ArticleBMC psychology2025
No gender difference in cardiac interoceptive accuracy: Potential psychophysiological contributors in heartbeat counting task.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interoceptive grounding of conceptual knowledge: new insight from an interoceptive-exteroceptive categorization task of concepts.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Cardiac interoception in chronic pain: no association between interoceptive accuracy and symptom report.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Exploring the role of interoception in anxious traits and symptoms.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Real-time fMRI neurofeedback boosts heartbeat perception by modulating insula activation pattern during interoceptive attention.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gender differences in interoceptive awareness-awareness of internal bodily signals such as heartbeat perception-have been suggested, with some findings indicating behaviourally reduced but subjectively enhanced awareness in women, though these findings are still contentious. This study aimed to comprehensively examine gender differences in three aspects of interoceptive awareness: behavioural accuracy, subjective confidence, and relationship between them (i.e., metacognition). We used a modified heartbeat counting task that prohibited estimation strategies and increased the number of trials up to 20. Using data from 74 healthy young adults (39 women and 35 men), we evaluated gender differences and practice effects for each measure via Bayesian linear mixed models, controlling for individual heart rate and trial duration on a trial-by-trial basis. Contrary to previous research, the results revealed no reduced interoceptive accuracy in women; instead, higher interoceptive accuracy score was associated with shorter trial durations and lower heart rates regardless of gender. Moreover, women exhibited underconfidence about their performance, and therefore lower metacognition scores, compared to men. Trial repetitions moderated women's lowered metacognition but did not affect accuracy or confidence. These findings highlight potential physiological and psychological confounding factors in the heartbeat counting task, such as heart rate and reporting style, and emphasise several cautions for studying gender differences in interoceptive awareness.
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.