ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Incorporating uncertainty within dynamic interoceptive learning.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incorporating uncertainty within dynamic interoceptive learning.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Interoception, the perception of the internal state of the body, has been shown to be closely linked to emotions and mental health. Of particular interest are interoceptive learning processes that capture associations between environmental cues and body signals as a basis for making homeostatically relevant predictions about the future. One method of measuring respiratory interoceptive learning that has shown promising results is the Breathing Learning Task (BLT). While the original BLT required binary predictions regarding the presence or absence of an upcoming inspiratory resistance, here we extended this paradigm to capture continuous measures of prediction (un)certainty. Methods: Sixteen healthy participants completed the continuous version of the BLT, where they were asked to predict the likelihood of breathing resistances on a continuous scale from 0.0 to 10.0. In order to explain participants' responses, a Rescorla-Wagner model of associative learning was combined with suitable observation models for continuous or binary predictions, respectively. For validation, we compared both models against corresponding null models and examined the correlation between observed and modeled predictions. The model was additionally extended to test whether learning rates differed according to stimuli valence. Finally, summary measures of prediction certainty as well as model estimates for learning rates were considered against interoceptive and mental health questionnaire measures. Results: Our results demonstrated that the continuous model fits closely captured participant behavior using empirical data, and the binarised predictions showed excellent replicability compared to previously collected data. However, the model extension indicated that there were no significant differences between learning rates for negative (i.e. breathing resistance) and positive (i.e. no breathing resistance) stimuli. Finally, significant correlations were found between fatigue severity and both prediction certainty and learning rate, as well as between anxiety sensitivity and prediction certainty. Discussion: These results demonstrate the utility of gathering enriched continuous prediction data in interoceptive learning tasks, and suggest that the updated BLT is a promising paradigm for future investigations into interoceptive learning and potential links to mental health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.