ReviewBiologia futura2024
Heart activity perception: narrative review on the measures of the cardiac perceptual ability.
Review in Biologia futura, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Two weeks to tune in: Evaluating the effects of a short-term body scan on interoception.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2025Trial
- Individual Differences in Heartbeat-Tone Synchronicity Judgments Suggest the Two-Alternative Heartbeat Detection Task Is a Poor Test of Cardiac Interoceptive Accuracy and Insight.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- Oscillatory Markers of Interoceptive Attention: Beta Suppression as a Neural Signature of Heartbeat Processing.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- Physiological correlates of interoception and the effect of heart rate variability biofeedback.Frontiers in network physiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of three behavioral cardioception tasks and heartbeat evoked potentials in the same group of healthy volunteers.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cardiac Interoceptive Accuracy: An Empirical Comparison of Three Ability Measures.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Measures of cardiac perceptual ability (also called cardiac accuracy) are methods of cardiac interoception, the perception of bodily sensation related to heart activity. This narrative review aims to provide an overview of these methods. We differentiate between three main measurement types: (1) change detection, i.e., when the task is to notice the change in the heart rate; also called: heart rate perception tasks, (2) discrimination tasks, i.e., when the task is to compare the internal sensations with external signal(s); also called: heartbeat detection tasks and (3) tracking tasks, i.e., when the task is to follow and report heartbeats via tapping or counting. We describe some of the new methods under "mixed methods," as they share features with more than one of the large measurement types described above. Specific measures differ in various aspects, such as their focus (heart rhythm vs. single beats), their sensitivity to non-conscious sensations and the calculated indices (e.g., whether significance level by hypothesis test is provided). When a measure of cardiac perceptual ability is chosen, it is advisable to take its characteristics into consideration in light of the planned research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37747684What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.