ArticlePsychophysiology2026
Altered Interoceptive Predictive Coding in Functional Neurological Disorders.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Interoception, the processing of internal bodily signals, has been linked to the pathophysiology of Functional Neurological Disorder (FND), along with the theoretical concept of altered predictive coding (PC). FND symptoms such as sensory-motor dysfunction may arise from disrupted integration of sensory input and predictions. However, PC in the modality of interoception has not yet been investigated in FND. Using a PC paradigm, the cardio-audio synchronization task measured electrophysiological responses to the heartbeat during omitted sounds that were temporally locked to the heartbeat (synchronous condition) or not (asynchronous control condition). Patients with mixed FND symptoms (N = 36) were compared to sex- and age-matched healthy controls (HC: N = 42) by contrasting synchronous and asynchronous heartbeat-evoked potentials during omissions using cluster-based permutation statistics. We further tested associations with self-reported interoceptive variables and assessed whole-scalp main and interaction effects in global field power (GFP) and topography. Patients with FND showed no cluster-level differences between conditions, whereas we identified a central cluster difference in HCs. The interoceptive-specific contrast (synch-asynch difference waves) differed between groups and correlated with interoceptive self-report but only when tested across groups (r = -0.33, p = 0.012). In this paradigm, group-by-condition interactions in topography identified the insula as the most probable source of differences. These interactions occurred before those identified in GFP analyses, suggesting that differential networks emerge first, followed by changes in overall activity strength. These results indicate that patients with FND use different neural mechanisms for interoceptive PC (i.e., precision-weighted prediction errors in interoception-guided predictions) than HCs. Patients with FND showed no difference in interoceptive PC, suggesting a dysfunctional interoceptive system. Together, these findings suggest that interoceptive-cued regularity processing in FND is characterized by altered early network recruitment, followed by differences in overall signal strength, potentially reflecting a disrupted progression of interoceptive PC.
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.