Somatic symptom distress is not related to cardioceptive accuracy 2024 Petzke et al

Highlights

• Correctly counting heartbeats (cardioception) is not related to symptom reporting.
  
  
• Cardioceptive tasks and interoception questionnaires are not related.
  
  
• The cardiovascular signal detection task is a useful and valid cardioception task.
  
  
• Cardioception is likely not a mechanism behind persistent somatic symptoms.

Abstract

Objective
(Cardiac) interoception was long considered a key mechanism behind symptom perception in persistent somatic symptoms (PSS). In this study, we aimed to extend earlier findings to clarify this potential interoceptive mechanisms of PSS.

Methods
A cross-sectional sample of 251 participants (23.1% with self-reported functional somatic syndrome) completed a laboratory study with two cardioceptive accuracy tasks (Schandry task and a new cardiac signal detection task) and multiple questionnaires. Somatic symptom distress and associated constructs were assessed with the PHQ-15, as well as with a novel multidimensional questionnaire measure (HiTOP-SF1) derived from the somatoform spectrum of the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP). Correlations (frequentist and Bayesian) and structural equation modelling (SEM) helped further investigate the interplay between these variables.

Results
There were no significant correlations between measures of interoception and somatic symptom distress. Self-report and behavioral cardioceptive accuracy measures did not correlate significantly. No significant covariances emerged between diagnostic tools and cardioceptive accuracy; Bayesian analyses supported the lack of association between interoception and symptom perception.

Conclusions
Cardiac interoception (specifically cardioceptive accuracy) unlikely represents a key mechanism in PSS etiology. We recommend investigating other factors in PSS.

Open access, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022399924000679

 

Same idea behind: this long-used PROM is bad, we need a different PROM. Rinse. Repeat. Decades pass, zero progress is made.

It's amazing how they never seem bothered that a "key mechanism" turned out to be BS. Something that was long asserted as a fact, without any supporting evidence or even plausible reasoning. They never change how they go about thinking about it, their methods or principles. Nope, they simply turn around and do the exact same thing with a tiny variation, sometimes not even with that. I'm sure we'll soon see a study reporting the opposite. Then another showing something in between. And again and again.

There's basically this long list of assumed key mechanisms that have been debunked over the years. Somehow instead of getting shorter, the list of key mechanisms only grows with time, debunking is irrelevant. Science builds on itself. This is basically the exact opposite. The 'research' is basically all over the place and has no consistency.