A psycho-cognitive model for exertional heatstroke: theory and preliminary testing using self-report measures in a case-control study
=====================================================================================================================================

* Camille Mellier
* Charles Verdonk
* Keyne Charlot
* Arnaud Jouvion
* Marion Trousselard
* Emmanuel Sagui
* Pierre-Emmanuel Tardo-Dino
* Alexandra Malgoyre

## Abstract

**Background** Exertional heatstroke (EHS) is the most serious condition in the spectrum of heat illnesses that can occur during sport competition or physical effort under environmental stress. Despite substantial progress in understanding the pathophysiology of EHS, evidence appears to be insufficient for confining its description to a purely physiological syndrome.

**Methods** We introduce a psycho-cognitive model for EHS, and we initiate its experimental validation using self-report measures in a case-control study. Our working hypothesis is that EHS might be the consequence of the alteration of cost-benefit trade-off associated with prolonged physical activity. Specifically, we propose that EHS might result from the overvaluation of benefits associated with physical effort, as a consequence of overmotivation to succeed, and/or the undervalued costs of effort exertion that result from low interoceptive body awareness, *i.e*. disrupted processing of signals about the internal (physiological) state of the body.

**Results** Our psychometric data showed that subjects with a history of EHS (cases, N=51) self-report lower interoceptive body awareness compared to healthy subjects (controls, n=43), but do not differ in terms of motivational trait (global motivation). In addition, we found that cases show a less developed trait mindfulness compared to controls.

**Conclusion** We provide theoretical foundations and preliminary support for a psycho-cognitive model of EHS. Our findings suggest that relatively simple measures (self-report questionnaires) may have utility in identifying intrinsic (individual-specific) risk factors for EHS. Psycho-cognitive approach of the EHS could potentially lead to novel prevention strategies to mitigate its risk in sport competitions.

Keywords
*   Body awareness
*   exertional heatstroke
*   interoception
*   motivation
*   mindfulness

## Introduction

Exertional heatstroke (EHS) is the most serious condition in the spectrum of heat illnesses that can occur during sport competition or physical effort under environmental stress. It is characterized clinically by hyperthermia (core body temperature > 40°C) and neurological symptoms (e.g., disorientation, confusion, altered consciousness) that are directly related to strenuous physical activity. EHS is a medical emergency, and its prognosis critically depends on rapid and effective cooling, otherwise leading to death.1, 2 Although the incidence of EHS remains relatively low in sport competitions,1, 3 it might become a major health concern in the future because of escalating environmental temperatures and planning of future sport events during the summer. Previous research has revealed a large number of risk factors for EHS, including environmental stress (high temperature, high humidity, etc.) and individual specific factors (alcohol consumption, sleep deprivation, etc.),1, 4, 5 which have contributed to the development of preventive strategies to reduce the risk of EHS in sport competitions.6, 7

From a physiological perspective, EHS corresponds to a non-compensable heat stress where heat loss does not balance heat gain during a prolonged physical activity (see *Supplementary information* for a graphical overview of the suspected physiological mechanisms of EHS).1, 8 Despite substantial progress in understanding the pathophysiology of EHS, current physiological models do not enable scientists and clinicians to entirely explain (and predict) the onset of EHS. For instance, according to epidemiologic data from the French Army, more than 25% of EHS cases occur without any environmental stress, among experienced soldiers.4

Several studies have shown that psycho-cognitive factors can influence the injury risk during sport competitions.9 Interestingly, overmotivation has been suggested as a potential risk factor for EHS on the basis of investigation of patients’ entourage from a very small cohort of fatal cases.10 Recently, Corbett *et al* (2017) have investigated the effect of motivation on thermophysiological strain, and they highlighted that competition-induced overmotivation leads to increased thermophysiological cost that may not be perceived (consciously) by the participant.11 This finding suggests that overvaluation of benefits, resulting from the willingness to win, might contribute to the disruption of cost-benefit trade-off that characterizes adjusted physical activity. The balance between costs and benefits is thought to be one of the main determinants of behavior, and its alteration is at the heart of several neuropsychiatric diseases (e.g., Parkinson’s disease, depression).12, 13

