4.2 Article

Interoceptive and exteroceptive attention have opposite effects on subsequent somatosensory perceptual decision making

Journal

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 65, Issue 5, Pages 926-938

Publisher

PSYCHOLOGY PRESS
DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2011.636823

Keywords

Attention; Exteroception; Interoception; Signal detection analysis; Somatization

Funding

  1. Leverhulme Trust [F/00 120/BF]
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/D524432/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. BBSRC [BB/D524432/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Evidence suggests that interoceptive and exteroceptive attention might have different perceptual effects. However, the effects of these different types of body-focused attention have never been directly compared. The current research investigated how interoceptive and exteroceptive attention affect subsequent performance on the somatic signal detection task (SSDT). In Experiment 1, 37 participants completed the SSDT under usual testing conditions and after performing an interoceptive heartbeat perception task. This task led to a more liberal response criterion, leading to increased touch reports in the presence and absence of a target vibration. This finding is consistent with suggestions that attending internally contributes to physical symptom reporting in patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). In Experiment 2, 40 participants completed the SSDT before and after an exteroceptive grating orientation task. This task led to a more stringent response criterion, leading to decreased touch reports in the presence and absence of the target, possibly via a reduction in sensory noise. This work demonstrates that internal and external body-focused attention can have opposite effects on subsequent somatic perceptual decision making and suggests that attentional training could be useful for patients reporting MUS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available