Running head: The interoceptive accuracy scale Word count: 10102 words (2 tables; 4 Figures) Submission date: 25/01/2019; Revision date 13/05/2019; Revision date 10/07/2019 Testing the independence of self-reported interoceptive accuracy and attention Jennifer Murphy1, Rebecca Brewer2, David Plans3, Sahib S Khalsa4, 5, Caroline Catmur6, Geoffrey Bird1,3 1Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London 2Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London 3Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford 4Laureate Institute for Brain Research, Tulsa, USA 5Oxley College of Health Sciences, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, USA 6Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London *Corresponding author:
[email protected] + 44 (0) 207 848 5410 Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre (MRC) Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience - PO80 De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London, United Kingdom, SE5 8AF 1 Abstract It has recently been proposed that measures of the perception of the state of one’s own body (‘interoception’) can be categorized as one of several types depending on both how an assessment is obtained (objective measurement vs. self-report) and what is assessed (degree of interoceptive attention vs accuracy of interoceptive perception). Under this model, a distinction is made between beliefs regarding the degree to which interoceptive signals are the object of attention, and beliefs regarding one’s ability to perceive accurately interoceptive signals. This distinction is difficult to test, however, because of the paucity of measures designed to assess self-reported perception of one’s own interoceptive accuracy.