Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37082986›Full record

ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2024

Interoception: Where do we go from here?

Jennifer Murphy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Interoceptive attention and mood in daily life: an experience-sampling study.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jennifer MurphyDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8945-3337

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a significant rise in interest in interoception, the processing of internal bodily signals. This interest has been coupled by increased concerns regarding the measurement and conceptualisation of interoception. Focusing on cardiac interoceptive accuracy, I outline what I believe to be the most pressing issues in the field of interoception-specifically the continued reliance on the heartbeat counting task. I then provide an overview of what I believe to be more general limitations concerning how we measure and conceptualise individual differences in interoception and suggestions for a way forward. Specifically, I believe that by moving beyond single measurements, establishing optimal levels of interoceptive accuracy, and refocusing from accuracy to propensity, we may be able to uncover the real-life relevance of interoceptive abilities.

Indexed as

InteroceptionAwarenessHeartHeart RateHumansIndividualitybody perceptionInteroceptioninteroceptive accuracyinteroceptive awareness

Identifiers

PMID37082986
PMCPMC10798007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.