ArticlePsychophysiology2026
Validity and Reliability of the Heart Rate Matching Task: A Novel Measure of Heart Rate Estimation.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sensing and monitoring changes in our heart rate is a key aspect of interoception. We introduce and test the construct validity of the Heart Rate Matching task (HRM), a novel, fast and accessible task designed to assess the ability to estimate heart rate, in both remote (i.e., online) and in-lab settings. In the first lab experiment, under- and over-estimations of the heart rate were not significantly correlated with two interoceptive tasks designed to assess perception of individual heartbeats; the adapted Heartbeat Counting and the Multi-Interval Heartbeat Discrimination tasks. A second experiment conducted online in a large sample, found moderate significant correlations between Heart Rate Matching and the original Heartbeat Counting task. The HRM also correlated with a matched exteroceptive task, highlighting involvement of shared multi-sensory integration processes. The third experiment demonstrated good test-retest reliability of the HRM and moderate correlations with the Heart Rate Discrimination task, also thought to assess the estimation of heart rate. Taken together, these data suggest acceptable validity and moderate reliability of the Heart Rate Matching task and fit with an interpretation of the task as a measure of heart rate beliefs.
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.