Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T18:31:01.953Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Auditory Delusional Misidentification: A Case of Capgras Syndrome During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Michael Shaw
Affiliation:
Norfolk & Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Bury St Edmunds, United Kingdom
Alana Durrant*
Affiliation:
Norfolk & Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Bury St Edmunds, United Kingdom
Leia Penfold
Affiliation:
Norfolk & Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Bury St Edmunds, United Kingdom
Opeyemi Okediran
Affiliation:
Norfolk & Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Bury St Edmunds, United Kingdom
Hideaki Tokuma
Affiliation:
West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Bury St Edmunds, United Kingdom
*
*Presenting author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

Capgras syndrome is the most common of the delusional misidentification syndromes. It is characterised by the delusional belief that a familiar person has been replaced by an identical imposter. Capgras syndrome is associated with functional conditions, like psychosis, but also with a range of organic conditions such as dementia, brain injury and Parkinson's disease.

The COVID-19 pandemic created a unique situation where patients were unable to see their relatives in person, resulting in their only form of contact being via telephone or virtually.

Methods

We present a case of a 70 year old lady Mrs W, who was admitted with first episode psychosis. She developed Capgras syndrome during her admission, based purely in the auditory modality of talking to her husband on the telephone. She was firm in her conviction that he was an imposter, mainly based of ‘a different tone’ and using ‘different words’. Showing a photograph of her husband was met with full and appropriate recognition. Given that a significant minority of elderly patients with a Capgras delusion have an organic aetiology, neuroimaging and extended laboratory investigations, including auto-antibodies for limbic encephalitis, were performed which were unremarkable.

With psychotropic medication, the Capgras delusion resolved, and on discharge she recognised her husband when they met again.

Results

The aetiology of Capgras syndrome remains unclear, although a range of causes have been suggested. Early psychodynamic theories related to conflict between love and hate towards the relative, which could be relevant in functional conditions but may have less significance in organic conditions.

Other theories examine Capgras syndrome as a mirror of prosopagnosia, where people have difficulties recognising familiar faces. This would indicate a pathological process affecting visual pathways. However, our case challenges this theory, suggesting that deficits in other sensory modality pathways may also contribute.

Although rare, our case is not entirely unique; several cases of Capgras syndrome in people with blindness have been reported. However, our case differs in that our patient was able to recognise photos of her husband despite misidentification based on auditory cues. As Mrs W did not have visual impairment, it is unclear if she would have presented with the more classical visual misidentification in the absence of the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusion

Capgras syndrome is classically associated with misidentification based on visual cues, however a growing number of case reports challenge this. Further investigation is required to create theories that encompass other sensory modalities.

Type
6 Case Study
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.