In the opening article “What is Interoception?” I already wrote about this interesting word Interoception. The article aimed to approach this term, to explain what is meant by it. In a word, it revolves around the inner perception. The external perception would be, among other things, seeing and hearing. The inner perception would be the perception of physical sensations. We are not talking about emotions here. Emotions, autonomous states, proprioception, exteroception and interception have a lot to do with the present experience and feeling. However, the emotion is downstream. Previously, body conditions were. And then we would be back at the inter-reception. Now it is the case that this word is known in science, but in general language it has not yet really arrived. I would like to change that. And, it is also the case that some scientists would like to bring more differentiation into the term. That’s what this article is about. Let’s start at the beginning.
What exactly is this inter-reception?
The neuroscientist Bud Craig (2002) defines interoception as the sense of the physiological state of the body. According to Craig, inter-reception forms the neurobiological basis for us to feel the way we are doing at the moment. This applies to subjective feelings, emotional states and ultimately also self-perception. The Insula plays a central role. So, interoception is the sense of the physiological state of the body. And how can this be differentiated now?
The original three-dimensional model
The scientists Murphy, Catmur and Bird (2019) criticize the original model and suggest going into more detail on how it can be measured and what exactly is measured. The new model is intended to capture in a more differentiated way which aspects of interreception are strengthened or impaired in various clinical disorders. This would make it possible to better recognize clinically relevant differences and to investigate them more specifically. The subdivision of the original model according to Garfinkel et al. (2015) would be:
- Interceptive accuracy. This is the actual ability to perceive body signals correctly. This is measured by objective tests, i.e. heartbeats.
- Interceptive sensitivity (interoceptive sensitivity). This is a person’s subjective assessment of how well they perceive their body, measured by a self-report (Porges Body Perception Questionnaire – BPQ), or trust assessments during a task of interoceptive accuracy.
- Interceptive awareness. This is a metacognitive ability. This ability describes how well the subjective assessment matches the actual perceptual performance. So the relationship between interceptive accuracy and interceptive sensitivity.
In particular, the authors criticize the concept of interoceptive awareness. In the previous model, no clear distinction is made between the subjectively assessed accuracy of body perception (How well do I think I perceive my body?) and attention to body signals (How much do I focus my attention on my body?). In the previous model, both are partly merged under the same category of “interoceptive awareness”, although according to the authors, they are different psychological processes. The two frequently used measures of interoceptive sensitivity, questionnaires and trust ratings, usually do not correlate with each other and show different relationships to interoceptive accuracy. While trust assessments are sometimes related to actual perceptual performance, questionnaire measures such as the BPQ usually do not. This suggests that interoceptive sensitivity and interoceptive accuracy are different constructs. Ergo, attention to body signals is not the same as the ability to perceive body signals correctly or to realistically assess one’s own perceptual performance. Therefore, the authors propose to clearly separate attention and accuracy theoretically and methodologically.
A new 2×2 model
That’s why they suggest a 2×2 model instead of the old 3D model. This separates what is measured, i.e. accuracy and attention, as well as how it measures, objectively and subjectively. This creates four different areas of interreception instead of three. The previous model does not differentiate clearly enough between attention to body signals and actual perception accuracy. As a result, various interoceptive processes are mixed theoretically and clinically. Here is an overview of the 2×2 adjustment:
Factor 1: What is measured?
- Accuracy (accuracy) refers to the extent to which the interoceptive perception represents a truthful representation of the actual state of the body,
- while attention describes the extent to which interoceptive signals are the subject of attention.
Factor 2: How is it measured?
- Objective measurement versus
- Subjective (self-report)
This 2×2 model distinguishes two forms of metacognitic interoption:
- How well subjective and objective interoceptive accuracy match.
- How well subjective and objective interoceptive attention coincide.
The authors point out that existing studies comparing subjective attention with objective accuracy nevertheless remain meaningful and are clinically relevant.
Conclusion
Interoceptor describes our approach to the inner world of the body. Current research increasingly shows that it is not only about whether we perceive our body, but also how we pay attention to it and how accurate this perception actually is. The proposed differentiation helps to better understand the different facets of inner perception and opens up new perspectives for research, therapy and the personal examination of one’s own experience.
Literature:
- Craig A. D. (2002). How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 3(8), 655-666.https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn894
- Garfinkel, S. N., Seth, A. K., Barrett, A. B., Suzuki, K., & Critchley, H. D. (2015). Knowing your own heart: distinguishing interoceptive accuracy from interoceptive awareness. Biological Psychology, 104, 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.11.004
- Murphy, J., Catmur, C., & Bird, G. (2019). Classifying individual differences in interoception: Implications for the measurement of interoceptive awareness. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 26(5), 1467–1471. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01632-7
[Feature Photo by Birger Strahl on Unsplash.]