Interoceptive accuracy and body awareness – Temporal and longitudinal associations in a non-clinical sample

Ferentzi, Eszter; Drew, Raechel; Tihanyi, Benedek T.; Köteles, Ferenc

doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.11.015

Cited by 74 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results from this series of studies indicate that the IAS may be a useful tool for assessing perceived interoceptive accuracy across a number of interoceptive domains alongside existing measures such as the ICQ. The reliability (internal, test-retest) and convergent validity of the IAS, were at least comparable to the other interoception questionnaires examined in this study (measured here, and in previous studies e.g., Brewer et al, 2016;Ferentzi, Drew, Tihanyi, & Köteles, 2018). The initial exploratory PCA of the IAS indicated a 2-factor solution, possibly reflecting a distinction between solely interoceptive signals and interoceptive signals that may be difficult to perceive using interoceptive information alone, or perturbations of bodily functions that are socially unacceptable.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Testing the independence of self-reported interoceptive accuracy and attention

Murphy

Brewer

Plans

et al. 2019

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

145

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has recently been proposed that measures of the perception of the state of one’s own body (“interoception”) can be categorised as one of several types depending on both how an assessment is obtained (objective measurement vs. self-report) and what is assessed (degree of interoceptive attention vs. accuracy of interoceptive perception). Under this model, a distinction is made between beliefs regarding the degree to which interoceptive signals are the object of attention and beliefs regarding one’s ability to perceive accurately interoceptive signals. This distinction is difficult to test, however, because of the paucity of measures designed to assess self-reported perception of one’s own interoceptive accuracy. This article therefore reports on the development of such a measure, the Interoceptive Accuracy Scale (IAS). Use of this measure enables assessment of the proposed distinction between beliefs regarding attention to, and accuracy in perceiving, interoceptive signals. Across six studies, we report on the development of the IAS and, importantly, its relationship with measures of trait self-reported interoceptive attention, objective interoceptive accuracy, confidence in the accuracy of specific interoceptive percepts, and metacognition with respect to interoceptive accuracy. Results support the distinction between individual differences in perceived attention towards interoceptive information and the accuracy of interoceptive perception.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Testing the independence of self-reported interoceptive accuracy and attention

Murphy

Brewer

Plans

et al. 2019

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

145

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concept of body awareness was developed before the modern definition of interoceptive sensitivity (Garfinkel et al, ) and defined as the beliefs about one's sensitivity to normal (i.e., nonemotional and nonpathological) body processes and changes (Shields et al, ). In our previous study, body awareness was described as a concept that incorporates information originating not only from the integration of sensory channels but also from exteroceptive modalities (Ferentzi, Drew, Tihanyi, & Köteles, ). These exteroceptive cues, however, are not the classical exteroceptive senses in this context, but the sensation of the environmental cues in the relation of the interoceptive reactions (e.g., “I notice differences in the way my body reacts to various foods,” Shields et al, , p. 805).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do body‐related sensations make feel us better? Subjective well‐being is associated only with the subjective aspect of interoception

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the proposition of several theoretical accounts, the perception of the bodily cues, interoceptive accuracy and interoceptive sensibility, has a significant positive impact on subjective well‐being. Others assume a negative association; however, empirical evidence is scarce. In this study, 142 young adults completed questionnaires assessing subjective well‐being, interoceptive sensibility, and subjective somatic symptoms and participated in measurements of proprioceptive accuracy (reproduction of the angle of the elbow joint), gastric sensitivity (water load test), and heartbeat tracking ability (Schandry task). Subjective well‐being showed weak to medium positive associations with interoceptive sensibility and weak negative associations with symptom reports. No associations with measures of interoceptive accuracy were found. Gastric sensitivity as opposed to heartbeat perception and proprioceptive accuracy moderated the association between interoceptive sensibility and well‐being. Thus, subjective well‐being is associated only with the self‐reported (perceived) aspect of interoception but not related to the sensory measures of interoceptive accuracy.

show abstract

“…Whilst the short-term stability (e.g., test-re-test reliability) of heartbeat counting is likely a product of the reliability of the task, long-term stability presumably captures both the reliability of the task and the extent to which heartbeat counting is an enduring trait. Over the short-term (e.g., < 6 months), estimates of the stability of heartbeat counting performance in adulthood range from approximately r = ∼.41 to .81 depending on the time period examined, intervention (e.g., meditative training) and participant group employed (e.g., Ehlers, Breuer, Dohn, & Fiegenbaum, 1995;Ferentzi, Drew, Tihanyi, & Köteles, 2018;Herbert, Herbert, & Pollatos, 2011;Mussgay, Klinkenberg, & Rüddel, 1999;Parkin et al, 2014;Wittkamp, Bertsch, Vögele, & Schulz, 2018; for an overview see Ferentzi et al, 2018). In contrast, few studies have examined the stability of heartbeat counting across long time periods (e.g., > 6 months).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the stability of heartbeat counting in middle childhood: a twin study

Murphy¹,

Cheesman²,

Gregory³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is growing interest in interoception, the perception of the body’s internal state, and its relevance for health and higher-order cognition across development. To date, most evidence linking interoception to health and cognition has used the heartbeat counting task. However, the stability of the measure across time, particularly during childhood, and the etiological factors that underlie individual differences in stability remain largely unexamined. Using data from the ECHO twin sample (N=204 twin pairs), we estimated the magnitude of genetic and environmental influences on the stability of heartbeat counting across a two-year period (8-10 years), the longest time-frame examined. We found a relatively modest correlation between heartbeat counting accuracy across time (r=.35), with accuracy on the heartbeat counting task improving with age. In our longitudinal twin analysis, we found that the heritability of heartbeat counting dropped between Time 1 and Time 2 from 30% to 6%. No new genetic influences were observed at Time 2, suggesting that genetic influences across this age-range are entirely stable. In contrast, shared environmental influences increased from 6% to 22%, with most of the influence at Time 2 due to new environmental factors. Of note, nonshared environmental factors accounted for the greatest proportion of variance at both time points, 64% and 73% respectively, and were the main contributors to temporal stability in heartbeat counting accuracy. Future research should seek to identify these non-shared environmental factors and elucidate whether this relatively modest stability reflects variability of interoception across development or unreliability of the heartbeat counting task.

show abstract

Interoceptive accuracy and body awareness – Temporal and longitudinal associations in a non-clinical sample

Cited by 74 publications

References 88 publications

Testing the independence of self-reported interoceptive accuracy and attention

Testing the independence of self-reported interoceptive accuracy and attention

Do body‐related sensations make feel us better? Subjective well‐being is associated only with the subjective aspect of interoception

Estimating the stability of heartbeat counting in middle childhood: a twin study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About