4 0.9
Unsure 14 3.3
Number of IRVs heard over reading lifetime 424
One 127 30.0
Two 3 0.7
More than two 170 40.1
Unsure 124 29.3
Whose voice is heard
a
427
Own 300 70.2
Story character 182 42.6
Sender of a message 163 38.1
Family member 56 13.1
Celebrity or famous person 50 11.7
Friend 48 11.2
Teacher or acquaintance 27 6.3
Recognizable, unidentified voice 73 17.1
Unrecognized voice 149 34.9
Note:
a
respondents could select all options that applied.
Table 3. Auditory qualities of IRVs
Gender
(N =426)
N
(Valid %)
Accent
(N =423)
N
(Valid %)
Pitch
(N =423)
N
(Valid %)
Loudness
(N =420)
N
(Valid %)
Always the
same as
reader’s
146 (34.3) 166 (39.2) 144 (34.0) 122 (29.1)
a
Always different
than reader’s
3 (0.7) 6 (1.4) 25 (5.9) 63 (12.0)
b
Varies
depending on
voice or on
what is read
216 (50.7) 212 (50.1) 206 (48.7) 170 (40.5)
Not able to tell
what it is like
61 (14.3) 39 (9.2) 48 (11.4) 65 (15.5)
Notes:
a
the same as reader’s normal speaking voice.
b
different loudness
than reader’s normal speaking voice.
Table 4. Controllability of IRVs
N Valid %
Can change any quality of IRV at will 416
Yes 300 72.1
No 116 27.9
IRV quality that can be changed at will
a
416
To hear or not hear IRV 79 19.0
Whose voice is heard 148 35.6
Emotional tone 236 56.7
Rate of reading 211 50.7
Pitch 205 49.3
Accent 207 49.8
Loudness 152 36.5
Note:
a
respondents could select all options that applied.
© 2017 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Characteristics of inner reading voices 3Scand J Psychol (2017)
made reading harder (e.g. made it slower, was distracting), while
259 (62.7%) disagreed and 40 (9.7%) were unsure.
A majority of the 413 participants with IRVs who responded to
the final question (213; 51.6%) were of the opinion that most
people had IRVs, while only 18 (3.9%) of these respondents were
of the opinion that most people did not have IRVs. One hundred
and eighty four (44.6%) were unsure.
DISCUSSION
A large majority of respondents in the sample reported
subjectively audible IRVs (i.e., an experience of hearing a voice
while reading). At least one study has shown that a similarly high
proportion of people have subjectively audible inner speech when
not reading, with 91.7% of study participants from the general
population indicating that they experienced thoughts with sound
(Cuevas-Yust, 2014). The present study indicated that IRVs are a
routine experience for many, with 34.2% of respondents with
IRVs hearing an IRV every time something was read, and 45%
reporting an IRV often. It is worthwhile to consider what is meant
by “hearing”or “audible”in this context. The distinction, if any,
between the experiences of auditory imagery and auditory
perception is certainly important, but no studies have been able to
clearly make this distinction. The only ways that researchers have
examined whether auditory imagery is phenomenologically
similar to auditory perception is by studying auditory qualities
such as loudness, pitch, tone, depth, and gender, or by examining
brain areas activated during auditory imagery and perception (for
a review of research, see Hubbard, 2013).
Few studies of inner speech have examined specific auditory
qualities, but it has been demonstrated that inner speech when
not reading can have loudness (Cuevas-Yust, 2014; Hurlburt
et al., 2013) and emotional tone (Hurlburt et al., 2013). Accents
(Filik & Barber, 2011) as well as other auditory qualities
(Vilhauer, 2016) have previously been demonstrated in IRVs.
In the present study, an overwhelming majority of survey
respondents reported IRVs with specific auditory qualities such
as loudness, accent, gender, pitch, and/or emotional tone.
