Page 131 - Demo

Interoception and Facial Emotion Perception1295perspective, emotional states have even been suggested to arise from active inference of causes of physiological changes (Seth, 2013). If, for example, various afferent interoceptive signals indicate a state of heightened physiological arousal, the mismatch to a predicted calmer state is resolved by acquiring more sensory information about likely internal and external causes, with their integration in updated models resulting in an emotion percept. Importantly, individuals vary in the processing of interoceptive input at different levels in the hierarchy (Suksasilp & Garfinkel, 2022), and various measures have been developed to assess these individual differences. In a common interoception model (Garfinkel et al., 2016), three interoceptive dimensions are distinguished (Forkmann et al., 2016; Garfinkel et al., 2015), namely interoceptive accuracy (i.e., the objective accuracy in the detection of interoceptive signals), interoceptive sensibility (i.e., the self-reported, subjective tendency to focus and be aware of interoceptive signals) and interoceptive awareness (i.e., the ability to assess one%u2019s interoceptive accuracy correctly, i.e. a metacognitive process). Next to these dimensions, the correspondence between interoceptive sensibility and accuracy, the so-called interoception trait prediction error (Garfinkel et al., 2016), can provide valuable information about the mismatch between subjective beliefs and objective measures. The scope of this model in describing subjective beliefs is limited as it fails to distinguish between beliefs regarding accuracy in perceiving interoceptive signals versus attention to them. To capture this dissociation, Murphy et al. (2019) developed a 2x2 factor model of interoceptive ability, with the first factors (%u2018What is measured?%u2019) distinguishing between accuracy and attention. The second factor (%u2018How is it measured?%u2019) contrasts beliefs regarding one%u2019s accuracy/attention (i.e., self-reports) with one%u2019s actual behaviour regarding the two targets (i.e., objective measures).Most research in the field of emotion processing has employed objective taskbased interoception measures, which contrast the (objectively measured) nature of a specific afferent signal (e.g., timing, strength) to its subjective experience. The firing of baroreceptors has been highlighted as afferent signal in the cardiovascular domain, among other signals (Desmedt et al., 2023), indicating cardiovascular arousal in emotion processing (Critchley & Garfinkel, 2017). In frequently used cardiac interoception tasks, participants either keep track of their heartbeats within a specific time window (i.e., heartbeat counting) or judge the synchronicity of their heartbeats with auditory information (i.e., heartbeat discrimination). Even