Both in research on Auditory Verbal Hallucinations (AVHs) and in their clinical assessment, it is common to distinguish between voices that are experienced as ‘inner’ (or ‘internal’, ‘inside the head’, ‘inside the mind’, ...) and voices that are experienced as ‘outer’ (‘external’, ‘outside the head’, ‘outside the mind’, ...). This inner/outer-contrast is treated not only as an important phenomenological variable of AVHs, it is also often seen as having diagnostic value. In this article, we argue that the distinction between ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ voices is ambiguous between different readings, and that lack of disambiguation in this regard has led to flaws in assessment tools, diagnostic debates and empirical studies. Such flaws, we argue furthermore, are often linked to misreadings of inner/outer-terminology in relevant 19th and early twentieth century work on AVHs, in particular, in connection with Kandinsky’s and Jaspers’s distinction between hallucinations and pseudo-hallucinations.

在对听觉言语幻觉（AVH）的研究及其临床评估中，通常区分具有“内在”（或“内在”，“内在”，“内在”，“内在”）经历的声音。 。）以及被体验为“外部”（“外部”，“头部外”，“头脑外”等）的声音。这种内部/外部对比度不仅被视为AVH的重要现象学变量，而且还经常被视为具有诊断价值。在本文中，我们认为“内”和“外”声音之间的区别在不同的阅读之间是模棱两可的，并且在这方面缺乏歧义性导致评估工具，诊断辩论和实证研究存在缺陷。我们进一步指出，此类缺陷