Auditory characteristics often varied according to specific IRV
heard or what was read, although a substantial proportion of
respondents reported that these characteristics always resembled
those of their own speaking voices. If the number of specific
auditory qualities present were considered an indicator of
vividness, vividness of IRVs would appear to occur on a
continuum, with accent being the quality that most could
characterize. However, it must be noted that participants were
not specifically asked to rate the vividness of their IRVs, or
asked whether their IRVs were experienced as vividly as a
sound heard out loud.
Studies of inner speech when not reading have not examined
whether such inner speech is experienced as being heard with the
ears or inside the head. With respect to IRVs, the present study
indicated that, although a minority reported hearing IRVs with
their ears, in other ways, or were unsure of voice location, a large
majority reported hearing them inside the head.
Little is yet known about the controllability of inner speech
while reading, as only one other study (Vilhauer, 2016) has even
touched on this aspect of IRVs. In the present study, although
72.1% of respondents with IRVs could change some quality of
their IRVs, IRVs appeared to be automatic in most, with only
19% being able to choose whether or not to hear an IRV when
text was read. In other words, the onset of IRVs during an
instance of reading is not under voluntary control for many
people. Only 35.6% could control whose voice was heard, and
36.5% the loudness of their IRVs. Other qualities, such as reading
rate, pitch, accent, and emotional tone, could not be controlled by
many respondents. The number of qualities people could control
varied, suggesting that controllability may occur on a continuum.
Although the current study did not examine whether the offset, or
discontinuation, of IRVs is always under voluntary control, a
previous study (Vilhauer, 2015) suggested that, at least in rare
cases, offset may not be voluntarily controllable, with IRVs
reportedly continuing after the cessation of reading, thus
apparently being continuous with subjectively audible thoughts.
We do not know whether IRVs are similar to other types of inner
speech in controllability, as no studies have examined the
controllability of inner speech when not reading. Although
intrusive thoughts (Moritz & Larøi, 2008) could conceivably be
considered instances of uncontrollable inner speech, they have not
previously been considered in this light.
Only one previous study has examined the identity of IRVs
(Vilhauer, 2016). Several studies have shown that other people’s
voices occur in other types of inner speech as well (Alderson-Day
& Fernyhough, 2015; Hurlburt et al., 2013; McCarthy-Jones &
Fernyhough, 2011), but the identity of those voices has not been
explored. In the present study, more than two-thirds of
respondents had IRVs in their own voices, sometimes in addition
to IRVs in others’voices. The most frequently reported non-self,
recognizable identities were those of story characters and people
who sent the respondents messages (emails, texts or notes), but
voices of family members, friends, acquaintances, and famous
people were also reported. In addition, recognizable but
unidentified voices, and unrecognized voices were reported.
This study has some limitations. Because the questionnaire is a
novel one, no information is yet available on its psychometric
properties; its test-retest reliability has not yet been established,
and its relationship to other measures of inner speech, such as the
VISQ, has also not yet been assessed. A study is underway to
address these limitations. Although wide distribution of the
questionnaire in the present study was expected to increase sample
diversity, individuals who enjoy reading may be over-represented
in the sample, and only individuals with access to the Internet, and
who are comfortable using computers, could have completed the
questionnaire. Nevertheless, the sample used in this study may be
as or more heterogeneous than samples used in other published
studies of inner speech phenomenology, which have typically
included only college students as participants (e.g. Alderson-Day
& Fernyhough, 2015; McCarthy-Jones & Fernyhough, 2011).
It must be noted that it is not possible to determine from this
study whether IRVs are instances of inner speaking or inner
hearing. As Hurlburt et al. (2013) have noted, these two forms of
inner experience are not easily distinguished without training.
IRVs can be conceptualized not only as articulatory inner speech,
but also as vivid auditory imagery. The present study would then
suggest that individuals differ in spontaneous imagery, with some,
but not others, routinely and involuntarily hearing voices while
© 2017 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
4R. P. Vilhauer Scand J Psychol (2017)
reading. The results also suggest that in individuals with IRVs,
imagery may occur on a continuum with respect to both vividness
and volition.
