MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975176620 · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2014-308883.39

INTEROCEPTIVE SENSITIVITY AND SENSE OF BODY OWNERSHIP IN PATIENTS WITH FUNCTIONAL NEUROLOGICAL SYMPTOMS

2014· article· en· W1975176620 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucia Ricciardi, Benedetta Demartini, Laura Crucianelli, Mark J. Edwards, Aikaterini Fotopoulou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsToronto Alexithymia ScaleHeart rateInteroceptionAnxietyPsychologyAlexithymiaPsychogenic diseaseAudiologySensationPerceptionMedicineBlood pressureClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Background and aims. Patients with functional (psychogenic) neurological symptoms are commonly seen in neurological practice. Though emotional/psychological causes are often proposed to underlie their symptoms, patients characteristically deny such problems, even when objective evidence for (for example) anxiety or panic is present. Interception is the perception of sensations from inside the body and includes the perception of physical sensations related to internal organ function. Heartbeat perception is considered a standard method for the assessment of interceptive sensitivity and it could be considered as a measure of self-awareness of internal stimuli which may have relevance for determining emotional state. The aim of our study was to evaluate interceptive awareness in patients with functional (psychogenic) movement symptoms (FMS). In addition we assessed the sense of body ownership using the rubber hand illusion (RHI). Method We included in the study 17 patients with FMS according to Fahn and Williams criteria. Eighteen healthy controls (HC), matched for age and gender served as a control group. Patients and HC were asked to complete the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the self-consciousness scale (self-objectification questionnaire), also we administered the Montgomery depression scale. Heart beat perception task: heart rate was recorded by means of a commercial heart rate monitor and subjects were asked to count their heart beats (only by concentration on their body and not by taking their pulse) during a signalled time interval. The reported number of beats was then compared to the actual number of beats. All subjects were tested before and after a stress-induction task. RHI: illusionary experience was measured by self-report and by proprioceptive alteration. Results FMS patients showed a poorer interceptive sensitivity than HC in the pre stress condition (p=0.048), but no difference was seen between groups in the post stress condition. No significant differences were revealed between patients with FMS and HC in the RHI on both perceptual (i.e. proprioceptive drift) and subjective (i.e. self-report questionnaire) measures. Conclusion Patients with FMS have poor interoceptive sensitivity. This could relate to impairments of assessment of emotional state in these patients.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207