Even though humans are mostly not aware of their heartbeats, several heartbeat-related effects have been reported to influence conscious perception. It is not clear whether these effects are distinct or related phenomena, or whether they are early sensory effects or late decisional processes. Combining electroencephalography and electrocardiography, along with signal detection theory analyses, we identify two distinct heartbeat-related influences on conscious perception differentially related to early vs. late somatosensory processing. First, an effect on early sensory processing was found for the heartbeat-evoked potential (HEP), a marker of cardiac interoception. The amplitude of the prestimulus HEP negatively correlated with localization and detection of somatosensory stimuli, reflecting a more conservative detection bias (criterion). Importantly, higher HEP amplitudes were followed by decreases in early (P50) as well as late (N140, P300) somatosensory-evoked potential (SEP) amplitudes. Second, stimulus timing along the cardiac cycle also affected perception. During systole, stimuli were detected and correctly localized less frequently, relating to a shift in perceptual sensitivity. This perceptual attenuation was accompanied by the suppression of only late SEP components (P300) and was stronger for individuals with a more stable heart rate. Both heart-related effects were independent of alpha oscillations’ influence on somatosensory processing. We explain cardiac cycle timing effects in a predictive coding account and suggest that HEP-related effects might reflect spontaneous shifts between interoception and exteroception or modulations of general attentional resources. Thus, our results provide a general conceptual framework to explain how internal signals can be integrated into our conscious perception of the world.

ABSTRACTHuman perception either refers to the external world, exteroception, or internal body parts such as the heart, interoception. How these two types of perception interact is poorly understood. Using electroencephalography, we identify two heartbeat-related modulations of conscious somatosensory perception: (i) When stimulus timing coincided with systole of the cardiac cycle, participants were less likely to detect and localize somatosensory stimuli, and late components (P300) of the somatosensory-evoked potential (SEP) were attenuated. (ii) The amplitude of the heartbeat-evoked potential (HEP) negatively correlated with detection bias (criterion) and localization accuracy. Furthermore, higher HEP amplitudes were followed by decreases in both early and late SEP amplitudes. Both heartbeat-related effects were independent of the alpha oscillations’ influence on somatosensory processing. We conclude that internal signals are integrated into our conscious perception of the world, and connect our results to predictive processing (heartbeat-coupled stimulus timing) and attentional shifts between exteroception and interoception (HEP amplitude).

Fluctuations in the heart's activity can modulate the access of external stimuli to consciousness. The link between perceptual awareness and cardiac signals has been investigated mainly in the visual and auditory domain. Here, we investigated whether the phase of the cardiac cycle and the prestimulus heart rate influence conscious somatosensory perception. We also tested how conscious detection of somatosensory stimuli affects the heart rate. Electrocardiograms (ECG) of 33 healthy volunteers were recorded while applying near‐threshold electrical pulses at a fixed intensity to the left index finger. Conscious detection was not uniformly distributed across the cardiac cycle but significantly higher in diastole than in systole. We found no evidence that the heart rate before a stimulus influenced its detection, but hits (correctly detected somatosensory stimuli) led to a more pronounced cardiac deceleration than misses. Our findings demonstrate interactions between cardiac activity and conscious somatosensory perception, which highlights the importance of internal bodily states for sensory processing beyond the auditory and visual domain.

Rubber hand illusion is caused by spatiotemporally congruent visuotactile stimulation which induces a sense of ownership towards a fake limb. We tested two predictions of the Bayesian bottom-up model; namely, that the strength of the illusion is inversely proportional to (a) the distance separating hands and (b) the precision of proprioceptive signals. To manipulate distance, we displaced participants’ hands to either a position close to (8 cm) or far from (24 cm) the rubber hand. Before manipulation, we assessed proprioceptive abilities in a task requiring active reproduction of one’s arm’s position. Proprioceptive precision was operationalised as inversely related to the variance of the estimations. Multiple regression showed that both for subjective and physiological measures neither distance, nor proprioceptive precision, nor their interaction were predictors of illusion strength. Bayes factor analyses provided evidence for null effects. Our findings suggest the limited relevance of proprioception for the strength of visuo-haptically induced rubber hand illusion.