Studies of differences in imagery vividness between individuals
with and without hallucinations, using procedures in which
participants were directed to create imagery, have produced
inconsistent results (Brett & Starker, 1977; Mintz & Alpert, 1972;
Starker & Jolin, 1982). No studies have examined whether
hallucinators (whether or not they have a clinical diagnosis) are
more likely than non-hallucinators to have spontaneous imagery,
such as vivid inner reading voices. This idea may merit
investigation, as such a finding may indicate that vivid
spontaneous imagery could, along with other factors (Seal,
Aleman & McGuire, 2004), contribute to propensity to AVHs.
Previous research provides some support for this idea. For
example, Franck, Rouby, Daprati, Dal
ery, Marie-Cardine &
Georgieff (2000) reported that study participants diagnosed with
schizophrenia, and particularly those with ongoing hallucinations,
were more likely than normal controls to confuse words they had
read silently with words they had spoken aloud. Others have
noted that voice-hearers, regardless of diagnostic status, tend to
report thoughts and intrusions that are more audible and vivid
than non-voice-hearers (Cuevas-Yust, 2014; Moritz & Larøi,
2008).
IRVs appear to be routine, everyday experiences that are tied to
the activity of reading, while AVHs are complex, heterogeneous
phenomena that are, at least in the clinical population, often
distressing. Most individuals who experience IRVs probably do
not find them distressing, as more than three-quarters of
respondents with IRVs in the present study indicated that IRVs
enhance enjoyment of reading. We do not yet understand how, or
whether, normal inner speech experiences may be related to
AVHs. Are there ways in which the two kinds of experiences are
similar? In what specific ways are they different? Are there
particular circumstances in which normal experiences of inner
speech could take on a different quality, or become distressing?
Further study of IRVs may provide insight into these questions.
The author would like to thank Charles Fernyhough for his helpful
comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
REFERENCES
Alderson-Day, B. & Fernyhough, C. (2015). Relations among
questionnaire and experience sampling measures of inner speech: a
smartphone app study. Frontiers in Psychology,6, 517. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00517.
Alexander, J. D. & Nygaard, L. C. (2008). Reading voices and hearing
text: Talker-specific auditory imagery in reading. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,34,
446–459.
Allen, P., Aleman, A. & Mcguire, P. K. (2007). Inner speech models of
auditory verbal hallucinations: Evidence from behavioural and
neuroimaging studies. International Review of Psychiatry,19, 407–415.
American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5. Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Association.
Brett, E. A. & Starker, S. (1977). Auditory imagery and hallucinations.
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,164, 394–400.
Cuevas-Yust, C. (2014). Do thoughts have sound? Differences between
thoughts and auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia. The Spanish
Journal of Psychology,17, ID E27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/sjp.
2014.29.
Evans, C. L., McGuire, P. K. & David, A. S. (2000). Is auditory imagery
defective in patients with auditory hallucinations? Psychological
Medicine,30, 137–148.
Filik, R. & Barber, E. (2011). Inner speech during silent reading reflects
the reader’s regional accent. PLoS ONE,6, e25782. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0025782.
Franck, N., Rouby, P., Daprati, E., Dal
ery, J., Marie-Cardine, M. &
Georgieff, N. (2000). Confusion between silent and overt reading in
schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research,41, 357–364.
Garrett, M. & Silva, R. (2003). Auditory hallucinations, source
monitoring, and the belief that “voices”are real. Schizophrenia
Bulletin,29,445–457.
Hubbard, T. L. (2013). Auditory aspects of auditory imagery. In S. Lacey
& R. Lawson (Eds.), Multisensory imagery (pp. 51–76). New York:
Springer.
Hurlburt, R. T., Heavey, C. L. & Kelsey, J. M. (2013). Toward a
phenomenology of inner speaking. Consciousness and Cognition,22,
1477–1494.
