Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40800754›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025

Validating genuine changes in heartbeat-evoked potentials using pseudotrials and surrogate procedures.

Paul Steinfath, Nadine Herzog, Antonin Fourcade, Christian Sander, Vadim Nikulin, Arno Villringer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Paul SteinfathDepartment of Neurology, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7388-9870
Nadine HerzogDepartment of Neurology, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8346-7153
Antonin FourcadeDepartment of Neurology, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3698-6671
Christian SanderDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5402-6631
Vadim NikulinDepartment of Neurology, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6082-3859
Arno VillringerDepartment of Neurology, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2604-2404

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

heartbeat-evoked potentialoddball taskpseudotrial correctionsurrogate heartbeat analysis

Identifiers

PMID40800754
PMCPMC12319741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.