SynthesisPsychophysiology2026
Heartbeat-Evoked Responses in M/EEG: A Systematic Review of Methods With Suggestions for Analysis and Reporting.
Synthesis in Psychophysiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Mind From Within: Visceral Roots of Human Cognition.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Review of methods to derive the heartbeat-evoked potential: past practices and future directions.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Heartbeat-evoked responses (HER), as measured by electroencephalography (EEG) or magnetoencephalography (MEG), represent neural activity time-locked to heartbeats and are widely used as a marker of cardiac interoception in the study of brain-body interactions. However, HER studies report largely variable findings, at least partially due to methodological variability. To achieve consensus on HER processing and improve the reproducibility of findings, the field urgently requires a structured summary of the methods employed so far. To this end, we conducted a systematic review of 132 HER studies using non-invasive M/EEG recordings in humans. Our results reveal substantial heterogeneity across most steps of HER analysis, ranging from data acquisition and preprocessing to HER estimation and statistical approaches. The large diversity in the processing choices is accompanied by considerable proportions of unreported methodological information across reviewed studies, reaching up to 80% for key processing steps. In addition, less than 33% of studies had enough statistical power to reliably detect meta-level HER effects, while their reported spatiotemporal locations varied substantially. We provide a comprehensive reporting and quality control checklist to aid in the development of more standardized procedures, highlighting critical steps for robust HER investigations. Additionally, we share the full extracted dataset, including an interactive version, to support other researchers in answering additional specific questions they may have. We hope that these resources will improve the robustness, reproducibility, and transparency of research in the growing HER field.
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.