Inspiratory Breathing Load (IBL) paradigm
The parent of Wilzok et al.’s two paradigms, and the wiki’s earliest instrument for interoceptive anticipation rather than interoceptive detection. Entered the wiki with the Wilzok et al. (2023) ingest, which is a critique of it as much as a descendant.
None of the primary IBL papers are in raw/; this page is held at one remove and should be read as such.
The lineage
| paper | what it added |
|---|---|
| Paulus, Flagan, Simmons et al. (2012), PLoS ONE 7:e29394 | The paradigm. Elite athletes under inspiratory load, looking for behavioural and neural signatures of optimal performance in extreme environments. |
| Kruschwitz, Kausch, Brovkin et al. (2019), Cognition 193:104028 | Interoceptive prediction accuracy (IPA) as a derived measure, and its link to self-control: better predictors of future interoceptive states were better at craving down-regulation. Also the finding that restricted breathing is experienced as worse than anticipated. |
| Walter, Kausch, Dorfschmidt et al. (2020), NeuroImage 215:116841 | The imaging replication: anterior insula and pre-SMA active both during prediction of aversive interoceptive states and during craving regulation. |
| Berner, Simmons, Wierenga et al. (2018), Psychol Med 48:142-154 | Clinical extension — altered interoceptive activation before, during and after aversive load in women remitted from anorexia nervosa. |
Why the paradigm matters to this wiki out of proportion to its size
Two reasons, both structural.
It is the instrument for the wiki’s most load-bearing clinical claim. interoceptive-psychopathology and computational-psychiatry both rest on the idea that disorders are mis-set predictions about the body. martin-paulus’s page records the complaint that the forecast in question has never been written down; the IBL is where it was at least measured, and the fact that the wiki’s whole predictive-psychopathology edifice traces its empirical footing to one respiratory task with one load level is worth stating plainly.
Its most-cited result is not about interoception. The Kruschwitz/Walter finding that IPA predicts craving down-regulation, and that the same anterior-insula circuit serves both, is the paradigm’s calling card. That is a claim about self-control borrowing interoceptive machinery — which puts it beside somatic-marker arguments rather than beside the detection literature. Whether the shared activation reflects a shared computation or merely a busy region is the standing question about insula findings generally.
What it is not
It is not a respiratory detection task and should never be compared with the FDT or RRST as though it were. Those staircase the load down to threshold to find where perception fails. The IBL keeps the load plainly suprathreshold and asks what the person expected. Detection tasks measure sensitivity; this measures a forecast. Both use inspiratory resistance, which is exactly why the confusion is available.
Nor does it measure forecasting in the strict sense that page defines. What is learned is that a visual cue predicts an experimenter-imposed event. The body’s own dynamics do nothing. The distinction is the same one that disqualifies the BLT, and it disqualifies the IBL and its descendants for the same reason.