Cited by 124Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsCardiac Health and Mental Health

Methodological recommendations for a heartbeat detection-based measure of interoceptive sensitivity

Open access
Kleckner, Ian R., Wormwood, Jolie Baumann, Simmons, W. Kyle, Barrett, Lisa Feldman, Quigley, Karen S.·2015·Psychophysiology

Abstract

Heartbeat detection tasks are often used to measure cardiac interoceptive sensitivity—the ability to detect sensations from one's heart. However, there is little work to guide decisions on the optimum number of trials to use, which should balance reliability and power against task duration and participant burden. Here, 174 participants completed 100 trials of a widely used heartbeat detection task where participants attempt to detect whether presented tones occurred synchronously or asynchronously with their heartbeats. First, we quantified measurement reliability of the participant's accuracy derived from differing numbers of trials of the task using a correlation metric; we found that at least 40–60 trials were required to yield sufficient reliability. Next, we quantified power by simulating how the number of trials influenced the ability to detect a correlation between cardiac interoceptive sensitivity and other variables that differ across participants, including a variable measured from our sample (body mass index) as well as simulated variables of varying effect sizes. Using these simulations, we quantified the trade‐offs between sample size, effect size, and number of trials in the heartbeat detection task such that a researcher can easily determine any one of these variables at given values of the other two variables. We conclude that using fewer than 40 trials is typically insufficient due to poor reliability and low power in estimating an effect size, although the optimal number of trials can differ by study.

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 · 10.1111/psyp.12503

Cites

53 of 53 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 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 Kleckner et al., 2015

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

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Jones G Perception of visceral sensations: A review of recent findings, methodologies, and future directions Advances in Psychophysiology 1994 5 155 192
  2. Pollatos O Kurz AL Albrecht J Schreder T Kleemann AM Schopf V Schandry R Reduced perception of bodily signals in anorexia nervosa Eating Behaviors 2008 9 381 388 18928900
  3. Wickens TD Elementary Signal Detection Theory 2002 New York, NY Oxford University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kleckner, I. R., Wormwood, J. B., Simmons, W. K., Barrett, L. F., & Quigley, K. S.
Affiliations
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • Laureate Institute for Brain Research (US)
Corresponding author
Kleckner, Ian R.
Venue
Psychophysiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-08-12
Volume
52
Issue
11
Pages
1432-1440
ISSN
  • 0048-5772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8986
OpenAlex
W1576198198
Cited by
124
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
6.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (F32MH096533, K01MH096175-01)
  • National Institutes of Health (DP1OD003312)
  • U.S. Army Research Laboratory (W5J9CQ-12-C-0049)
  • Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
Keywords
heartbeat detection, cardiac interoception, interoceptive sensitivity, sample size determination, measurement reliability, statistical power, effect size, body mass index
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Awareness, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pulse, 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