The role of interoception in understanding others’ affect. Dissociation between superficial and detailed appraisal of facial expressions
Open accessAbstract
Embodied models of social cognition argue that others' emotional states are processed by re-enacting a representation of the same state in the observer, along with associated somatic and physiological responses. In this framework, previous studies tested whether a strong sensitivity to interoceptive signals (i.e., inputs arising from within one's body) facilitates the understanding of others' affect, leading to mixed results. Such heterogeneity in the literature could reflect methodological differences in paradigms employed, with some probing classification of a precise condition, and others requiring the assessment of supra-ordinal dimensions orthogonal to many states. Here, we engaged fifty young women in a study where they evaluated others' naturalistic facial reactions to painful and disgusting stimuli of comparable unpleasantness. Separately, we measured their interoceptive abilities through a well-known heartbeat counting task. We found that individuals that were more accurate in tracking their heartbeats across time were also more prone to judge facial expressions as more unpleasant (supra-ordinal assessment). However, when specifically asked to discriminate between comparably-unpleasant pain and disgust (state-specific assessment), participants' performance was not influenced by their interoceptive abilities. Although confined to a female sample, this study extends our knowledge on the role of interoception in the understanding of others, which influences only the evaluation of general features such as unpleasantness (common between pain and disgust), without extending to the appraisal of a precise state. This finding supports multi-componential models of social cognition, suggesting that only part of our ability to assess others' affect is mediated by a representation of one's affective/somatic responses.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Judgements of the intensity of others' naturalistic disgusted and painful facial expressions are positively associated with cardiac interoceptive accuracy in a female sample.
“Further, judgements of the intensity of others’ naturalistic disgusted and painful facial expressions have been positively associated with cardiac interoceptive accuracy in a female sample, although accuracy distinguishing these expressions was unrelated to interoceptive accuracy (Dirupo et al., 2020).”
From Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Dirupo et al., 2020
The Unpleasantness Rating results (p. 17) report that women with higher cardiac interoceptive accuracy rated others’ painful and disgusted expressions as more unpleasant; the Discussion (p. 22) says expression classification was unrelated to that accuracy. The study measured perceived unpleasantness, not expression intensity. Its Limitations (p. 27) treat intensity as a possible alternative interpretation, so the claim’s wording overstates that part of the finding. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 87 · Cited by 15
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Danziger, N., Prkachin, K. M., & Willer, J. C. (2006). Is pain the price of empathy? The perception of others' pain in patients with congenital insensitivity to pain. Brain , 129 (9), 2494-2507. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awl155 · DOI
- Koban, L., & Wager, T. D. (2016). Beyond conformity: Social influences on pain reports and physiology. Emotion , 16 (1), 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000087 · DOI · Paper page
- Tsakiris, M., & Critchley, H. (2016). Contents Theme issue : Interoception beyond homeostasis : affect , cognition and mental health, 371 (1708), 20160434.
- Authors
- Dirupo, G., Corradi-Dell’Acqua, C., Kashef, M., Debbané, M., & Badoud, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Geneva (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Dirupo, Giada
- Venue
- Cortex
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-09
- Volume
- 130
- Pages
- 16-31
- ISSN
- 0010-9452 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3032475926
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 87
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 3.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- osf.io
- Locations
- Cortex (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (acceptedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (PP00O1_157424, PP00P1_183715)
- Fondation Ernst et Lucie Schmidheiny
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
- Keywords
- interoception, facial expression recognition, emotional understanding, heartbeat counting, pain perception, disgust, somatic responses
- MeSH terms
- Emotions, Facial Expression, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Pain, 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