ReviewSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2026
Review of methods to derive the heartbeat-evoked potential: past practices and future directions.
Review in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interoception as a Mechanism Linking Anxiety, Cardiovascular Disease, and their Co-Occurrence.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
- The heartbeat evoked potential and the prediction of functional seizure semiology.Brain communications · 2026Article
- Model-based cardiac field artefact correction for OP-MEG.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The heartbeat-evoked potential (HEP) is an implicit, electrophysiological marker of cortical heartbeat processing and interoception, with increasing clinical relevance. However, on the scalp, HEP are low-amplitude signals mixed with cardiac field artefacts (CFA), requiring signal processing pipelines to separate HEP from CFA. This review evaluates current analytical approaches and addresses methodological gaps in HEP pipelines. A scoping review of the literature was conducted focusing on previously published HEP studies. This was to extract HEP processing methods and parameters used in EEG (199 included papers) and MEG (8 included papers). Parameters investigated included the HEP window, filters, baseline correction window, epoch timeframes, minimum RR intervals, epoch amplitude rejection threshold, and CFA removal. EEG and MEG studies revealed clear heterogeneity and variability in the methods used to derive HEP. These clear inconsistencies in HEP parameter use and reporting would appear to challenge the level replicability between studies. In order to ensure reproducibility and transparency, publications should report critical values for reliable HEP extraction, emphasizing the need for standardized methods to enhance study comparability and reproducibility.
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.