How well do current interoception assessment methods converge, and what does poor convergence mean for linking interoception to emotion?

Why do interoception measures fail to agree?

Interoception is often defined as the sensing of internal bodily signals, but the term has been used inconsistently. One problem is that definitions sometimes limit interoception to specific physiological pathways, even though in humans the processing of internal states involves other pathways generally assigned to the somatosensory system [5]. This narrow framing can lead different researchers to study different phenomena while using the same word.

A second problem is that the commonly agreed dimensions of interoception are empirically detached from existing measures. In other words, the questionnaires and tasks meant to assess interoception capture loosely related phenomena rather than a shared construct [5]. This weakens replicability across measures and makes it hard to know whether two studies are really measuring the same thing.

What does poor convergence look like in practice?

When researchers develop a new scale, they can test whether it converges with an existing measure. The Emotion-Linked Interoceptive Awareness Scale was compared with an existing interoception measure and showed convergence, but the authors also note that subdomains may not converge on a single underlying construct [3]. So even a new tool designed for emotional contexts does not guarantee that all aspects of interoception hang together.

In psychiatry, a systematic scoping review maps interoception concepts, measurement methods, and clinical impacts. It highlights heterogeneity in measurement and examines the link between interoception and emotion regulation [4]. That heterogeneity is the practical face of poor convergence: different studies use different tools, and the results are hard to compare directly.

Why does this matter for linking interoception to emotion?

If interoception measures do not converge, then a study linking one measure to emotion may not generalize to another measure. The call for improved interoceptive methods emphasizes that greater precision in techniques and core interoceptive constructs will aid in mapping interoceptive measures to cognition and emotion factors [2]. Without that precision, the mapping remains uncertain.

Neuroimaging evidence adds a further caution. A meta-analysis across neurodegenerative diseases found convergence between interoception and emotion in some conditions—for example, in the striatum, thalamus, and hippocampus in Parkinson's disease and in the posterior insula in primary progressive aphasias—but in Alzheimer's disease and multiple sclerosis, disruptions in the allostatic-interoceptive network appeared during interoception without convergence with emotion [1]. This suggests that the interoception–emotion link may depend on which disease and which measure are studied, consistent with the idea that poor convergence at the measurement level complicates broad claims about a single relationship.

Sources used in this answer

Related research questions