Depression May Not Be Related to Impaired Interoceptive Sensibility: The Role of Alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interoceptive impairments are increasingly recognized as psychopathology processes underlying emotional disorders. However, their relationship with depression remains inconclusive. Alexithymia may influence the association between interoception and depressive symptoms. This study aimed to examine the role of alexithymia between interoception and depression. Eighty-eight depressed patients (DEPs) and fifty healthy controls (HCs) were recruited. Interoceptive sensibility was assessed using the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness, and interoceptive accuracy and interoceptive awareness were evaluated through heartbeat counting tasks. Alexithymia was measured with the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. In the DEP group, depressive symptoms were assessed using the Hamilton Depression Scale. In DEPs, none of the three dimensions of interoception were associated with depressive symptoms. The alexithymic depressed patients exhibited lower interoceptive sensibility than their non-alexithymic counterparts, while the latter did not differ from the HC group. Moreover, alexithymia mediated the link between interoceptive sensibility and depressive symptoms. These results suggested that impaired interoceptive sensibility may primarily contribute to alexithymia, which, in turn, leads to depression. This highlights the importance of addressing alexithymia in therapeutic interventions aimed at improving the interoceptive process in depressed individuals.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".