The present work aims to introduce a model that characterizes EHS by the alteration of cost-benefit trade-off associated with prolonged physical activity. Specifically, we propose that EHS could be the consequence of *overvaluation* of benefits and/or *undervaluation* of costs associated with physical effort. Our first assumption is that overmotivation might cause people to overvalue benefits that are associated with success of physical effort (e.g., winning, personal satisfaction, etc.). Overmotivation has previously been suggested as a potential risk factor for EHS,1, 10 but it has never been tested empirically. Classical theories of motivation assume that people (initiate and) persist at behaviors to the extent that they believe the behaviors will satisfy their basic needs. These needs may be hierarchically ordered as is the case in Maslow’s theory of motivation,14 or needs may be classified as a function of their nature (physiological or psychological, innate or learned, etc.). In the field of psychology, needs specify innate psychological nutriments that are essential for ongoing psychological growth, integrity, and well-being. Specifically, in the self-determination theory of motivation (SDT), three psychological needs—for competence, relatedness, and autonomy—are considered essential for understanding motivated behavior.15, 16 SDT distinguishes *intrinsic* and *extrinsic* types of motivation regulating one’s behavior. Briefly, *intrinsic* motivation is defined as doing an activity because of its inherent satisfactions, e.g. for the associated enjoyment or for the exercise of skills. By contrast, *extrinsic* motivation refers to doing an activity for obtaining some outcome separable from the activity *per se*, e.g. for the gain of social reward or to avoid disapproval. Of note, SDT conceptualizes qualitatively different types of extrinsic motivation as measured with the Global Motivation Scale (see section 2.2 of the Method for detailed description). In our model (Fig. 1), we consider motivation as a psycho-cognitive factor attributed to stable traits that are rooted in the individual personality.17 This refers to a global motivational orientation at the personality level and should be distinguished from situational motivation, which specifies motivation toward a given activity at a specific point in time, according to the hierarchical model of self-determined motivation.18 The present work investigates the trait motivation as a potential psycho-cognitive factor accounting for the temporal dynamic of effort allocation, specifically maintenance of physical activity despite excessive physiological costs characterizing EHS.

![Fig. 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/03/10/2022.08.12.22278401/F1.medium.gif)

[Fig. 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2022.08.12.22278401/F1)

Fig. 1. 
Schematic illustration of the proposed psycho-cognitive model for exertional heatstroke. **(a)** Physical effort in safety conditions relies on a sustained balance between the costs and benefits of effort exertion. **(b)** We argue that exertional heatstroke is characterized by alteration of cost/benefit trade-off. Specifically, the overvaluation of benefits associated with physical effort, as a consequence of overmotivation to succeed, and/or the undervalued costs of effort exertion that result from low body awareness, disrupt the cost/benefit trade-off and lead individuals to maintain physical effort, which can ultimately lead to exertional heatstroke.

Our second assumption is that low sensitivity to bodily (thermophysiological) changes that occur during physical activity might prevent individuals from self-regulating their physical effort in safety conditions. Body awareness is a recently proposed psycho-cognitive construct that refers to the individual ability to feel engaged by information coming from the body and noticing subtle changes.19 From a neural perspective, bodily signals continuously provide the brain with a moment by moment mapping of the body’s physiological state, whose integration at higher-order brain regions, notably the insula, results in the emergence of interoceptive body awareness (interoception).20, 21 Interestingly, in a study investigating neurocomputational mechanisms of cost-benefit trade-off in a motivation (“physical” force) task, Meyniel *et al* (2013) highlighted the insula as expressing a cost evidence accumulation signal that triggers decision to stop effort. They also found that motivation may impact neural processes underpinning effort allocation, specifically by pushing back limits and allowing the body to work closer from exhaustion.22

