From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeHallucination was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 14, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Hallucination:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup : See Also
  • Copyedit : the whole page
  • Expand : Auditory aspects, general other biological aspects (brain, etc)
  • NPOV : the 'Hearing Voices Society' might need to be rethought
  • Verify : 'Hearing Voices Society'


I have tried to correct the spelling of 'Sidgewick, H.' in the References section, but could not work out how to get at it! The Sidgwick in question is the Cambridge moral philosopher Henry Sidgwick (q.v. - he has an excellent entry in Wikipedia in his own right). Ranger2006

"Lexical hallucinations"?[edit]

I could find no mention of this type of hallucination as described by Oliver Sacks of page 70 of his new book "The Mind's Eye", which apparently results form "disorders of the visual pathway", and which have apparently been studied by Dominic ffytche. Not good enough. This whole article has a definite bias towards offering psychiatric rather than neurological explanations for hallucinations.

Difference between synaesthesia and hallucination?[edit]

I could find absolutely nothing in this article that would help to explain the difference between synaesthesia and hallucination, in fact I could find no mention of synesthesia at all. Not good enough.

Answer: Synesthesia is simpler than a hallucinatory effect. It is the accidental association by the brain of some otherwise unrelated things. Once made, this association becomes automatic, and thoughts or perceptions of one of the connected things immediately evokes thoughts or perceptions of the other(s). A hallucination is the accidental and involuntary generation of a stimulus completely within one's own mind. One experiencing a hallucination perceives things which do not actually exist, whereas one experiencing a synesthetic effect generally perceives at first a real object or concept, which is connected with one which is absent or irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Occurs often when extremely fatigued. Perhaps this term could be included. 11:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • What exactly is a pseudo-hallucination? Is it where you think you see an hallucination, but you really don't (an hallucination of an hallucination)? Eridani (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The term "pseudo-hallucination" has been used for situations where a subject has a sensory experience in the absence of an appropriate external stimulus and with the full impact of a real perception, but the subject is aware that it is not real. A better term is "non-psychotic hallucination". --Nasorenga (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The text in the introductory paragraph, "pseudohallucination, which does not mimic real perception, but is not under voluntary control" is not correct. The given definition does include pseudo-hallucinations. I suggest that pseudo-hallucination should be removed from the list of phenomena excluded by the definition. --Nasorenga (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Paranormal theories[edit]

the scumbag was here i will rule the world with my facist veiws on goverment.god is not real? I don't have a problem with the article expressing what some people like to believe, but this is an encyclopedia. ~ Strathmeyer 08:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

hypnagogic hallucinations[edit]

I checked the reference regarding HH and brainstem abnormalities. Most of the time HH are associated with narcolepsy. The authors then say that HH can be associated with brainstem abnormalities, but this is not often the case.

Hearing Voices Movement[edit]

This seems like an important viewpoint to have in the article, but at the same time it's a minority viewpoint, and that should be reflected in the amount of weight it receives as per WP:NPOV. Currently it takes up about half of the very short section on auditory hallucinations. I think it would be better to expand the first part (conventional view), rather than to cut the second part (HVM view). --Ginkgo100 talk 21:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think theres anything much notable about this group. I mean...Theres no point to it. Yes, everyone hears voices in their head, or in white ::noise, especially things like names. Its not at all unusual. So what could this group possibly do? What is the purpose of that group's existance?
Hearing voices is not in itself a sign of mental illness.
Hearing voices is experienced by many people who do not have symptoms that would lead to diagnosis of mental illness.
Hearing voices is often related to problems in life history.
If hearing voices causes distress, the person who hears the voices can learn strategies to cope with the experience. This is often achieved by ::confronting the past problems that lie behind the experience.
No. I cannot support an orginization that is so incompatible with a normal mode of logical existance to the piont that it should not exist. I think ::whoever wrote this might be a bot. (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hallucinations in dreams (while sleeping)[edit]

According to encyclopedia britannica, the dreams are "a hallucinatory experience that occurs during sleep" and in the wikipedia page regarding hallucinations Hallucination there is no single mention of these normal hallucinations which happens during sleep (and happens about 2 hours for 8 hours sleeping Dream). Also, see more about hallucinations in the sane people: Hallucinations_in_the_sane

So, I think that a good ideea is to add a reference to dreams in this page (not only a link, but something like "hallucinations during sleep happens most of the time during REM stage of sleep, and this experience is called a dream).

