The Neural Activity Patterns That Make Us Hallucinate

Hallucinations may arise from both imprecise sensory information and cognitive bias

Image: Hallucinations of the Quixote, by Dany Duquefer

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


My phone's alarm clock woke me up this morning. I looked in the direction of the music, found my phone on the bedside table, and reached to grab it. I was instantly surprised by its light weight, and realized that instead of my brick-like iPhone 6 (which I keep protected in a heavy waterproof, childproof case), I was holding a pocket notebook of roughly equal size.

Visual perception is thought to encompass not only the sensory input arriving to our retinas, but also our expectations about the nature of our surroundings. This means that perceptual errors can occur when sensory entries are noisy or weak, and also when we have erroneous expectations about the objects we expect to encounter in our visual environment.   

My misperception this morning is a case in point: I was sleepy, the light in the bedroom was dim (so the sensory input was weak), and I was strongly anticipating to find a phone on my bedside table. Had the light been more intense, or my expectation less so, I might not have made the mistake.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In a study published last September, neuroscientists Auréliane Pajani, Peter Kok, Sid Kouider, and Floris P. de Lange set out to investigate whether spontaneous neural activity patterns (which may indicate prior expectations) in the primary visual cortex of the brain might predispose an observe to experience hallucinations (false perceptions in the absence of a sensory signal). To answer this question, the team used fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) to scan the brains of study participants while they indicated whether gratings having specific orientations (slants) were present on a computer screen.

The experimental setup was such that it predisposed the subjects to experience hallucinations: First, the researchers degraded the gratings, by embedding them in visual noise (which looks like the TV snow you see between channels). Sometimes the visual noise contained no gratings, which provided the opportunity for hallucinated gratings to arise. Second, the participants knew that only one grating orientation would be presented, and that the presented orientation would be either 45 degrees or 135 degrees. This knowledge biased participants to develop very specific perceptual expectations.

Previous research had found similar patterns of cortical neural activity for sensory expectations and for actual targets. Other work had noticed equivalent patterns in spontaneous fluctuations in cortical activity. But it was not known whether such fluctuations might predispose the observer to hallucinate.

Pajani and her colleagues found that most of the subjects experienced repeated hallucinations over the course of the experiment–seeing oriented gratings were there were none. Hallucination occurrence was linked to two neural characteristics: a low level of neural activity prior to the visual stimulus (which may or may not have contained an oriented grating), as well as neural activity patterns biased towards the expected grating.

The researchers concluded that hallucinations arose from both imprecise sensory information and cognitive bias. Neither factor, by itself, may suffice to make us see something that is not there..., but in the real world the combination can be perilous, and sometimes fatal. My misperception this morning had zero consequences, and I would have already forgotten all about it, had I not been writing about the topic today. But what if instead of mistaking a notebook for a phone, we mistook a phone for a gun? We may not be able to do much about the quality of the information that arrives to our senses, but we should strive to eliminate cognitive biases that might push our perception in unwelcome directions.      

Susana Martinez-Conde is a professor of ophthalmology, neurology, and physiology and pharmacology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, N.Y. She is author of the Prisma Prize–winning Sleights of Mind, along with Stephen Macknik and Sandra Blakeslee, and of Champions of Illusion, along with Stephen Macknik.

More by Susana Martinez-Conde

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe