Psychological Science Research Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium; Fund for Scientific Research - Belgium (FRS-FNRS), Belgium.
Psychological Science Research Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Biol Psychol. 2020 Jul;154:107904. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.107904. Epub 2020 May 25.
Interoceptive accuracy is frequently assessed using the Heartbeat Counting Task (HCT), requiring participants to count the number of times their heart beats. The HCT validity has been questioned, as participants may perform the task by estimating, rather than counting, their felt heartbeats. Participants could estimate the time or use their knowledge of their heart rate. Some research ruled out the contribution of time estimation in HCT performance. However, we believe these studies relied on a problematic analytic rationale. We revisited this question by relying on new analytic strategies, and by examining the role of estimation in HCT performance, while varying task instructions. The findings support the role of time and knowledge-based estimations under original instructions. They also highlight the critical impact of instructions on HCT validity. Given the many limitations of the HCT, we urge researchers to test the robustness of published effects and to reconsider the interpretation of replicable results.
内感受准确性通常使用心跳计数任务(HCT)进行评估,要求参与者数自己心跳的次数。HCT 的有效性受到质疑,因为参与者可能通过估计而不是计数来完成任务,他们感觉到的心跳。参与者可以估计时间或利用他们对自己心率的了解。一些研究排除了时间估计在 HCT 表现中的作用。然而,我们认为这些研究依赖于有问题的分析原理。我们通过依赖新的分析策略,以及通过检查在不同任务指令下估计在 HCT 表现中的作用,重新探讨了这个问题。研究结果支持在原始指令下基于时间和基于知识的估计的作用。它们还强调了指令对 HCT 有效性的关键影响。鉴于 HCT 的许多局限性,我们敦促研究人员测试已发表效应的稳健性,并重新考虑对可复制结果的解释。