A recent paper by Zamariola and colleagues is widely cited as an authority on the invalidity of the Heartbeat Counting Task as a measure of interoceptive accuracy. Given the widespread interest in this field, it is essential that papers about methods are conceptually sound. However, only one of the authors' four criticisms appears substantiated - that people count too few heartbeats. Their arguments about "simple bivariate correlations" and their finding that interoceptive accuracy and heart rate correlate, depend on 'spurious correlations' arising from the overlooked point that interoceptive accuracy is a ratio. Moreover, scrutiny of the authors' data shows that their fourth criticism (that interoceptive accuracy is lower on longer trials) is confounded by differences in mean heart rate between trials. We present data from our own labs to refute it. We draw the authors' and editors' attention to these issues and trust that they will reconsider these erroneous conclusions.

中文翻译：

---

评论“Zamariola et al., (2018), Interoceptive Accuracy Scores are Problema

Zamariola 及其同事最近的一篇论文被广泛引用为权威，认为心跳计数任务作为内感受准确性的衡量标准是无效的。鉴于对该领域的广泛兴趣，有关方法的论文在概念上是合理的。然而，作者的四项批评中只有一项似乎得到了证实——人们计算心跳的次数太少。他们关于“简单的双变量相关性”的论点以及他们发现内感受准确度和心率相关的发现，依赖于由被忽视的内感受准确度是一个比率这一点引起的“虚假相关性”。此外，对作者数据的审查表明，他们的第四个批评（更长的试验中内感受的准确性较低）被试验之间平均心率的差异所混淆。我们提供来自我们自己实验室的数据来反驳它。我们提请作者和编辑注意这些问题，并相信他们会重新考虑这些错误的结论。