ArticleScientific reports2024
No differences between remote and laboratory-based testing of cardiac interoceptive accuracy using the phase adjustment task.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- 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
- Validity and Reliability of the Heart Rate Matching Task: A Novel Measure of Heart Rate Estimation.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- Refinements of the phase adjustment task (PAT 2.0).Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Breaking through the mind-body divide: patient priorities for interoception research.EClinicalMedicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, there has been an increased interest in remote testing methods for quantifying individual differences in interoception, the perception of the body's internal state. Hampering the adoption of remote methods are concerns as to the quality of data obtained remotely. Using data from several studies, we sought to compare the performance of individuals who completed the Phase Adjustment Task-a new measure of cardiac interoceptive accuracy that can be administered via a smartphone application-supervised in a laboratory against those who completed the task remotely. Across a total sample of 205 individuals (119 remote and 86 laboratory), we observed no significant differences in task performance between the two groups. These results held when matching groups on demographic variables (e.g., age) and considering only individuals who had successfully completed a screener task. Overall, these data attest to the suitability of the Phase Adjustment Task for remote testing, providing an opportunity to collect larger and more diverse samples for future interoception research.
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.