A heartfelt response to Zimprich et al. (2020), and Ainley et al. (2020)'s commentaries: Acknowledging issues with the HCT would benefit interoception research

被引:66
|
作者
Corneille, Olivier [1 ]
Desmedt, Olivier [1 ]
Zamariola, Giorgia [1 ]
Luminet, Olivier [1 ]
Maurage, Pierre [1 ]
机构
[1] UCLouvain, Psychol Sci Res Inst, Louvain La Neuve, Belgium
关键词
Interoception; Interoceptive accuracy; Construct validity; Methods; ACCURACY; BELIEFS; BODY; FEEL; PERCEPTION; VARIABLES; FEEDBACK;
D O I
10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.107869
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
In two Commentaries, Zimprich et al. (2020), and Ainley et al. (2020) dispute conclusions raised by Zamariola et al. (2018) in a large sample study that questioned the validity of IAcc scores derived from the Heartbeat Counting Task (HCT). After clarifying the reliability of our procedures and the robustness of our main findings, we address the four points of contention discussed in the Commentaries. In doing so, we spell out why research using the HCT faces important interpretational issues, and we call for a theoretical clarification on the construct. In our conclusion, we provide recommendations for improving HCT research and research on interoception in general.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Contextualizing discourses of climate delay: a response to Lamb et al. (2020)
    Pflieger, Geraldine
    De Pryck, Kari
    GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY, 2023, 6
  • [32] Mentorship in Science: Response to AlShebli et al., Nature Communications 2020
    Mummery, Christine
    Little, Melissa
    Lin, Haifan
    Clark, Amander
    Zaret, Ken
    Srivastava, Deepak
    Fuchs, Elaine
    Watt, Fiona
    Temple, Sally
    STEM CELL REPORTS, 2021, 16 (01): : 1 - 2
  • [33] Pragmatics for infants: commentary on Wenzel et al. (2020)
    Rubio-Fernandez, Paula
    Southgate, Victoria
    Kiraly, Ildiko
    ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE, 2021, 8 (06):
  • [34] Letter to the editor regarding Rice et al. (2020)
    Anderson, Janet K.
    Luz, Anthony L.
    Goodrum, Philip E.
    FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY, 2020, 145
  • [35] Death Is Different: Reply to Olver et al. (2020)
    DeMatteo, David
    Hart, Stephen D.
    Heilbrun, Kirk
    Boccaccini, Marcus T.
    Cunningham, Mark D.
    Douglas, Kevin S.
    Dvoskin, Joel A.
    Edens, John F.
    Guy, Laura S.
    Murrie, Daniel C.
    Otto, Randy K.
    Packer, Ira K.
    Reidy, Thomas J.
    PSYCHOLOGY PUBLIC POLICY AND LAW, 2020, 26 (04) : 511 - 518
  • [36] A Replication of DiMaggio et al. (2020) in Phoenix, AZ
    Kedron, Peter
    Bardin, Sarah
    Hoffman, Tyler D.
    Sachdeva, Mehak
    Quick, Matthew
    Holler, Joseph
    ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2022, 74 : 8 - 14
  • [37] Letter to the editors regarding Heringa et al. (2020)
    Smith, Carr J.
    Perfetti, Thomas A.
    REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY, 2020, 116
  • [38] Portraits in straw: A reply to Melinder et al. (2020)
    Baugerud, Gunn-Astrid
    Johnson, Miriam S.
    Hansen, Helle B. G.
    Magnussen, Svein
    Lamb, Michael E.
    APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 2021, 35 (02) : 570 - 573
  • [39] Characterizing evolving frameworks: issues from Esmail et al. (2020) review
    Glasgow, Russell E.
    Estabrooks, Paul A.
    Ory, Marcia G.
    IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE, 2020, 15 (01)
  • [40] Characterizing evolving frameworks: issues from Esmail et al. (2020) review
    Russell E. Glasgow
    Paul A. Estabrooks
    Marcia G. Ory
    Implementation Science, 15