Cited by 88Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlDeception detection and forensic psychology

Comment on “Zamariola et al. (2018), Interoceptive Accuracy Scores are Problematic: Evidence from Simple Bivariate Correlations”—The empirical data base, the conceptual reasoning and the analysis behind this statement are misconceived and do not support the authors’ conclusions

Ainley, Vivien, Tsakiris, Manos, Pollatos, Olga, Schulz, André, Herbert, Beate M.·2020·Biological Psychology

Abstract

A recent paper by Zamariola and colleagues is widely cited as an authority on the invalidity of the Heartbeat Counting Task as a measure of interoceptive accuracy. Given the widespread interest in this field, it is essential that papers about methods are conceptually sound. However, only one of the authors' four criticisms appears substantiated - that people count too few heartbeats. Their arguments about "simple bivariate correlations" and their finding that interoceptive accuracy and heart rate correlate, depend on 'spurious correlations' arising from the overlooked point that interoceptive accuracy is a ratio. Moreover, scrutiny of the authors' data shows that their fourth criticism (that interoceptive accuracy is lower on longer trials) is confounded by differences in mean heart rate between trials. We present data from our own labs to refute it. We draw the authors' and editors' attention to these issues and trust that they will reconsider these erroneous conclusions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.107870

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The heartbeat counting task may not be sensitive to differences in cardiac accuracy in better performers.

    “Importantly, Zamariola et al. (2018) also found that the correlation between reported and actual number of heartbeats did not differ across individuals in the first and second quintile of HCT performers, suggesting that the task may also not be sensitive to differences in cardiac accuracy in better performers (but see Ainley et al. (2020)).”

    From Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Ainley et al. (2020)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ainley, V., Tsakiris, M., Pollatos, O., Schulz, A., & Herbert, B. M.
Affiliations
  • Royal Holloway University of London (GB)
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
  • University of Luxembourg (LU)
  • Hochschule Fresenius (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Ainley, Vivien
  • Herbert, Beate M.
Venue
Biological Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
152
Pages
107870
ISSN
0301-0511 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3006323073
Cited by
88
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 2
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biological Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
Keywords
interoceptive accuracy, heartbeat counting task, heart rate, spurious correlations, bivariate correlation, heart rate measurement, methodological critique
MeSH terms
Attention, Heart Rate, Humans, Problem Solving, Databases, Factual, Interoception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review