The article states: "These definitions distinguish hallucinations from the related phenomena of dreaming, which does not involve consciousness". One can be conscious while sleeping: see lucid dreams. Once we become lucid in a dream, does the imagery we perceive automatically become a hallucination? Or were they always hallucinations and being conscious has nothing to do with it? Either way, the former statement is incorrect and I will change it if no objections are posed. Feel free to change it before I do, you'll probably do a better job at it. Thank you. --Thafrenchman (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

moved the following sentences to the talk page for source verifications:

In a 2005 study of pubescent males, it was discovered that 94 out of 100 males who claimed to be sexually attracted to a member of the opposite sex experienced hallucinations in which they sustained erections and inserted their penises in their partners mouths, vaginas, or anuses. Furthermore, in another study, males who claimed to be drug addicts or alcoholics reported hallucinations of drugs and alcohol use.

This sounds a bit absurd to me; there is no reference to this information. Aside from that, this doesn't make any sense: of course men who claim to be sexually active are going to report that they had sex, and people who claim to be alcoholics are going to report having drank alcohol. If they had a true hallucination to that effect, they wouldn't know that it was a hallucination. (Patrick 15:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

This sentence: "Recent reports have also mentioned that it is possible to get musical hallucinations from listening to music for long periods of time." needs citation... which reports exactly? I do not disagree with the statement, in fact I think it is the tip of an iceberg, I am currently reading Oliver Sacks' (a leading neurologist) book Musicophilia that discusses musical hallucinations several times, both Sacks' own experiences of such hallucinations and the experiences of his patients. It does not seem to be necessary for a person to have a neurological illness to experience auditory hallucinations. Perhaps this page needs to be linked to the wiki page on 'ear worms', which also needs expanding. (User:unregistered/Adam 17:56 GMT, 4 January 2008)

Believed to be real?[edit]

I have a problem with this passage from the introduction- "...a perception in the absence of a stimulus that is believed to be genuine, ie. the subject experiences an imaginary stimulus as being real". I never thought that the person experiencing a hallucination had to believe that what they are experiencing is real. The passage seems to be suggesting that if a person is sane enough to understand that what they are seeing is not really there, they are not hallucinating at all. Among other things, this is troublesome because it means that what defines a hallucination centers on higher brain functions rather than sensory perception, and I find that rather counter-intuitive and strange. I will definitely drop my objections if someone shows that the above is the accepted medical definition, but if it is just what someone wrote unsourced I think we should change it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I look for some references. Hallucinations are perception of stimuli that are not there, whether or not the person believes they are real. A person may take a pscyhopdelic drug and see things that are not there, however even if the person knows they are just the result of the drugs, they are still hallucinations.--Expo512 (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

True, IMHO. People can have 'visual disturbances' caused by medically prescribed drugs for instance, or be tripping on acid and know they are tripping. To believe the hallucinations are real, is more like psychosis. Merkinsmum 23:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, I have had major visual hallucinations during migraine attacks. The first time I didn't know it was either a hallucination or a migraine, but I knew the big red and blue patch of light in the middle of my field of vision wasn't real.The Yowser (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What about this?[edit]

Sometiimes, if a person is half-asleep, he/she will visualize images that are not actually there, while fully aware of their surroundings. Is this stated? I can't seem to find it. Lazylaces (Talk to me 13:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like hypnagogia to me, but I'm not really sure. (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, check out the article on hypnagogia for some more information on that. Plus, Google is your friend, and you should look up some sources about that, if you'd like. They're super-abundant on the internet, but I'm not sure very many are verifiable. Quintus314 (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


this article discusses mostly hallucinations of things that are most of the time complex images (i.e. identafiable objects, like seeing people or hearing voices,) and they often occur for a prolonged period of time. is there any information on the hallucinations that i experience, which are often more basic and fleeting (i.e. a wave of static momentarily passes over my vision or the mental 'omnipresence' of an idea or number). does anyone know anything about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Elderly women seeing babies[edit]

