Eva Schäflein, Heribert C. Sattel, Olga Pollatos, Martin Sack
Abstract
Patients suffering from dissociative disorders are characterized by an avoidance of aversive stimuli. This includes the avoidance of emotions and, in particular, bodily perceptions. In the present pilot study, we explored the potential interoceptive accuracy deficit of patients suffering from dissociative disorders in a heartbeat detection task. Moreover, we investigated the impact of facial mirror-confrontation on interoceptive accuracy and the potential association between cardiac vagal tone derived from heart rate variability and interoceptive accuracy. Eighteen patients suffering from dissociative disorders and 18 healthy controls were assessed with the Mental Tracking Paradigm by Schandry for heartbeat detection at baseline and after confrontations exposing them to their own faces in a mirror (2 min each, accompanied by a negative or positive cognition). During the experiment, cardiac vagal tone was assessed. We used Pearson correlations to calculate potential associations between cardiac vagal tone and interoceptive accuracy. Patients performed significantly worse than the healthy controls in the heartbeat detection task at baseline. They displayed no significant increase in interoceptive accuracy following facial mirror-confrontation. In the patient group, higher cardiac vagal tone was associated with a more precise heartbeat detection performance. Dissociative disorder patients showed a considerable deficit in interoceptive accuracy. Our results fit with the assumption that highly dissociative patients tend to tune out the perceiving of bodily signals. To the extent that bodily signal perception may play a causal role in these disorders, therapeutic approaches enhancing interoceptive accuracy and cardiac vagal tone may be considered important and practicable steps to improve the therapy outcome of this patient group.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 April 2019.
All research outputs
#12,955,996
of 23,362,684 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,569
of 31,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,488
of 329,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#377
of 709 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,362,684 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,098 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,998 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 709 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