Johns, L. C., Kompus, K., Connell, M., Humpston, C., Lincoln, T. M.,
Longden, E., et al. (2014). Auditory verbal hallucinations in persons
with and without a need for care. Schizophrenia Bulletin,40, S255–
S264.
Jones, S. R. (2010). Do we need multiple models of auditory verbal
hallucinations? Examining the phenomenological fit of cognitive and
neurological models. Schizophrenia Bulletin,36, 566–575.
Kurby, C. A., Magliano, J. P. & Rapp, D. N. (2009). Those voices in your
head: Activation of auditory images during reading. Cognition,112,
457–461.
Langdon, R., Jones, S.R., Connaughton, E. & Fernyhough, C. (2009). The
phenomenology of inner speech: Comparison of schizophrenia patients
with auditory verbal hallucinations and healthy controls. Psychological
Medicine,39, 655–663.
Larøi, F., Sommer, I. E., Blom, J. D., Fernyhough, C., Hugdahl, K. &
Johns, L. C., et al. (2012). The characteristic features of auditory
verbal hallucinations in clinical and nonclinical groups: State-of-the-art
overview and future directions. Schizophrenia Bulletin,38, 724–733.
Levine, D. N., Calvanio, R. & Popovics, A. (1982). Language in the
absence of inner speech. Neuropsychologia,20, 391–409.
McCarthy-Jones, S. & Fernyhough, C. (2011). The varieties of inner
speech: Links between quality of inner speech and psychopathological
variables in a sample of young adults. Consciousness and Cognition,
20,1586–1593.
Mintz, S. & Alpert, M. (1972). Imagery vividness, reality testing, and
schizophrenic hallucinations. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,79,
310–316.
Moritz, S. & Larøi, F. (2008). Differences and similarities in the sensory
and cognitive signatures of voice-hearing, intrusions and thoughts.
Schizophrenia Research,102,96–107.
Nayani, T. H. & David, A. S. (1996). The auditory hallucination: a
phenomenological survey. Psychological Medicine,26, 177–189.
Perrone-Bertolotti, M., Kujala, J., Vidal, J. R., Hamame, C. M., Ossandon,
T., Bertrand, O., et al. (2012). How silent is silent reading?
Intracerebral evidence for top-down activation of temporal voice areas
during reading. The Journal of Neuroscience,32, 17554–17562.
Perrone-Bertolotti, M., Rapin, L., Lachaux, J. P., Baciu, M. &
Loevenbruck, H. (2014). What is that little voice inside my head? Inner
speech phenomenology, its role in cognitive performance, and its
relation to self-monitoring. Behavioural Brain Research,261, 220–239.
Pintner, R. (1913). Inner speech during silent reading. Psychological
Review,20, 129–153.
Seal, M., Aleman, A. & McGuire, P. (2004). Compelling imagery,
unanticipated speech and deceptive memory: Neurocognitive models
of auditory verbal hallucinations in schizophrenia. Cognitive
Neuropsychiatry,9,43–72.
Starker, S. & Jolin, A. (1982). Imagery and hallucination in
schizophrenic patients. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,
170, 448–451.
© 2017 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Characteristics of inner reading voices 5Scand J Psychol (2017)
Vilhauer, R. P. (2016). Inner reading voices: An overlooked form of inner
speech, Psychosis: Psychological, Social and Integrative Approaches,
8,37–47.
Wu, W. (2012). Explaining schizophrenia: Auditory verbal hallucination
and self-monitoring. Mind & Language,27,86–107.
Yao, B., Belin, P. & Scheepers, C. (2011). Silent reading of direct versus
indirect speech activates voice-selective areas in the auditory cortex.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,23, 3146–3152.
Received 13 January 2017, accepted 29 March 2017
© 2017 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
6R. P. Vilhauer Scand J Psychol (2017)