Regarding potential long term clinical applications of the present model (if validated), shedding new light on psycho-cognitive factors that alter the risk of EHS could ultimately lead to novel evidence-based preventive interventions. For example, if individuals at high risk for EHS are characterized with low body awareness, it could be argued that a program striving to enhance (interoceptive) body awareness could be a good candidate as a prevention strategy to reduce the risk of EHS. Paralleling the findings of clinical science, recent contemplative science suggests that body awareness is fundamental for adaptive behaviour and is intimately connected to self-regulation and homeostasis.23 Contemplative practice, such as mindfulness meditation, relies on training the mind to pay sustained attention to the body experience, primarily the breath, and deliberately returning attention to it whenever distracted.24 It has been suggested that enhanced body awareness is a core cognitive mechanism through which mindfulness contributes to improved health.25, 26 Indeed, it can be argued that the more fully an individual is apprised of what is occurring within one’s body, the more adaptive and value consistent the individual’s behaviour is likely to be. For example, during a strenuous physical effort, one can bring awareness to body sensations resulting from that activity (e.g., hyperthermia, tachycardia, shortness of breath); by paying attention to these, one can more accurately ascertain the embodied cumulative effects of the activity. If the overall results are negative, the reward value of this activity (*i.e*. the value of benefits associated with physical effort) is updated, leading to a decrease in commitment to this activity. As a preliminary step for future research that would investigate potential impact of preventive mindfulness-based programs (e.g., mindfulness-based stress reduction27) to reduce the risk of EHS, we characterized individuals with or without history of EHS with respect to their personality trait of mindfulness.

To summarize, our psycho-cognitive model of EHS suggests that *overvaluation of benefits* associated with physical activity, as a consequence of overmotivation, and/or *undervaluation of costs* resulting from low body awareness, may lead people to ignore body warning signs of EHS (hyperthermia, tachycardia, tachypnea, etc.), thus preventing any attempt to self-regulate physical effort accordingly (Fig. 1). We confronted our hypotheses to psychometric data including self-reported trait motivation, interoceptive body awareness, and trait mindfulness, in a cohort of subjects with or without a history of exertional heatstroke. Our hypotheses predict that subjects with a history of EHS (cases) show a trait motivation, an interoceptive body awareness, and a trait mindfulness that differ from healthy subjects (controls). In particular, our model predicts that cases are characterized with higher trait motivation, but with lower interoceptive body awareness sensibility and lower trait mindfulness compared to controls.

## Materials and methods

### 1. Participants

We recruited 51 patients with a history of EHS (cases) from the French Military Teaching Hospital Laveran (Marseille, France), between 2014 and 2020. Cases are service personnel of the French Army who have had a EHS during either training or operation, and whose diagnosis and treatment has been provided by medical teams from the French Military Health Service. Cases completed the self-report questionnaires when they were visited at the hospital for the assessment of their operational readiness, which occurred on average 616 ± 602 days after the onset of the EHS. There was no exclusion criterion for cases. Controls (n=43) were drawn from various units of the French Army, as part of their mandate in the national territory (Bretigny -sur-Orge, France), from March 9, 2021 to May 12, 2021. All controls reported no history of EHS, no medication, and no history of psychiatric or somatic disorders. Controls completed the self-report questionnaires in a dedicated experimental session that was planned during their spare time.

### 2. Psycho-cognitive self-reported measures

#### 2.1. Interoceptive body awareness

The 32-item Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA) questionnaire measures eight facets of body awareness: (1) *Noticing*: awareness of uncomfortable, comfortable, and neutral body sensations; (2) *Not-distracting*: tendency not to be distracted by oneself from sensations of pain or discomfort; (3) *Not-worrying*: tendency not to worry with sensations of pain or discomfort; (4) *Attention regulation*: ability to sustain and control attention to body sensation; (5) *Emotional Awareness*: awareness of the connection between body sensations and emotional states; (6) *Self-regulation*: ability to regulate psychological distress by attention to body sensations, (7) *Body listening*: actively listens to the body for insight, and (8) *Trusting*: experiences one own’s body as safe and trustworthy. The questionnaire is scored using a six-point scale, with responses ranging from 0 (never) to 5 (always). For each of the eight subscales, the score was counted by averaging the scores of items belonging to each subscale (items 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were reversed).28, 29 In the present work, the MAIA questionnaire demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency in Cases (Cronbach alpha = 0.90) and in Controls (Cronbach alpha = 0.89).