Are certain types of halluciations common among certain people? For instance, my great-grandmother (15 years ago), in a couple years before her death, would see babies on the floor. My great aunt recently had the same thing happen. The former had Parkinsons Disease, and the latter has dementia, so I was wondering if that could be the cause. I read about the size aspect being part of Charles Bonnet Syndrome, and that would match my great-grandmother, if she was seeing little poeple and thinking it was babies, but I think my aunt's eyes are working well. (Then again, she had brain cancer, and the radiation plus chemo, and then the cancer possibly returning, has harmed her brain a lot. With how little she communicates right now, they might be going, anyway.)

I know you can't give a medical diagnosis, but my question isn't really about that, it's more about whether "seeing babies" is a special type of hallucination or not. (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Command hallucinations[edit]

Something tells me the article doesn't mention them... EverSince (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What the hell?[edit]

I'm not entirely sure, but I've noticed a problem with the first sentence: "A hallukinashon, in the broadest sense, is a persepshon in the absence of a stimyoulus." Ummm... that's completely confusing. People, seriously, this is NOT Uncyclopedia. You can't just put in a bunch of random crap and call it a joke. I can't revert it back or change it to something more sensible because I don't know what words used to be in the places of "persepshon" and "stimyoulus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Pantheistic experience?[edit]

What is exactly a pantheistic experience?? (mentioned in the stages of hallucinations)__Wayunga (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As someone who was diagnosed with first episode psychosis two years ago and has had several full blown hallucinatory experiences (which usually include lots of auditory, visual and spatial hallucination) from this, I would say in my case the 'stages of hallucination' are accurate. What whoever wrote 'panentheistic experience' was trying to get at was that there may be a heavy spiritual or religious overtone to the hallucinatory experience, with one feeling as if they are god; are part of god and everything. A singular universal being I suppose? I have had this experience myself, so I am just drawing from what I know. Maybe that clears stuff up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple more pennies, if I may[edit]

First, I'd like to raise the question of how reliable a 36 year old text is, in a field as rapidly changing as this one. A lot has changed since 1975.

That said, if my appeal to reason isn't enough to have the article changed, how about one to conscience instead: Religious bias.

As a mental patient (yes, fellow Wikipedians, I'm finally confirming what you've all suspected, I am indeed, crazy as a loon, currently diagnosed schizoaffective) of 40-something years, I came here seeking more understanding, as I was then coming out of a 5-day episode. Fortunately, I was in a very serene state at the time, but I still kinda freaked (pardon my vernacular) when I read the bit about pantheism. I'm sure Visnu and Brahma are offended as well. Just hope Shiva doesn't read it, as I understand he can be pretty ugly when aroused. I can only imagine the consequences of declaring all Hindus insane, should he hear of it.

As a lover of the Goddess myself, (and many other spiritual entities) for at least 56 years, I was shocked to read that my profound religious experience is considered merely a symptom of a mental disorder by the medical community. Before resorting to my usual slash & burn editing style in Wikipedia, I thought it better to set the computer aside and return again with a fresh mind. After I'd cooled down, I understood the text to mean the same as above, a deep spiritual experience, but misleading language or not, the religious bias in the article is still obvious: "One god is OK, but it is nutz to believe in all the gods".

I'm less concerned about any religious issue here, than a humanitarian one. How many people who know they're in trouble will come here for information, only to be put off by the negative and judgmental tone? Perhaps some might avoid seeking help, expecting the same attitude from others, especially caring professionals. How many have already been lost?

Thank y'all for reading this, and perhaps someone who's edits to the page are trusted enough to avoid any flaming or editing wars will have the compassion to set the article right, as it does have some major issues. Terry Yager (talk) /.02 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The unsigned comment above was posted by Terry Yager. Terry Yager (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

 Changes made, feel free to butcher at will...

