Jennifer MurphyA Commentary on
There is no such thing as interoception
by Schoeller, F. A., Zhang, B., Garcia, T., and Reggente, N. (2025). Front. Psychol. 16:1488415. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1488415
Introduction
In their article, Schoeller et al. (2025) question whether interoception—namely a unified interoceptive ability—exists. Drawing on evidence that interoceptive accuracy dissociates across domains, the limitations of existing tasks, the unclear mapping of interoceptive accuracy to clinical variables, and the lack of transfer effects in the area of interoceptive training, the authors argue that the existing evidence challenges the notion of a unified interoceptive ability.
The impact of task limitations and non-interoceptive factors
These arguments are in line with current thinking (Desmedt et al., 2023, 2025) and whilst I agree with many of the arguments posed with respect to the limitations of existing tasks (that are not limited to the Heartbeat Counting Task nor indeed cardiac interoceptive accuracy; see Murphy, 2023) —I believe that these limitations preclude strong conclusions regarding the domain specificity of interoceptive accuracy (and indeed, associations with clinical variables; see for example Adams et al., 2022; Desmedt et al., 2022). Although the authors draw on much evidence suggesting that interoceptive accuracy dissociates across domains (the majority of which has employed tasks that have significant limitations), the authors do not sufficiently address evidence that measures of interoceptive accuracy show poor correspondence even when examined within a domain.
We have shown that when pooling data across multiple studies only ~4% of the variance is shared between the Heartbeat Counting Task and Heartbeat Detection Task (Hickman et al., 2020). Even where similar Heartbeat Detection variants are compared, for example comparing two methods that require matching of an external stimulus (e.g., a tone) to one's heartbeat, these measures often only show moderate correspondence (~35% variance shared; Brener et al., 1993; Brener and Ring, 2016). The exception to this low-moderate correspondence occurs only when Heartbeat Detection variants are extremely well-matched; for example, good correspondence is often observed when comparing tasks that present tones at similar delays following the hearts R-wave and use similar analyses strategies that infer accuracy from the consistency of participants' selected delays (up to 52% variance shared between tasks; Brener et al., 1993; Brener and Ring, 2016).
Where evidence suggests that almost 25% of the variance in Heartbeat Detection can be explained by performance in a well-matched, but purely exteroceptive task (Knapp et al., 1997)—an amount not far off that explained by performance across two similarly, albeit not perfectly, matched cardiac interoceptive accuracy tasks—it is perhaps unsurprising that interoceptive accuracy tasks show poor correspondence when compared across domains. Indeed, interoceptive accuracy tasks across domains vary greatly in their task format, as well as the demands they make on non-interoceptive processes (e.g., multisensory integration, sustained attention, working memory etc.; for discussion see Brewer et al., 2021), which may prevent detection of associations between interoceptive accuracy tasks across domains if they do in fact exist. Consistent with this possibility, when task formats are better matched, evidence does suggest the possibility of at least some correspondence across interoceptive domains—notably cardiac and gastric interoceptive accuracy (~25% of the variance shared; Whitehead and Drescher, 1980). The same is true for the examination of transfer effects in the area of interoceptive training—if the training improves non-interoceptive factors that contribute toward performance on a task in one domain, but not the non-interoceptive factors that contribute toward performance in a different domain—one may erroneously conclude that interoceptive accuracy is not a domain general ability.
Discussion
Whilst it is entirely possible that a unitary interoceptive ability may not exist, and such findings would be consistent with some theory and evidence (e.g., Stephani et al., 2011; Khalsa et al., 2018; but see Kwon et al., 2025; for discussion see Brewer et al., 2021), confirming this requires greater consideration of the non-interoceptive factors that may contribute toward performance on tests of interoceptive accuracy and attempts to match tasks across domains. At a minimum, the contribution of non-interoceptive processes should be established using a well-matched control task. Although such work may be challenging, in light of evidence that tasks within a domain are poorly related, such work is essential before we can make strong conclusions regarding domain specificity. Whilst we may need to be cautious about generalizing findings from one domain to another at this time, it is too early to conclude that “there is no such thing as interoception.”