#### 2.2. Self-determined motivation

The 28-item Global Motivational Scale (GMS) assesses three types of intrinsic motivation (IM): *(1) IM to knowledge* : pleasure while learning, exploring or trying to understand something new, *(2) IM* t*o accomplishment* : pleasure to accomplish or create something, and (3) *IM to stimulation* : pleasure to have a stimulating discussion or intense feelings of cognitive pleasure; three types of extrinsic motivation (4) *identified regulation* : doing something because it matches ones values, (5) *introjected regulation* : doing something because it is supposed to be good for oneself, and (6) *external regulation* : doing something in order to have a reward or to avoid punishment ; and (7) *amotivation* : lack of extrinsic or intrinsic motivation. The questionnaire is scored using a seven-point scale with responses ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (totally). For each of the seven subscales assessed by 4 items, the score was counted by averaging the scores of items belonging to each subscale.30 In the present work, the GMS demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency in Cases (Cronbach alpha = 0.88) and in Controls (Cronbach alpha = 0.93).

#### 2.3. Trait mindfulness

The 14-item Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI) measures dispositional trait mindfulness by indexing facets of Presence (*i.e*. being aware of all experiences in the present moment) and Non-judgmental acceptance (*i.e*. understanding that things are not necessarily how one wishes them to be). This questionnaire is semantically independent from a meditation context and it is applicable to all population groups, in particular to those with no practice of mindfulness meditation. The questionnaire is scored using a four-point scale, with responses ranging from 1 (rarely) to 4 (almost always). A total mindfulness score was computed by adding the rating for all items, except for the 13th item which was reversely scored.31, 32 In the present work, the FMI demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency in Cases (Cronbach alpha = 0.80) and in Controls (Cronbach alpha = 0.77).

### 3. Statistical analyses

Data analyses were performed using JASP (version 0.11.1, [https://jasp-stats.org/](https://jasp-stats.org/)). We used both standard statistical tests and Bayesian equivalents to extend insight and guiding interpretation of significance (p values), according to how likely the alternative hypothesis is versus the null. Indeed, a disadvantage of null hypothesis significance testing is that non-significant p values (e.g., when reporting no significant difference between Cases and Controls for self-reported trait motivation) cannot be interpreted as support for the null hypothesis.33, 34 To circumvent this issue and confirm whether the potential non-significant findings reported represent support for the null hypothesis, we calculated the Bayes factor (BF): specifically, we computed the log scale of BF10 (noted log(BF10)) that can be easily interpreted such that a negative value indicates support for the null hypothesis, whereas a positive value indicates evidence in favour of the alternative hypothesis (see *Supplementary Table 1* for an interpretation scale of log(BF10)35). Statistical analyses were performed using Mann-Whitney nonparametric tests, as data from Cases and Controls were not normally distributed. If a significant difference was observed, we computed the effect size (to evaluate the magnitude of the difference) using a measure suited to nonparametric analyses: 95% confidence interval of the rank biserial correlation.36 For the Bayesian analyses, we used the default JASP priors that assume a medium effect size on a Cauchy distribution of 0.707 for independent t-tests.

## Results

### 1. Demographic and biometric characteristics

Table 1 summarizes the basic statistics on demographic (age and gender) and biometric (weight, height, and body mass index) measures in cases and controls. Cases and controls did not differ for age (log(BF10) = -1.37, suggesting strong evidence for the null hypothesis), gender (log(BF10) = -2.03, suggesting extreme evidence for the null hypothesis), weight (log(BF10) = - 1.50, suggesting very strong evidence for the null hypothesis), height (log(BF10) = -1.43, suggesting strong evidence for the null hypothesis), and body mass index (log(BF10) = -1.44, suggesting strong evidence for the null hypothesis).

View this table:
[Table 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2022.08.12.22278401/T1)

Table 1 Summary of demographic (age and gender) and biometric (weight, height, and body mass index) data for cases with a history of exertional heatstroke (cases) and controls.

