I feel it in my finger: Measurement device affects cardiac interoceptive accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, measures of cardiac interoceptive accuracy have been heavily scrutinised. The focus has been on potentially confounding physiological and psychological factors; little research has examined whether the device used to record objective heartbeats may influence cardiac interoceptive accuracy. The present studies assessed whether the device employed influences heartbeat counting (HCT) accuracy and the location from which heartbeats are perceived. In Study One, participants completed the HCT using a hard-clip finger pulse oximeter, electrocardiogram (ECG) and a smartphone application. In Study Two, an ECG, hard-clip and soft-clip oximeter were compared. Moderate-strong correlations were observed across devices, however, mean HCT accuracy and confidence varied as a function of device. Increased sensation in the finger when using a hard-clip pulse oximeter was related to increased accuracy relative to ECG. Results suggest that the device employed can influence HCT performance, and argue against comparing, or combining, scores obtained using different devices.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".