Author contributions
JM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. JM was supported by a Medical Research Council New Investigator Grant (MR/X010295/1).
Conflict of interest
JM has completed paid consultancy work for Healios for work on interoception.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Adams, K. L., Edwards, A., Peart, C., Ellett, L., Mendes, I., Bird, G., et al. (2022). The association between anxiety and cardiac interoceptive accuracy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 140:104754. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104754
Brener, J., Liu, X., and Ring, C. A. (1993). method of constant stimuli for examining heartbeat detection: comparison with the Brener-Kluvitse and Whitehead methods. Psychophysiology 30, 657–665. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb02091.x
Brener, J., and Ring, C. (2016). Towards a psychophysics of interoceptive processes: the measurement of heartbeat detection. Phil Trans R Soc B. 371:20160015. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2016.0015
Brewer, R., Murphy, J., and Bird, G. (2021). Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: a review. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 130, 470–508. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.07.036
Desmedt, O., Luminet, O., Maurage, P., and Corneille, O. (2025). Discrepancies in the definition and measurement of interoception: a comprehensive discussion and suggested ways forward. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 20, 76–98. doi: 10.1177/17456916231191537
Desmedt, O., Luminet, O., Walentynowicz, M., and Corneille, O. (2023). The new measures of interoceptive accuracy: a systematic review and assessment. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 153:105388. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105388
Desmedt, O., Van Den Houte, M., Walentynowicz, M., Dekeyser, S., Luminet, O., and Corneille, O. (2022). How does heartbeat counting task performance relate to theoretically-relevant mental health outcomes? A meta-analysis. Collabra Psychol. 8:33271. doi: 10.1525/collabra.33271
Hickman, L., Seyedsalehi, A., Cook, J. L., Bird, G., and Murphy, J. (2020). The relationship between heartbeat counting and heartbeat discrimination: a meta-analysis. Biol. Psychol. 156:107949. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.107949
Khalsa, S. S., Adolphs, R., Cameron, O. G., Critchley, H. D., Davenport, P. W., Feinstein, J. S., et al. (2018). Interoception and mental health: a roadmap. Biol. Psychiatry Cogn. Neurosci. Neuroimag. 3, 501–513. doi: 10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.12.004
Knapp, K., Ring, C., and Brener, J. (1997). Sensitivity to mechanical stimuli and the role of general sensory and perceptual processes in heartbeat detection. Psychophysiology 34, 467–473. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1997.tb02391.x
Kwon, M., Bo, K., Botvinik-Nezer, R., Kragel, P. A., Van Oudenhove, L., Wager, T. D., et al. (2025). Convergent and selective representations of pain, appetitive processes, aversive processes, and cognitive control in the insula. bioRxiv, 2025–02. doi: 10.1101/2025.02.18.638889
Murphy, J. (2023). Interoception: where do we go from here? Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 9:17470218231172724.
Schoeller, F. A., Zhang, B., Garcia, T., and Reggente, N. (2025). There is no such thing as interoception. Front. Psychol. 16:1488415. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1488415
Stephani, C., Fernandez-Baca Vaca, G., Maciunas, R., Koubeissi, M., and Lüders, H. O. (2011). Functional neuroanatomy of the insular lobe. Brain Struct. Funct. 216, 137–149. doi: 10.1007/s00429-010-0296-3
Keywords: interoceptive accuracy, measurement, interoception, interoceptive sensitivity, interoceptive ability
Citation: Murphy J (2025) Commentary: There is no such thing as interoception. Front. Psychol. 16:1579066. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1579066
Received: 19 February 2025; Accepted: 19 March 2025;
Published: 23 April 2025.
Edited by:
Cristiano Crescentini, University of Udine, ItalyReviewed by:
Yusuke Haruki, The University of Tokyo, JapanCopyright © 2025 Murphy. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jennifer Murphy, SmVubmlmZXIubXVycGh5QHN1cnJleS5hYy51aw==