Terry Yager (talk)

No phantom limb? What am I missing?[edit]

Pun intended, BTW. :-) So, where are phantom limbs on here? I guess it coudl be argued since it's neurons that think they should be feeling something perhaps it doesn't come from the same part of the brain so it can't be a hallucination, but I thought for sure it'd be here. (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Roosevelt University PSYC 336 Project[edit]


1. Jones, Dr. Gemma. "Hallucinations in People with Dementia." - Alzheimer's Society. Jadu Content Management, n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2012. <>

2. DeNoma, Jeanene. "Memory, Cognition, Hallucinations." Memory, Cognition, Hallucinations. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2012. <>.

3. "Hallucinations & False Ideas." Managing Hallucinations and False Ideas in People with Dementia. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2012. <>.

4. "Dementia - Hallucinations and False Ideas." Home. State Goverment of Victoria, n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2012. <>. — Preceding unsigned comment

5. "Hallucinations Information." Hallucinations. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2012. < advice/mental-health/mental-health-a-z/hallucinations/hallucinations-information/>.

6. "Articles Related to Jaynes's Bicameral Mind Theory." Command Hallucinations. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2012. <>.

7. Mayo Clinic. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 23 June 2012. Web. 02 Oct. 2012. <>.

8. "Hallucinations and Schizophrenia." WebMD. WebMD, n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2012. < schizophrenia>. 9. "Drug-Induced Hallucinations." - Distorted Sensory Perceptions. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. <>.

10. Frood, Aaran. "Drug Hallucinations Look Real in the Brain." New Scientist - Life. N.p., 28 Oct. 2011. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. <>. 11. "Focus on Re:Action - Drug Induced Hallucinations." West Midlands Centre For Adverse Drug Reactions, Nov. 2003. Web. 18 Oct. 2012. <>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanFinn20 (talkcontribs) 02:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatsSoAleks (talkcontribs) 01:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 12. "Hallucinations In Schizophrenia Linked To Brain Area That Processes Voices." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 01 Aug. 2007. Web. 30 Oct. 2012. <>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanFinn20 (talkcontribs) 18:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

13. Critchley, Hugo D. "Psychophysiology of Neural, Cognitive and Affective Integration: FMRI and Autonomic Indicants." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 28 Jan. 2009. Web. 05 Nov. 2012. <>.



1.Hallucinations in individuals with Alzheimers

  a. see, hear,smell, and feel things not present


  a.over the counter medicine that causes hallucinations
  b. The different types (hear, see, smell)


  a.(Marijuana, Acid,"Shrooms")
  b. Psychedelics
  c. Deleriants
  d. Natural Hallucinations  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatsSoAleks (talkcontribs) 16:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC) 

Instructor's comments[edit]

  • Group, you posted our banner inside of the to-do template. I've fixed it by removing it from the to-do template and putting it in talk page. I've also reformatting your headings so that our class project sections are organized together and separate from other editors' comments.
  • Your assignment is to expand the Pathophysiology section of the Hallucination article. Appropriate content for this section include what happens in the brain during hallucinations. There are actually a number of brain imaging studies that demonstrate that brain activation during hallucinations are comparable to brain activations during perception. Do your literature searach on medically based databases such as PubMed. Look for secondary sources of information that are reliable (e.g., review articles, chapters). Please edit your outline and references as you find more appropriate information. Thanks!

Neuropsychprof (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Keilana[edit]

Hi everyone! The Pathophysiology section looks good so far. I just have a couple suggestions; I'll put them below in a bulleted list. If you have questions, feel free to either ask in this section or on my talk page. Happy editing! :)

  • This section definitely needs more wikilinks for the reader with less of a grounding in the subject.
  • Your reference templates look good to go, great job!
  • That said, I'm not seeing any other major issues other than the need for expansion. Remember that when you expand, you can divide it into subsections using headers. Let me know if you have any trouble with that.

Great job, I'm looking forward to seeing how your section turns out! All the best, Keilana|Parlez ici 19:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments for Smallman12q[edit]

  • More details/specifics are needed. Why are dopamine and glutamate neurotransmitter abnormalities considered important?
  • Expand on the research. What factors are being researched and why?
  • What are the pathophysiological causes for different hallucinations?

