Shared and unique interoceptive deficits in high alexithymia and neuroticism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interoception is the perception of internal bodily signals. It is considered fundamental to developing emotional awareness. For this reason, interoceptive deficits are often associated with alexithymia, a condition characterized by difficulty identifying feelings (DIF), difficulty describing feelings (DDF), and an externally-oriented style of thinking (EOT). Yet, the atypical interoception found in alexithymia might be of a similar type and/or more serious than those found in other partially overlapping constructs that entail emotional difficulties and behavioural patterns associated with specific emotional styles. Our study explores this issue by examining the relationship between the interoceptive deficits associated with alexithymia and the Big Five personality traits. A non-clinical sample (N = 504) completed the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, the Big Five Inventory and the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness. Data were analysed using a network analytic approach that conceives psychological traits as networks of interacting symptoms. The estimated network highlighted that EOT is the alexithymia component least associated with interoception and most associated with lower Openness to Experience. Conversely, DIF and Neuroticism are, respectively, the dimensions of alexithymia and the Big Five most highly associated with interoception. We also compared interoceptive abilities in the four groups of participants whose scores were a) high for both alexithymia and neuroticism, b) high only for alexithymia c), high only for neuroticism, and d) low for both. High alexithymia was especially associated with the tendency to ignore sensations of pain or discomfort, while neuroticism was more indicative of the tendency to worry about these sensations. These results suggest that while high alexithymia and neuroticism share some interoceptive deficits, others are unique to alexithymia and contribute to overall lower interoceptive ability in this condition. Our findings suggest that interventions to enhance awareness of bodily sensations can be beneficial especially for profiles who present high neuroticism and alexithymia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".