Whether interoceptive accuracy can be genuinely improved through training remains heavily debated in the literature; while several studies report positive training effects and associated neural changes, others demonstrate that apparent improvements may stem from task artifacts or fail to replicate.
The evidence we hold leans evenly split
official record 3x · fact-check 2x · hedged 1x · crowd & reference 1x
The retrieved literature presents conflicting findings regarding the trainability of interoception. Several recent studies (e.g., [1], [2], [8]) demonstrate positive outcomes on interoceptive accuracy tasks following specialized training, supported by neuroimaging and computational modeling. However, rigorous replication attempts and methodological critiques (e.g., [0], [6], [9]) indicate that these gains may not consistently generalize, can depend heavily on the specific task used, or may reflect non-interoceptive task improvements rather than true enhancement of internal signal perception. Therefore, the verdict is contested.