Cited by 37Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts

The Relationship Between Interoception and Metacognition: A Pilot Study

Meessen, Judith, Mainz, Verena, Gauggel, Siegfried, Volz-Sidiropoulou, Eftychia, Sütterlin, Stefan, Forkmann, Thomas·2016·Journal of Psychophysiology

Abstract

Abstract. Recently, Garfinkel and Critchley (2013) proposed to distinguish between three facets of interoception: interoceptive sensibility, interoceptive accuracy, and interoceptive awareness. This pilot study investigated how these facets interrelate to each other and whether interoceptive awareness is related to the metacognitive awareness of memory performance. A sample of 24 healthy students completed a heartbeat perception task (HPT) and a memory task. Judgments of confidence were requested for each task. Participants filled in questionnaires assessing interoceptive sensibility, depression, anxiety, and socio-demographic characteristics. The three facets of interoception were found to be uncorrelated and interoceptive awareness was not related to metacognitive awareness of memory performance. Whereas memory performance was significantly related to metamemory awareness, interoceptive accuracy (HPT) and interoceptive awareness were not correlated. Results suggest that future research on interoception should assess all facets of interoception in order to capture the multifaceted quality of the construct.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/0269-8803/a000157

Cites

61 of 61 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?

  • 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 Meessen et al., 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meessen, J., Mainz, V., Gauggel, S., Volz-Sidiropoulou, E., Sütterlin, S., & Forkmann, T.
Affiliations
  • Universitätsklinikum Aachen (DE)
  • Institute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Hospital of RWTH Aachen University, Germany
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
Venue
Journal of Psychophysiology
Published
2016-04
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
76-86
ISSN
  • 0269-8803 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-2124
OpenAlex
W2473313797
Cited by
37
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4
FWCI
3.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Keywords
interoception, interoceptive sensibility, interoceptive accuracy, interoceptive awareness, metacognition, metamemory, memory confidence judgments, heartbeat perception, depression, anxiety

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