### 2. Interoceptive body awareness

Five dimensions of interoceptive body awareness were significantly lower in cases compared to controls: *Body listening* (Mann-Whitney U (U) = 717, p ≤ 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) of rank-biserial correlation (rbs) = [0.12 - 0.54]), *Attention regulation* (U = 730, p ≤ 0.01, 95% CI of rbs = [0.11 - 0.53]), *Emotional awareness* (U = 767, p ≤ 0.05, 95% CI of rbs = [0.07 - 0.50]), *Self-bregulation* (U = 780, p ≤ 0.05, 95% CI of rbs = [0.06 - 0.49]), and *Noticing* (U = 839, p ≤ 0.05, 95% CI rbs = [0.003 - 0.44]). Furthermore, cases and controls did not differ for three dimensions of interoceptive body awareness: *Not-worrying* (log(BF10) = -1.36, suggesting strong evidence for the null hypothesis), *Trusting* (log(BF10) = -0.39, suggesting moderateevidence for the null hypothesis), and *Not-distracting* (log(BF10) = -0.20, suggesting anecdotal evidence for the null hypothesis). Fig. 2 summarizes how cases and controls differ in terms of self-reported interoceptive body awareness. Descriptive statistics of self-reported interoceptive body awareness in cases and controls are reported in *Supplementary Table 2*.

![Fig. 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/03/10/2022.08.12.22278401/F2.medium.gif)

[Fig. 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2022.08.12.22278401/F2)

Fig. 2. 
Graphical comparison of cases with a history of exertional heatstroke (orange line) and controls (blue line) with respect to eight facets of interoceptive body awareness, as assessed with the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness questionnaire. Significant (p<0.05) differences are highlighted in bold. *Interpretation scale: * p*≤*0.05, ** p*≤*0.01; H**ns: anecdotal evidence for the null hypothesis, H***: moderate evidence for the null hypothesis, H****: strong evidence for the null hypothesis*.

### 3. Self-determined motivation

Cases and controls did not differ for almost all factors of motivation: *IM to accomplishment* (log(BF10) = -1.50, suggesting very strong evidence for the null hypothesis), *Introjected regulation* (log(BF10) = -1.53, suggesting very strong evidence for the null hypothesis), *Identified regulation* (log(BF10) = -1.53, suggesting very strong evidence for the null hypothesis), *IM to stimulation* (log(BF10) = -1.51, suggesting very strong evidence for the null hypothesis), *IM to know* (log(BF10) = -1.21, suggesting strong evidence for the null hypothesis), and *External regulation* (log(BF10) = -0.90, suggesting moderate evidence for the null hypothesis). Only the factor *Amotivation* was significantly lower in cases compared to controls (U = 729, p ≤ 0.01, 95% CI of rbs = [0.11 - 0.53]). Fig. 3 summarizes similarities between cases and controls in terms of self-determined motivation. Descriptive statistics of self-determined motivation in cases and controls are reported in *Supplementary Table 3*.

![Fig. 3](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/03/10/2022.08.12.22278401/F3.medium.gif)

[Fig. 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2022.08.12.22278401/F3)

Fig. 3 
Graphical comparison of cases with a history of exertional heatstroke (orange line) and controls (blue line) with respect to seven factors of self-determined motivation, as assessed with the Global Motivation Scale. The only significant difference is highlighted in bold. *Interpretation scale: ** p*≤*0.01; H***: moderate evidence for the null hypothesis, H****: strong evidence for the null hypothesis, H**\***|: very strong evidence for the null hypothesis*.

### 4. Trait Mindfulness

Cases showed lower scores for the two mindfulness dimensions that are assessed with the FMI, relative to controls: *Presence* (U = 761, p ≤ 0.05, 95% CI of rbs = [0.08 - 0.50]), and *Acceptation* (U = 730, p ≤ 0.01, 95% CI of rbs = [0.11 - 0.52]) (Fig. 4). Descriptive statistics of trait mindfulness in cases and controls are reported in *Supplementary Table 4*.

![Fig. 4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/03/10/2022.08.12.22278401/F4.medium.gif)

[Fig. 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2022.08.12.22278401/F4)

Fig. 4. 
Significant differences were found between cases with a history of exertional heatstroke (in orange) and controls (in blue) for mindfulness dimensions of *Presence* and *Acceptance*, as assessed with the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). *Interpretation scale: * p*≤*0.05, ** p*≤*0.01*

## Discussion

### General discussion

The present paper introduces a testable model about psycho-cognitive factors that might influence the risk of EHS. Our theoretical model subsumes a pair of psycho-cognitive frameworks that includes the self-determination theory of motivation and the construct of interoceptive body awareness (or interoception). The core of our hypothesis is that EHS might be the consequence of the alteration of cost-benefit trade-off associated with prolonged physical activity. Specifically, we propose that EHS might result from the overvaluation of benefits associated with physical effort, as a consequence of overmotivation to succeed, and/or the undervalued costs of effort exertion that result from low interoceptive body awareness, *i.e*. disrupted processing of signals that inform about the internal physiological state of the body (Fig. 1). In the present study, we confronted our theoretical model to experimental psychometric data using self-report questionnaires in a cohort of subjects with or without a history of exertional heatstroke (cases and controls, respectively).

