Abstract
Desmedt et al. (2023) audit measures of interoceptive accuracy, the perception of internal bodily signals. Whilst a useful overview of tasks and limitations, as well as practical challenges, the authors 1) do not differentiate tasks of interoceptive propensity and accuracy, and 2) present critiques that we believe overlook the nuance of promising tasks.
Interoceptive accuracy is defined as accuracy of the perception of internal bodily states. It is assessed by comparing participant reports to an objective measure (Murphy, 2023). Whilst individuals can differ with respect to interoception in many ways (Murphy, 2023), one neglected area is propensity to use internal signals (Murphy, 2022).
As outlined by Murphy (2022), individuals differ in the cues they use to gauge internal states (e.g., hunger); some rely more on internal information (e.g., internal feelings of hunger), others on external information (e.g., time of day). Evidence that propensity is distinct from accuracy comes from examining gender (Murphy, 2022); although males typically outperform females on lab-based interoceptive accuracy tasks, women have a greater propensity to use external cues, resulting in comparable performance in real-life.