Interoceptive accuracy and body awareness – Temporal and longitudinal associations in a non-clinical sample
Abstract
Objective Various aspects of interoception are regarded as temporally stable phenomena. This study investigates the temporal stability of and longitudinal associations between interoceptive accuracy (as measured with heartbeat tracking task) and a related concept, body awareness (assessed by self-report). Methods In a two-month longitudinal study 103 university students (31% male, 23.34±4.34yrs.; 44 Hungarians; 36.4% male, 21.4±1.67yrs. and 59 Norwegians; 25.4% male, 24.8±5.09yrs) were investigated using Schandry's heartbeat tracking task and the Body Awareness Questionnaire. Results Both interoceptive accuracy and body awareness showed good test-retest reliability (r=0.60 and r=0.73, respectively; p Conclusion Self-reported body awareness and objectively measured interoceptive accuracy are temporally stable and not related to each other.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Weak or non-significant correlations have been found between self-reported interoceptive attention and objectively measured interoceptive accuracy.
“Further, while weak or non-significant correlations have been found between self-reported interoceptive attention and objectively measured interoceptive accuracy (Ferentzi, Drew, et al., 2018; Garfinkel et al., 2016, 2015; Meessen et al., 2016; Murphy et al., 2019; Whitehead et al., 1977)”
From Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Ferentzi, Drew, et al., 2018
Some degree of stability in interoceptive accuracy has been observed, but situational factors can influence interoceptive accuracy, at least in the respiratory and cardiac domains.
“Where explicit measures of interoception have been used, while some degree of stability in interoceptive accuracy has been observed (e.g. Ferentzi, Drew, et al., 2018; Herbert et al., 2011; Koch and Pollatos, 2014; Pollatos, Traut-mattausch, et al., 2007; Van Dyck et al., 2016), situational factors can influence interoceptive accuracy, at least in the respiratory and cardiac domains (Bogaerts et a”
From Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Ferentzi, Drew, et al., 2018
Subjective reports of interoceptive attention do not appear to correlate well with objective interoceptive accuracy measures such as the Heartbeat Counting Task.
“Subjective reports of interoceptive attention, for example using the Body Perception Questionnaire and Body Awareness Questionnaire, do not appear to correlate well with objective interoceptive accuracy measures e.g. the Heartbeat Counting Task (e.g. Critchley, Wiens, Rotshtein, Öhman, and Dolan, 2004; Ferentzi, Drew, et al., 2018; Garfinkel et al., 2015)”
From Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Ferentzi, Drew, et al., 2018
Self-reported interoceptive attention and accuracy have shown good test-retest reliability.
“Self-reported interoceptive attention (Ferentzi, Drew, et al., 2018; Murphy et al., 2020; Shields et al., 1989) and accuracy (Murphy, Brewer, et al., 2019) have also shown good test-retest reliability.”
From Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Ferentzi, Drew, et al., 2018
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 105 · Cited by 93
- Authors
- Ferentzi, E., Drew, R., Tihanyi, B. T., & Köteles, F.
- Affiliations
- Eötvös Loránd University (HU)
- Corresponding author
- Ferentzi, Eszter
- Venue
- Physiology & Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-02
- Volume
- 184
- Pages
- 100-107
- ISSN
- 0031-9384 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2769130486
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 105
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6
- FWCI
- 5.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Physiology & Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Hungarian National Scientific Research Fund (OTKA K 124132)
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
- Keywords
- interoception, interoceptive accuracy, body awareness, temporal stability, longitudinal associations, test-retest reliability, self-report, non-clinical sample
- MeSH terms
- Adipose Tissue, Adult, Awareness, Body Image, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Hungary, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Norway, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult, 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
