A machine learning approach towards the differentiation between interoceptive and exteroceptive attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interoception, the representation of the body's internal state, plays a central role in emotion, motivation and wellbeing. Interoceptive sensibility, the ability to engage in sustained interoceptive awareness, is particularly relevant for mental health but is exclusively measured via self-report, without methods for objective measurement. We used machine learning to classify interoceptive sensibility by contrasting using data from a randomized control trial of interoceptive training, with functional magnetic resonance imaging assessment before and after an 8-week intervention (N = 44 scans). The neuroimaging paradigm manipulated attention targets (breath vs. visual stimuli) and reporting demands (active reporting vs. passive monitoring). Machine learning achieved high accuracy in distinguishing between interoceptive and exteroceptive attention, both for within-session classification (~80% accuracy) and out-of-sample classification (~70% accuracy), revealing the reliability of the predictions. We then explored the classifier potential for 'reading out' mental states in a 3-min sustained interoceptive attention task. Participants were classified as actively engaged about half of the time, during which interoceptive training enhanced their ability to sustain interoceptive attention. These findings demonstrate that interoceptive and exteroceptive attention is distinguishable at the neural level; these classifiers may help to demarcate periods of interoceptive focus, with implications for developing an objective marker for interoceptive sensibility in mental health research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".