Categorical interoception: the role of disease context and individual differences in habitual symptom reporting

Symptom reports correspond less to physiological dysfunction in persons with high levels of symptoms in daily life and in patients with functional somatic symptoms, suggesting poor symptom perception. In this study, we investigated whether interoception was impacted by the meaning of the context and by habitual symptom reporting.

Eight inspiratory resistances that were equidistant in intensity were administered to healthy women (N = 124) varying in habitual symptom reporting. One group was asked to categorise them as benign sensations vs. as bodily symptoms that could suggest a disease (disease context group). Another group was asked to categorise them as low- vs. high-intensity sensations (neutral context group).

Perceived differences in intensity within- vs. between-category and unpleasantness, categorisation threshold, and the reliability of categorising each stimulus were examined in relation to context (disease, neutral) and symptom reporting levels in daily life.

Context (neutral vs. disease) impacted intensity and unpleasantness perception. Processing of respiratory interoceptive stimulation was more detailed, elaborate, and cautious when categorising stimuli as signalling health or disease vs. as low- or high-intensity. Individual differences in habitual symptoms had no effect.

The pattern of results suggests that these categorisation effects indicate flexible, context-sensitive interoceptive processing, which may characterise healthy individuals.