Smallman12q (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Alymp17[edit]

Hi Hallucination people! I really like how you guys have expanded on the rest of the sections, but I am confused, were you supposed to expand on the Pathophysiology section?

Beyond that, you do need to add more wikilinks in your sections and I would like to see more on hallucinations based on sensory deprivation. Are blind people prone to visual hallucinations? Are deaf people prone to auditory?

Make sure you expand on your article a bit more!

Other than that, your edits look pretty good. You need to work on the pathophysiology section! Alymp17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Michellepapandrea Comments[edit]

  • In the section titled, "Visual" you mention Alzheimer's disease and other disorders and I think you should create a subcategory to talk about these disorders. They seem to be just thrown into this section and almost throw off the flow. Also, it seems like you bring up other disorders throughout the entire article so if you had a designated space that lists all the disorders that experience or may experience hallucinations, I think that would really benefit you guys. If you do this, you could simply list what disorders deal with this or talk about what types of disorders experience hallucinations and possibly the commonality of the hallucinations. Otherwise, it wouldn't be necessary to go into such great detail about disorders but I do think it's important to touch on them.
  • Under "Visual" you mention an optical illusion. I think it would be interesting for you to add a picture one in this section.
  • Your addition of the pathophysiologic mechanisms are great; however, the layout of this information seems strange. Maybe playing around with the different layout and format options of Wikipedia would help. The three different mechanisms seem to be too spaced out and would look better if numbered or with bullet points.
  • Under "Visual" you state specific classifications of hallucinations. This section has a lot of information and I believe your article would benefit if you made this it's own subsection.
  • Under "Visual" you briefly touch on the causes of visual hallucinations. I can see you have a category about causes later on in your article so I think moving that information about the visual hallucination causes to the "Cause" section would help organize your information a little bit more. Right now this section (Visual) has a lot of great content, but if the organization was tweaked a bit, the flow would be much more smooth.
  • Your additions to the section titled "Command Hallucinations" are all great. Your topic is overall interesting but so is this type of hallucination. The examples you've included add great detail to your article because they are so specific.
  • Under "Drug Induced Hallucination" the information you've added makes this section understandable. Without your additions, this section would've been very incomplete. Great job.
  • Overall I think the organization of your article can use a little bit of work. Just to make it not only look more appealing but it will help keep your audience interested and make it easier for them to follow. The flow of your article seems to be pretty good and will only improve with better organization. Also, all of your additions and edits are great and really make the content of your article substantial.

Michellepapandrea (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from VWBeetle23[edit]

  • I would suggest more detail, hallucinations can cover so many topics and have alot of case studies presenting research. It would be really interesting to see the types of hallucinations across people's experiences and how they may differ in conditions (i.e. a schizo's vs. a drug abuser {research with cocaine shows halluications, which explains the role of dopamine}). I know of cases where people with tumors in specfic regions result in hallucinations but once the tumor is removed they stop...stuff like that could add more color to your sections not to mention make it more fun to read!
  • I agree about adding subsections on diseases that result in hallucinations and maybe add them as links to other wiki pages

VWBeetle23 (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Aalwaraqi[edit]

  • I like what you guys have so far, although I would say to expand a bit more on the section. You talk alot about visuals and it would probably make for a better subcategory and adding more information on that. Another suggestion I would make is to link conditions that people have with their hallucinations. What do people see more of when they hallucinate? Good job so far.

