Ferentzi Eszter, Vig Luca, Körmendi János, Witthöft Michael, Gerlach Alexander L, Pohl Anna
Institute of Health Promotion and Sport Sciences, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.
Ádám György Psychophysiology Research Group, Budapest, Hungary.
Psychophysiology. 2025 Jun;62(6):e70078. doi: 10.1111/psyp.70078.
There are several measures used to assess one's ability to perceive their heartbeat (cardiac interoceptive accuracy). These can be categorized into two main task types: tracking (e.g., motor tracking, heartbeat counting) and discrimination (e.g., two- and multi-interval). The recently developed cardiovascular signal detection task (cvSDT) combines the advantages of heartbeat counting and multi-interval discrimination tasks. It is an open question of how the three tasks relate to each other. This study compares all three methods in a sample of young adults (n = 73, 66% female). Efforts were made to identify heartbeat perceivers. Expectation and confidence ratings about perceived performance and interoception questionnaires were also administered. We found a relation between tracking and cvSDT(ρ = 0.401, p < 0.001); the multi-interval task was unrelated to both other task types (tracking: ρ = -0.103, p = 0.398; cvSDT: ρ = -0.103, p = 0.398). Multiple linear regression analyses (with the control of resting heart rate, body fat percentage, and sex) confirmed these results. 27.4% of the sample were heartbeat perceivers according to the heartbeat counting task, 28.8% according to the multi-interval discrimination task, and 12.3% according to the cvSDT. There was only one heartbeat perceiver according to all three tasks. Among questionnaires and tasks, only one connection was revealed: the Body Awareness Questionnaire related to the bias in cvSDT (ρ = -0.283*, p < 0.05). In summary, the three tasks likely assess partly different abilities. The investigation of expectation and confidence also supports this assumption. When choosing the method of cardiac interoception, characteristics should be considered to fit the research question.
有几种方法用于评估一个人感知自己心跳的能力（心脏内感受准确性）。这些方法可分为两种主要任务类型：追踪（如运动追踪、心跳计数）和辨别（如双间隔和多间隔）。最近开发的心血管信号检测任务（cvSDT）结合了心跳计数和多间隔辨别任务的优点。这三种任务之间如何相互关联仍是一个悬而未决的问题。本研究在一个年轻成年人样本（n = 73，66%为女性）中比较了这三种方法。努力识别心跳感知者。还进行了关于感知表现的期望和信心评分以及内感受问卷调查。我们发现追踪任务和cvSDT之间存在关联（ρ = 0.401，p < 0.001）；多间隔任务与其他两种任务类型均无关联（与追踪任务：ρ = -0.103，p = 0.398；与cvSDT：ρ = -0.103，p = 0.398）。多元线性回归分析（控制静息心率、体脂百分比和性别）证实了这些结果。根据心跳计数任务，样本中有27.4%是心跳感知者；根据多间隔辨别任务，这一比例为28.8%；根据cvSDT，这一比例为12.3%。根据所有三种任务，只有一名心跳感知者。在问卷和任务中，仅发现一种关联：身体意识问卷与cvSDT中的偏差相关（ρ = -0.283*，p < 0.05）。总之，这三种任务可能部分评估了不同的能力。对期望和信心的调查也支持这一假设。在选择心脏内感受方法时，应考虑其特征以契合研究问题。
