ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Validating genuine changes in heartbeat-evoked potentials using pseudotrials and surrogate procedures.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Heartbeat-Evoked Responses in M/EEG: A Systematic Review of Methods With Suggestions for Analysis and Reporting.Psychophysiology · 2026Pooled it
- Altered Interoceptive Predictive Coding in Functional Neurological Disorders.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- Oscillatory Markers of Interoceptive Attention: Beta Suppression as a Neural Signature of Heartbeat Processing.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- Disentangling Respiratory Phase-Dependent and Phase-Independent Components of Anticipatory Cardiac Deceleration.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- Social and physiological stress elicit divergent psycho-physiological dynamics and motor cortex activation.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Interoception vs. Exteroception: Cardiac interoception competes with tactile perception, yet also facilitates self-relevance encoding.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Characterizing the Heartbeat-Evoked Potential: A Two-Component Model of Cardiac Signal Processing?Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- When your heart isn't in it anymore: cardiac correlates of task disengagement.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Neural Sensitivity to the Heartbeat Is Modulated by Fluctuations in Affective Arousal during Spontaneous Thought.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Neural sensitivity to the heartbeat is modulated by fluctuations in affective arousal during spontaneous thought.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The brain continuously receives interoceptive information about the state and function of our internal organs. For instance, each time the heart beats, the brain responds by generating time-locked activity, known as heartbeat-evoked potentials (HEP). When investigating HEPs, it is essential to adequately control for heartbeat-independent confounding activity to avoid false interpretations. In the present study, we highlight the pitfalls of uncontrolled analyses and advocate for the use of surrogate heartbeat analysis and pseudotrial correction, which are promising tools to control for spurious results. Surrogate heartbeat analysis involves shuffling the timing of heartbeats to verify the time-locking of HEP effects. Pseudotrial correction works by subtracting heartbeat-independent activity from HEPs. In this study, we employ both procedures, validate them in simulations, and apply them to real electroencephalography (EEG) data. Using EEG recordings obtained during the performance of an auditory novelty oddball task in a large population, we show that, without control analyses, pre-stimulus HEPs appear inversely related to task-related measures such as P300 event-related potential amplitudes and reaction time speed. However, these effects disappear after carefully controlling for heartbeat-unrelated EEG activity. Additionally, in real and simulated data, we show that pseudotrial correction has the potential to remove task-related confounds from HEPs, thereby uncovering real heartbeat-related effects that otherwise could be missed. This study, therefore, highlights issues that can arise when analyzing HEPs during tasks, provides solutions to overcome them, and gives recommendations for future studies to avoid pitfalls when analyzing and designing experiments involving HEPs.
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.