Another limitation worth noting is how the “other” response
option was accounted for in the PGT. A small portion (< 1.5%)
of participants selected the malfunctioning survey option “other,”
which did not allow them to describe their experience. These responses
were counted as one illusion experienced. Since there were so few of the
“other” responses, we believe this limitation is not influencing the
results from our rather large sample (913 participants in total).
Lastly, we tested a non-clinical undergraduate population. This
may explain why the cognitive-perceptual factor did not predict illusory
percepts. Specifically, this factor assesses unusual patterns of thought
(ideas of reference/suspiciousness, magical thinking, unusual
perceptions) associated with paranormal belief (Betsch et al., 2020) and
identifying meaning in meaningless stimuli (Riekki et al., 2013;
Simmonds-Moore, 2014). This pattern of thinking would hamper performance
in the university setting and it may bias our sample away from patterns
that could exist in the broader population.