Aalwaraqi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Daniadams9121[edit]

  • Hey guys, I think what you have so far is good, it is well detailed and has appropriate citations. However, I think you could possibly add more to the article to expand our knowledge of the subject. I agree with others about adding a subsection on diseases that result in hallucinations and what causes these. I think that would be really interesting and would add a lot to my knowledge of the subject. Great job though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Max Frazier Comments[edit]

I like the overall presentation in this article, however, there are a few concerns that arose after going through your page. I would like to see a tad more detail when describing the different types of hallucinations. THe information that was presented was very good, but in a few sections i was left still wanting more. Some sections are a lot more developed than others, some which are warranted, others which are not. For the most part this is a good Wiki, your information is good and i was very interested to read about Hallucinations. Good job guys..!Tothemax4 (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Mary Ruscitti peer review[edit]

I found your section of Psychopathology to be a bit unclear in terms of what is exactly a hallucination because yeah it is mentioned in the introduction, however, don't forget that there can be many kinds such as auditory or visual and it would be helpful to talk about the differences between them briefly. Regarding the two paragraphs you added, I would have liked to see more depth to the theory aspect because not everyone who edits or reads Wikipedia is a Psychology major and may be confused as to what you are trying to say. Just a little explanation as to why Freudian theory matter I think would be a good place to start. Otherwise that, great start to your section and just try to improve it little by little.

User:Maryrus (Usertalk:Maryrus]]) 12:44 p.m. 30 October 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Critique from Sasenick412[edit]

Hey group. Your additions look pretty good however as everyone else stated the pathophysiology section seems weak to me. The content of this article is very interesting but I want to know more. I agree with Alymp17 I want to know about whether blind people or deaf people are more prone to different hallucinations. What specific parts of the brain create the hallucinations? Make sure when adding information you word things as simply as possible and use more wiki links! I really like this topic, wish I had it. Sasenick412 (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to the evaluations[edit]

Thanks for all the feedback/suggestions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Instructor's feedback[edit]

  • Visual section: I like what you added; however, the information you added should be organized together in the Pathophysiology section. Please move the info you added to the Pathophysiology section.
  • Command hallucinations section: Delete "or inside of the persons mind and/or consciousness". Hallucinations are by definition inside one's mind. This paragragh, starting from the quotation from reference 22, should be deleted. Reference 22 does not seem like a reliable seconadary source. Furthermore, the quotations do not add more knowledge to understanding command hallucination; they teach how to look for them, which is not a goal of Wikipedia.
  • Schizophrenic hallucinations: "Hallucinations are perceptions that occur without connection to an appropriate source" should be deleted from this section. This definition has already been presented earlier in the article and does not belong in the section on schizophrenia. Remainder of the parts you added should be moved into the Pathophysiology section. By the way, ScienceDaily can be a source of inspiration and a clue to reliable, peer reviewed secondary sources; you need to track down the actual research papers or chapters refernced by ScienceDaily, read them, and cite them.
  • Drug-induced hallucinations: I like the info you added here, but you need to add references. Too many words are capitalized here (e.g., deliriants, psychedelics, cannabis, psilocybin, opium, heroin, morphine, etc.). There are also grammar problems in this paragraph.
  • Pathophysiology: Pathophysiology means the study of change caused by a disease. From this definition, I would argue that psychodynamic theories do not belong in this section. However, I can see an argument that psychodynamic theory also explain causes of disease. If you want to support this argument, it's fine to leave psychodynamic viewpoints in. However, organize all related sentences together in a subsection titled Psychodynamic perspectives. Do not mix together with biological explanations. Avoid words that suggest opinions because you need to maintain a neutral point of view (e.g., "biological theories have become orthodox...", "...may have an aspect of truth").
  • Recommended outline for the Pathophysiology section:
Psychodynamic perspective - organize all psychodynamic facts in this subsection
Information processing perspective - put cognitive theories in here (e.g., overactive top-down processing)
Biological perspective - put info currently in Visual, Schizophrenic hallucinations, neurotransmitter systems, and imaging related info here. This section will need further subsections:
Neuroanatomical correlates - Put in this section fMRI studies finding that hallucination is accompanied by activation of visual or auditory cortices. Please paraphrase using your own words. I can't make sense of what you currently have written from Hoffman 2007 study (by the way, are there other authors on this paper? Please list all authors). I will email this group a paper which is a good starting point for you to locate other articles.
Pathophysiologic mechanisms - Look up some info on hallucinations during seizures to support the irritation/activation of visual cortex idea. Look up Charles Bonnet syndrome to support visual cortex deafferentiation idea. The study you found on visual deprivation can also be used to support this idea. The reticular activation system idea can be linked to neurotransmitters such as norepinephrine and dopmaine. Use drug-induced hallucination studies (find them) to support this idea. I'm very happy that you found this info. However, they need to be elaborated upon. I'll email this group a review article to get you started on this.

