ArticlePsychophysiology2024
Exploring sex differences in cardiac interoceptive accuracy using the phase adjustment task.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence for Cardiac Phase-Linked Perception of Heartbeats.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- 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
- Feeling Like a Woman: Interoception and the Objectified Body.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Refinements of the phase adjustment task (PAT 2.0).Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Interoception in obsessive-compulsive and major depressive disorders.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Factors Linking Interoception and Sleep Across the Adult Lifespan.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- No gender difference in cardiac interoceptive accuracy: Potential psychophysiological contributors in heartbeat counting task.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Women, intuition, and management-the Yin and Yang of nonconscious thought.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Exploring sex differences in cardiac interoceptive accuracy using the phase adjustment task.Psychophysiology · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Previous evidence suggests males and females differ with respect to interoception-the processing of internal bodily signals-with males typically outperforming females on tasks of interoceptive accuracy. However, interpretation of existing evidence in the cardiac domain is hindered by the limitations of existing tools. In this investigation, we pooled data from several samples to examine sex differences in cardiac interoceptive accuracy on the phase adjustment task, a new measure that overcomes several limitations of the existing tools. In a sample of 266 individuals, we observed that females outperformed males, indicative of better cardiac interoceptive accuracy, but had lower confidence than males. These results held after controlling for sex differences in demographic, physiological and engagement factors. Importantly, these results were specific to the measure of cardiac interoceptive accuracy. No sex differences were observed for individuals who completed the structurally identical screener task, although a similar pattern of results was observed in relation to confidence. These surprising data suggest the presence of a female advantage for cardiac interoceptive accuracy and potential differences in interoceptive awareness (metacognition). Possible reasons for mixed results in the literature, as well as implications for theory and future research, are discussed.
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.