MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415731466 · doi:10.1186/s13030-025-00343-x

Feasibility of the heaviness perception test as an assessment of interoception

2025· article· en· W4415731466 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daisuke Fujimoto, Masahito Sakakibara

Bibliographic record

VenueBioPsychoSocial Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteroceptionPerceptionTest (biology)Quantitative sensory testingBehavioural sciencesPsychophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Interoception refers to the multisensory integration and perception of the body's internal state within the central nervous system, which involves learning, memory, emotions, and experiences. Interoceptive dysfunction has been associated with alexithymia and alexisomia. Despite growing academic interest in interoception, standardized evaluation methods have yet to be established. The widely used Heartbeat Counting Task (HCT), a representative method for assessing interoceptive accuracy, has limitations owing to the potential influence of knowledge of heart rate, time perception, and tactile sensations. Therefore, more reliable assessment methods are needed. This study focused on the feasibility of the heaviness perception test as a method for assessing interoceptive accuracy and investigates its relationship with other interoceptive indices. METHODS: A total of 41 healthy volunteers (19 female; mean age 19.1 ± 0.8 years) participated in the study. The heaviness perception test was conducted using an approach similar to the method of adjustment applied to psychophysical measurements, and the absolute error scores were calculated. Other interoceptive indices investigated in this study include the HCT, Body Perception Questionnaire-Body Awareness Very Short Form (BPQ-VSF), the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), and Shitsu-Taikan-Sho-Scale (STSS) for alexisomia. RESULTS: Interoception accuracy assessed using the heaviness perception test showed a significant positive correlation with the BPQ-VSF score (r = .504, p < .01) and a negative correlation with the TAS-20 and STSS scores (TAS-20: r = -.342, p < .05; STSS: r = -.353, p < .05). However, there was no correlation between the heaviness perception test score and the absolute error score on the HCT. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the heaviness perception test is a feasible and useful method for assessing interoceptive accuracy and that it may be useful as an evaluation tool.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.388 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioPsychoSocial MedicineSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207