This is a tough topic, but I have confidence that you can rise up to the challenge. Neuropsychprof (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


Two main things

  1. Some of the text does not follow the manual of style. For when thing we never write words in all caps.
  2. The second issue is that some of the references are not to particularly reliable sources. We typically use high quality secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Cheers

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hallucination/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jmh649 (talk · contribs) 17:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


  • There are a whole bunch of WP:MOS issues. Many sections are not formatted properly. A number of section are not in the correct order per WP:MEDRS
  • The references are neither correctly or consistently formatted.
  • See also section should be combined into the article
  • References such as "medical news today" do not pass WP:MEDRS. All references should be secondary sources from at most the last 10 years.

Still a lot of work to do. While give people a week to begin. If not will close. Cheers

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The subject of derilium tremens fascinated me because i had the same problem, but i am trying to come over it. Amatsoso (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The subject of derilium tremens fascinated me because i had the same problem, but i am trying to come over it. Amatsoso (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Too simplistic[edit]

The article is presented as if the subject is understood. It is not. What is described in the article is only the current explanation of hallucination. It may be correct. Or it may be that in, say 20 years or whatever, a wholly different explanation is offered and considered 'factual'. Whilst I agree the article needs to say something, some degree of moderation (expressions like *It is thought*, *It is currently argued* and so on) would make it more accurate - not less so. (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Tactile Hallucinations[edit]

I will be writing a Wikipedia article on Tactile Hallucinations and I am in the process of making a Sandbox for this particular Wiki article. Once I am done with this article, I would like my Wikipedia article to be linked as the main article in your section of Tactile Hallucination, only upon your review of my article.Angela Mariam Thomas (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hallucinations from refeeding?[edit]


The references to hallucinations in Stalingrad have checked out with reports in books on the battle Tcat64 (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The second sentence is nonsense..[edit]

The second sentence "Hallucinations are vivid, substantial, and located in external objective space" appears to be nonsense.

Surely it should read "Hallucinations are vivid; they appear substantial and to be located in external objective space, but they are in fact wholly subjective, being generated internally and existing only in the mind of the person hallucinating". Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Continued removal of image[edit]

To remove an image from the article with the reason given "this image is not safe for people who think they may be hallucinating and found this article" seems both unlikely and inadequate for the removal of material. As an artistic impression of the article subject it would seem to be pertinent so that it "does not add to article" is questionable at best. Not liking content is not a justification for continually removing it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we can assume that the IP image blanker is going to continue removing the image and is not going to engage in discussion here. I am not particularly advocating its inclusion or notability but think it does have some pertinence and don't like the idea of someone continually removing it on the spurious grounds that it is unsafe or just a general dislike of it, particularly as they refuse to engage here. On that basis I will revert them again and could seek semi-protection if they persist but wondered if anyone else had an opinion about the image's inclusion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Auditory Hallucination section[edit]

I just wanted to input in the auditory hallucinations section that auditory hallucinations are the most common type of hallucination. I believe that this is a useful edit because a reader can have clearer understanding of the compared frequencies between the different types of hallucinations. If there is anyone opposed to this edit please let me know. Jb19957 (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that a section on auditory hallucination needs to be added. It is the most common type of hallucination. I typed out an edit in my sandbox. D.nashed (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This article was used in a song[edit]

Go listen to "Hallucinating" by Elohim at about 1:55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeKB (talkcontribs) 01:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Non-celiac gluten sensitivity[edit]

I noticed that this material was recently restored. My impression is that this is a very general article where every possible cause of hallucinations does not necessarily deserve mention. We already have the Non-celiac gluten sensitivity article where this probably belongs (at least in my opinion). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Remove "False Hallucination" section entirely?[edit]

It's unsourced and doesn't explain anything useful anyway, even if it's about a real thing. Am I missing anything here?

Ninjalectual (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)