Minimal Impact of Sensation‐Related Items on the Association Between Alexithymia and Self‐Report Measures of Interoception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence suggests a relationship between alexithymia and self-report measures of interoception. As measures of alexithymia often include items that may pick up on interoceptive difficulty, however, it is possible that previously reported associations are driven by a lack of independence of measurement. Here, we explored the effect of removing sensation-related items from the Toronto Alexithymia Questionnaire (TAS-20) on the association between the TAS-20 and self-report measures of interoceptive accuracy (Studies 1 and 2; N = 330 and N = 476, respectively) and attention (Study 2). In both studies, removal of sensation-related items significantly reduced associations between the self-report measures of interoception and alexithymia. This effect was specific to the removal of sensation-related items (removing a random set of items did not result in a reduction in the size of the association). Importantly, relationships between alexithymia and self-reported interoception remained after item removal. Although effects were modest, it is recommended that future studies exploring relationships with self-report measures of interoception-particularly in relation to constructs where sensation-related items may broadly feature-should implement sensitivity analyses or employ alternative instruments that exclude sensation-related items, to ensure associations are not driven by a lack of independence of measurement.
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".