Aphantasia Logo
Back to all research
Aphantasia Logo

Building awareness and understanding of aphantasia through research, education, and community support.

About

  • What is Aphantasia?
  • What is Hyperphantasia?
  • Take Assessment
  • Getting Started
  • Newsletter
  • About Us
  • Contact

Community

  • Premium Membership
  • Find support
  • Discussions
  • Events
  • Visualize

For Professionals

  • Overview
  • Free Introduction
  • Counselor Training
  • Educator Training
  • List Your Practice
  • Pricing & Bundles

Resources

  • Articles & Stories
  • Videos & Interviews
  • Aphantasia Course
  • FAQs

Research

  • Research Library
  • Participate in Studies
  • Recruitment Services

© 2026 Aphantasia Network. All rights reserved.

  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
Aphantasia Logo
Back to all research
Aphantasia Logo

Building awareness and understanding of aphantasia through research, education, and community support.

About

  • What is Aphantasia?
  • What is Hyperphantasia?
  • Take Assessment
  • Getting Started
  • Newsletter
  • About Us
  • Contact

Community

  • Premium Membership
  • Find support
  • Discussions
  • Events
  • Visualize

For Professionals

  • Overview
  • Free Introduction
  • Counselor Training
  • Educator Training
  • List Your Practice
  • Pricing & Bundles

Resources

  • Articles & Stories
  • Videos & Interviews
  • Aphantasia Course
  • FAQs

Research

  • Research Library
  • Participate in Studies
  • Recruitment Services

© 2026 Aphantasia Network. All rights reserved.

  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
Ask AI About This Paper
Ask AI About This Paper

Testing the independence of self-reported interoceptive accuracy and attention

DOI: 10.1177/1747021819879826
Tags:
Measurement & Assessment
Murphy, J., Brewer, R., Plans, D., Khalsa, S. S., Catmur, C., & Bird, G. (2020). Testing the independence of self-reported interoceptive accuracy and attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(1), 115–133. doi:10.1177/1747021819879826

Abstract

It has recently been proposed that measures of the perception of the state of one’s own body (“interoception”) can be categorised as one of several types depending on both how an assessment is obtained (objective measurement vs. self-report) and what is assessed (degree of interoceptive attention vs. accuracy of interoceptive perception). Under this model, a distinction is made between beliefs regarding the degree to which interoceptive signals are the object of attention and beliefs regarding one’s ability to perceive accurately interoceptive signals. This distinction is difficult to test, however, because of the paucity of measures designed to assess self-reported perception of one’s own interoceptive accuracy. This article therefore reports on the development of such a measure, the Interoceptive Accuracy Scale (IAS). Use of this measure enables assessment of the proposed distinction between beliefs regarding attention to, and accuracy in perceiving, interoceptive signals. Across six studies, we report on the development of the IAS and, importantly, its relationship with measures of trait self-reported interoceptive attention, objective interoceptive accuracy, confidence in the accuracy of specific interoceptive percepts, and metacognition with respect to interoceptive accuracy. Results support the distinction between individual differences in perceived attention towards interoceptive information and the accuracy of interoceptive perception.

Authors

  • Jennifer Murphy2
  • Rebecca Brewer2
  • David Plans1
  • Sahib S Khalsa1
  • Caroline Catmur1
  • Geoffrey Bird1

Testing the independence of self-reported interoceptive accuracy and attention

DOI: 10.1177/1747021819879826
Tags:
Measurement & Assessment
Murphy, J., Brewer, R., Plans, D., Khalsa, S. S., Catmur, C., & Bird, G. (2020). Testing the independence of self-reported interoceptive accuracy and attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(1), 115–133. doi:10.1177/1747021819879826

Abstract

It has recently been proposed that measures of the perception of the state of one’s own body (“interoception”) can be categorised as one of several types depending on both how an assessment is obtained (objective measurement vs. self-report) and what is assessed (degree of interoceptive attention vs. accuracy of interoceptive perception). Under this model, a distinction is made between beliefs regarding the degree to which interoceptive signals are the object of attention and beliefs regarding one’s ability to perceive accurately interoceptive signals. This distinction is difficult to test, however, because of the paucity of measures designed to assess self-reported perception of one’s own interoceptive accuracy. This article therefore reports on the development of such a measure, the Interoceptive Accuracy Scale (IAS). Use of this measure enables assessment of the proposed distinction between beliefs regarding attention to, and accuracy in perceiving, interoceptive signals. Across six studies, we report on the development of the IAS and, importantly, its relationship with measures of trait self-reported interoceptive attention, objective interoceptive accuracy, confidence in the accuracy of specific interoceptive percepts, and metacognition with respect to interoceptive accuracy. Results support the distinction between individual differences in perceived attention towards interoceptive information and the accuracy of interoceptive perception.

Authors

  • Jennifer Murphy2
  • Rebecca Brewer2
  • David Plans1
  • Sahib S Khalsa1
  • Caroline Catmur1
  • Geoffrey Bird1
Aphantasia Logo

What This Study Is About

Researchers wanted to create a better way to measure how well people can sense their own internal body signals, such as their heartbeat, hunger, or temperature. This ability is called interoception, and the study aimed to see if "paying attention" to your body is different from "being accurate" at feeling what is happening inside.

How They Studied It

The researchers developed a new questionnaire called the Interoceptive Accuracy Scale (IAS). Across six different sub-studies, they tested this scale on hundreds of participants (for example, 451 people in the first study). Participants answered questions about how accurately they could perceive internal sensations like hunger, thirst, and heart rate. The researchers then compared these self-reports to objective physical tests and other existing surveys to see if the new scale truly measured accuracy rather than just how much someone thinks about their body.

What They Found

The study successfully created the IAS, a tool that specifically measures how accurate people believe they are at sensing their body. The results showed that being accurate and paying attention are two different things: a person might pay a lot of attention to their internal signals but still be poor at accurately identifying them. The researchers also found that while the scale measures what people believe about their accuracy, this doesn't always perfectly match how they perform on objective physical tests (like counting their own heartbeats).

What This Might Mean

This research suggests that interoception is not a single "sense" but a complex system with different parts. For the aphantasia community—where individuals lack mental imagery (the ability to "see" with the mind's eye)—understanding these internal body senses is important, as some research suggests aphantasia may be linked to differences in how other internal experiences are processed. However, because this study relies on self-reporting, it highlights that our beliefs about our internal abilities may differ from our actual physical performance.

One Interesting Detail

The researchers designed the new scale to be more flexible than older versions; instead of asking if you "forget to eat" (which could mean you are busy, not just that you can't feel hunger), the new scale asks directly if you can "accurately perceive" when you are hungry.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain errors. Always refer to the original paper for accuracy.
Most-Cited Researchers
Top 10 researchers by number of papers published in Aphantasia
1

Joel Pearson

35
2

Merlin Monzel

30
3

Adam Zeman

20
4

Rebecca Keogh

17
5

Martin Reuter

16
6

Juha Silvanto

14
7

Paolo Bartolomeo

11
8

Carla Dance

10
9

Jianghao Liu

9
10

Fraser Milton

9
Recruit the largest aphantasia cohort on earth

97.4K+ users & subscribers across the imagery spectrum, plus 1.5M+ survey responses in our dataset. Skip the recruitment bottleneck and run your study with the community we've built for a decade.

Partner with us