When the body knows: Interoceptive accuracy enhances physiological but not explicit differentiation between liars and truth-tellers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research suggests that people experience distinct physiological reactions to lies versus truths. It is unclear, however, if this experience is incorporated into greater truth-lie judgment accuracy. We hypothesized that individuals with high interoceptive accuracy—those with greater access to bodily experiences and stronger physiological responses to emotional stimuli—might be particularly likely to accurately discriminate high-stakes, emotional lies and truths. Participants (n = 71) completed two study sessions: the first assessed their interoceptive accuracy with heartbeat detection measures, and the second assessed their deception detection ability while measuring their physiological reactivity. Interoceptive accuracy was associated with a greater difference in vasoconstriction to liars (vs. truth-tellers), suggesting that interoception was positively associated with physiological sensitivity to deception. Interoceptive accuracy, however, was unrelated to deception detection accuracy. While better interoception may enhance physiological signals that could better discriminate lies from truths, it does not improve explicit deception detection accuracy.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".