No gender difference in cardiac interoceptive accuracy: Potential psychophysiological contributors in heartbeat counting task.

IF 3 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY BMC Psychology Pub Date : 2025-02-28 DOI:10.1186/s40359-025-02432-6
Yusuke Haruki, Kei Kaneko, Kenji Ogawa
{"title":"No gender difference in cardiac interoceptive accuracy: Potential psychophysiological contributors in heartbeat counting task.","authors":"Yusuke Haruki, Kei Kaneko, Kenji Ogawa","doi":"10.1186/s40359-025-02432-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Gender differences in interoceptive awareness-awareness of internal bodily signals such as heartbeat perception-have been suggested, with some findings indicating behaviourally reduced but subjectively enhanced awareness in women, though these findings are still contentious. This study aimed to comprehensively examine gender differences in three aspects of interoceptive awareness: behavioural accuracy, subjective confidence, and relationship between them (i.e., metacognition). We used a modified heartbeat counting task that prohibited estimation strategies and increased the number of trials up to 20. Using data from 74 healthy young adults (39 women and 35 men), we evaluated gender differences and practice effects for each measure via Bayesian linear mixed models, controlling for individual heart rate and trial duration on a trial-by-trial basis. Contrary to previous research, the results revealed no reduced interoceptive accuracy in women; instead, higher interoceptive accuracy score was associated with shorter trial durations and lower heart rates regardless of gender. Moreover, women exhibited underconfidence about their performance, and therefore lower metacognition scores, compared to men. Trial repetitions moderated women's lowered metacognition but did not affect accuracy or confidence. These findings highlight potential physiological and psychological confounding factors in the heartbeat counting task, such as heart rate and reporting style, and emphasise several cautions for studying gender differences in interoceptive awareness.</p>","PeriodicalId":37867,"journal":{"name":"BMC Psychology","volume":"13 1","pages":"176"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11871792/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02432-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gender differences in interoceptive awareness-awareness of internal bodily signals such as heartbeat perception-have been suggested, with some findings indicating behaviourally reduced but subjectively enhanced awareness in women, though these findings are still contentious. This study aimed to comprehensively examine gender differences in three aspects of interoceptive awareness: behavioural accuracy, subjective confidence, and relationship between them (i.e., metacognition). We used a modified heartbeat counting task that prohibited estimation strategies and increased the number of trials up to 20. Using data from 74 healthy young adults (39 women and 35 men), we evaluated gender differences and practice effects for each measure via Bayesian linear mixed models, controlling for individual heart rate and trial duration on a trial-by-trial basis. Contrary to previous research, the results revealed no reduced interoceptive accuracy in women; instead, higher interoceptive accuracy score was associated with shorter trial durations and lower heart rates regardless of gender. Moreover, women exhibited underconfidence about their performance, and therefore lower metacognition scores, compared to men. Trial repetitions moderated women's lowered metacognition but did not affect accuracy or confidence. These findings highlight potential physiological and psychological confounding factors in the heartbeat counting task, such as heart rate and reporting style, and emphasise several cautions for studying gender differences in interoceptive awareness.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心脏内感知准确性无性别差异:心跳计数任务中潜在的心理生理因素
内感受意识(对身体内部信号如心跳感知的意识)的性别差异已被提出,一些研究结果表明,女性的内感受意识在行为上降低,但在主观上增强,尽管这些发现仍有争议。本研究旨在全面探讨行为准确性、主观自信以及两者之间的关系(即元认知)三个方面的性别差异。我们使用了一个修改后的心跳计数任务,该任务禁止估计策略,并将试验次数增加到20次。使用74名健康年轻人(39名女性和35名男性)的数据,我们通过贝叶斯线性混合模型评估了性别差异和每种测量方法的实践效果,并在逐个试验的基础上控制了个人心率和试验持续时间。与之前的研究相反,结果显示女性的内感受准确性没有降低;相反,无论性别,较高的内感受准确度得分与较短的试验持续时间和较低的心率有关。此外,女性对自己的表现缺乏自信,因此与男性相比,她们的元认知得分较低。重复试验缓和了女性较低的元认知,但不影响准确性或信心。这些发现强调了心跳计数任务中潜在的生理和心理混杂因素,如心率和报告风格,并强调了研究内感受意识性别差异的几个注意事项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Psychology
BMC Psychology Psychology-Psychology (all)
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
2.80%
发文量
265
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Psychology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers manuscripts on all aspects of psychology, human behavior and the mind, including developmental, clinical, cognitive, experimental, health and social psychology, as well as personality and individual differences. The journal welcomes quantitative and qualitative research methods, including animal studies.
期刊最新文献
Hyperactive-impulsive ADHD traits predict higher curiosity in adults: evidence from a cross-sectional study. Experiences of victimization, maladaptive schemas, and the mediating role of resilience in adolescents. Digital addiction on depression, anxiety, stress and loneliness in healthcare professionals: cross-sectional study. From one-time visits to long-term therapy: patterns of psychological help-seeking. Multifactorial associations of non-suicidal self-injury among adolescents with depression: a network analytic perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1