Cited by 307Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlTactile and Sensory Interactions

Towards a psychophysics of interoceptive processes: the measurement of heartbeat detection

Open access
Brener, Jasper, Ring, Christopher·2016·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

It is difficult to collect objective evidence of interoception. Unlike exteroception, the effective stimuli for interoception are often unknown, and even when identifiable, they are difficult to control experimentally. Furthermore, direct stimulation of the interoceptors is seldom appropriate in human experimentation. Hence, non-invasive behavioural measures of accuracy in heartbeat detection have frequently been adopted to index interoceptive sensitivity. However, there has been little standardization and the two most popular methods for assessing heartbeat detection, heartbeat tracking and two alternative forced choice methods, appear to be biased and of questionable validity. These issues do not arise with other methods that are based on classical psychophysics and that enable subjects to indicate when during the cardiac cycle their heartbeat sensations occur. Not only are these classical methods highly reliable, but they also provide continuous unbiased measures of the temporal locations of heartbeat sensations and the precision with which these sensations are detected. This article is part of the themed issue ‘Interoception beyond homeostasis: affect, cognition and mental health’.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.2016.0015

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 HBD task is not considered a reliable indicator of cardioceptive accuracy.

    “Indeed, the HBD task has received some criticism recently and is not considered to be a reliable indicator of cardioceptive accuracy (Brener and Ring, 2016).”

    From Mindfulness, Interoception, and the Body: A Contemporary Perspective (2019) · cites this paper as Brener and Ring, 2016

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) say heartbeat counting can classify people as detectors based on beliefs rather than heartbeat sensations, supporting criticism of that task as a measure of cardioceptive accuracy. But the Multi-Interval Tasks section describes other heartbeat-detection procedures as valid and reliable, so the paper does not support a blanket claim about the HBD task without specifying which procedure is meant. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The psychometric limitations of heartbeat detection tasks are widely appreciated.

    “The psychometric limitations of heartbeat detection tasks are widely appreciated (Brener and Ring, 2016).”

    From Physiological feelings (2019) · cites this paper as Brener and Ring, 2016

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The heartbeat counting task is strongly influenced by an individual's beliefs regarding their own or the average resting heart rate.

    “The heartbeat counting task is also strongly influenced by an individual’s beliefs regarding their own or the average resting heart rate (Brener and Ring, 2016; Murphy, Millgate, et al., 2018; Ring and Brener, 1996; Ring et al., 2015; Windmann et al., 1999).”

    From Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Brener and Ring, 2016

  • The extent to which beliefs about heartbeat affect interoceptive accuracy estimates in the heartbeat counting task may depend on the task instructions given.

    “The extent to which beliefs about heart beat affect interoceptive accuracy estimates in the heartbeat counting task may depend on the task instructions given; whilst early instructions encouraged participants to ‘estimate’ if they could not feel their heartbeat (Brener and Ring, 2016; Schandry, 1981) more recent approaches advocate a response of zero in this instance (Murphy, Brewer, et al., 2018)”

    From Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Brener and Ring, 2016

  • The heartbeat discrimination task requires a high number of trials to gain precise estimates of ability and may not be suitable for examining interoceptive accuracy at the lower range of ability.

    “However, this task is not without limitations; for example, a high number of trials are required to gain precise estimates of ability (Kleckner et al., 2015), and concerns have been raised over the difficulty of this task, meaning that it may not be suitable for examining interoceptive accuracy at the lower range of ability (Brener and Ring, 2016).”

    From Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Brener and Ring, 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. [1]1. Razran G. The Observable Unconscious and the Inferable Conscious in Current Soviet Psychophysiology. Psychological Review. 1961;68(2):81-147.
  2. [35]35. Carroll D, Whellock J. Heart rate perception and voluntary control of heart rate. Biological Psychology. 1980;11:169-80.
  3. [37]37. Schandry R, Specht G. The influence of psychological and physical stress on the perception of heartbeats. Psychophysiology. 1981;18:154 (abstract).
  4. [42]42. Bestler M, Weitkunat R, Keller W, Schandry R. Heartbeat perception and body position. Journal of Psychophysiology. 1988;2:123 (Abstract).
  5. [47]47. Ludwick-Rosenthal R, Neufeld RWJ. Heartbeat interoception: A study of individual differences. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 1985;3:57-65.
  6. [55]55. Katkin ES, Blascovich J, Reed SD, Adamec J, Jones J, Taublieb A. The effect of psychologically induced arousal on accuracy of heartbeat self-perception. Psychophysiology. 1982;19:568 (Abstract).
  7. [57]57. Brener J, Jones JM. Interoceptive Discrimination in Intact Humans. Physiology and Behavior. 1974;13:763-7.
  8. [58]58. Ross A, Brener J. Two Procedures for Training Cardiac Discrimination. Psychophysiology. 1981;18(1):62-70.
  9. [59]59. Katkin ES, Reed SD, DeRoo C. A methodological analysis of three techniques for the assessment of individual differences in heartbeat detection. Psychophysiology. 1983;20:452 (Abstract).
  10. [60]60. Hantas M, Katkin ES, Blascovich J. Relationship between heartbeat discrimination and subjective experience of affective state. Psychophysiology. 1982;19:563 (Abstract).
  11. [62]62. Stormer SW, Heiligtag U, Knoll JF. Heartbeat detection and knowledge of results: A new method and some theoretical thoughts. Journal of Psychophysiology. 1989;3:409-17.
  12. [63]63. Okifuji A, Harver A, Katkin ES, Reed SD. Heartbeat perception: Assessment, symptoms, and anxiety. Psychophysiology. 1988;25:473 (Abstract).
  13. [64]64. Brener J, Ring C. Sensory and perceptual factors in heartbeat detection. In: Schandry DVR, editor. Interoception and cardiovascular processes. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 1995.
  14. [68]68. Clemens WJ, Guethlein WG, Katkin ES. Heart Beat detection and ear bias. Psychophysiology. 1988;25:440 (Abstract).
  15. [69]69. Harver A, Katkin ES, Bloch E. Comparison of heartbeat and respiratory sensation among male and female subjects. Psychophysiology. 1988;26:S22 (Abstract).
  16. [77]77. Ferguson ML, Fernquist SK, Harver A, Katkin ES. Validation of a "preferred interval" heartbeat detection task. Psychophysiology. 1989;26:S22 (Abstract).
  17. [80]80. Bessette PR, Scully BM, Jones GE. Test-retest reliability of the Brener-Kluvitse HB perception paradigm. Psychophysiology. 1991;28:S12 (Abstract).
  18. [84]84. Brener J, Kluvitse C. Temporal location of S+ and S-signals in the Whitehead heartbeat discrimination procedure. Psychophysiology. 1988;25:436-7 (Abstract).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brener, J., & Ring, C.
Affiliations
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Brener, Jasper
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2016-11-19
Volume
371
Issue
1708
Pages
20160015
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2530956655
Cited by
307
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Florida State University
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
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
interoception, heartbeat detection, interoceptive sensitivity, psychophysics, cardiac cycle, measurement bias, interoceptive accuracy
MeSH terms
Awareness, Heart Rate, Humans, Psychophysics, 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