Visceral perception versus visceral detection: disentangling methods and assumptions.

Abstract

A within-subject experiment compared three paradigms commonly used in visceral perception: self-report, heartbeat tracking, and signal detection. Eighteen undergraduates estimated heart rate using each technique while engaging in a number of separate tasks conducted a week apart. Although all three techniques significantly tapped accuracy of heart rate perception, only the self-report and signal detection methods were reliable over time. Most important, there was no relationship involving any of the methods in measuring accuracy. The findings suggest some fundamental differences in the assumptions and perceptual properties of the various paradigms. A distinction is made between visceral perception and detection. Perception implies the subject's use of both internal physiological and external environmental information in the perception of visceral state. Detection connotes the subject's use of only physiological information--to the exclusion of all other factors. The relevance of these approaches for biofeedback and real-world symptom perception is discussed.