↓ Skip to main content

On the Origin of Interoception

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
23 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
192 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
577 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
On the Origin of Interoception
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00743
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erik Ceunen, Johan W. S. Vlaeyen, Ilse Van Diest

Abstract

Over the course of a century, the meaning of interoception has changed from the restrictive to the inclusive. In its inclusive sense, it bears relevance to every individual via its link to emotion, decision making, time-perception, health, pain, and various other areas of life. While the label for the perception of the body state changes over time, the need for an overarching concept remains. Many aspects can make any particular interoceptive sensation unique and distinct from any other interoceptive sensation. This can range from the sense of agency, to the physical cause of a sensation, the ontogenetic origin, the efferent innervation, and afferent pathways of the tissue involved amongst others. In its overarching meaning, interoception primarily is a product of the central nervous system, a construct based on an integration of various sources, not per se including afferent information. This paper proposes a definition of interoception as based on subjective experience, and pleas for the use of specific vocabulary in addressing the many aspects that contribute to it.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 577 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 572 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 95 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 83 14%
Student > Bachelor 76 13%
Researcher 63 11%
Other 35 6%
Other 92 16%
Unknown 133 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 191 33%
Neuroscience 70 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 47 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 4%
Other 68 12%
Unknown 145 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 82. 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 19 March 2024.
All research outputs
#523,854
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,081
of 34,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,124
of 349,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#24
of 428 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 349,092 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 428 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.