The first major observation is that cases self-reported significantly lower interoceptive body awareness compared to controls, including the dimensions of Body listening, Attention regulation, Emotional awareness, Self-regulation, and Noticing, as assessed with the MAIA questionnaire.28, 29 Lower scores on *Body listening, Attention regulation*, and *Self-regulation* mean that individuals with a history of EHS may experience difficulties to actively and sustainably listen to their body for continuous insight about their physiological internal state. In the context of physical effort, it could be argued that inability to detect body signs of exhaustion may prevent individuals from self-regulating their effort accordingly, thus increasing the risk of EHS. The lower *Noticing* suggests that individuals with a history of EHS, even though they may be partially able to sense their body signals, fail to discriminate from negative body sensations, as the body warning signs of EHS (e.g., hyperthermia, tachycardia, tachypnea), to body sensations that characterize physical effort in safety conditions. Lower *Emotional awareness*, namely the difficulty to attribute specific physical sensations to physiological manifestations of emotions,28, 29 indicates that individuals with a history of EHS may be less reactive to negative stimuli in their internal (body) and external (world) environment. Our insights could open new avenues for development of prevention strategies to reduce the risk of EHS. Indeed, it could be argued that programs striving to train the cognitive process of interoceptive body awareness could potentially mitigate the risk of EHS, by bringing individual’s awareness to body sensations that could ultimately lead to implementation of effective self-regulation strategies during physical effort.

Interestingly, the second main observation of the present study is that cases showed a less developed trait mindfulness, as assessed with the FMI,31, 32 compared to controls. As mentioned in the introduction, the mindfulness practice, which should be distinguished from trait mindfulness even though the latter can be developed by the former,37, 38 involves attending to bodily sensations (e.g. the body scan) and is theorized to improve body awareness.25, 26 These findings suggest that a mindfulness-based program, which would train individuals to deliberately and continuously access to their bodily sensations, could potentially be a candidate as a prevention strategy to reduce the risk of EHS. Yet, only studies that will experimentally manipulate mindfulness will provide evidence, if any, that mindfulness training may causally reduce the risk of EHS. We are aware that implementation of interventional studies to assess the impact of preventive programs on the risk of EHS represents a critical challenge for future research in the field, given the incidence of EHS is thought to be extremely low.1, 3

The last observation of the present study is that subjects with a history of EHS did not differ from healthy subjects in terms of motivational trait (global motivation), as measured with the GMS.30 Interestingly, Bayesian statistical tests that have been used allow us to quantify evidence supporting the lack of difference between cases and controls, rather than merely declaring that lack of difference (*i.e*. the null hypothesis) cannot be rejected from a statistical point of view.33, 34 This finding, although it is limited to self-report measure of global motivation (see our discussion about limitations in the next section), provides elements of a psychometric argument based on the GMS against one of the assumptions of our theoretical model, namely that EHS could be the consequence of overmotivation to succeed (Fig. 1). We do not know yet whether the lack of relation we found between the factor of motivation and the (history of) EHS is relevant for our psycho-cognitive model of EHS or is related to specificity of self-reported trait motivation.

### Limits of the theoretical model and its preliminary testing

For simplicity, our psycho-cognitive model of EHS only considers the trait component of motivation that refers to the global motivational orientation of individuals at the personality level. According to the hierarchical model proposed by Vallerand (2007), self-determined motivation can be described at additional levels of generality. The lowest level of generality corresponds to the situational motivation, which pertains to the motivation experienced by an individual toward a given activity at a specific point in time.18 In our work, we did not measure the situational motivation because psychometric data were collected outside any context of physical activity. Our data show that self-reported global motivation (trait motivation) does not help differentiate subjects with a history of EHS from healthy subjects. This suggests that limiting assessment of the motivational factor to its last level of generality (*i.e*. the personality level) might not be informative about the risk of EHS. Future studies are encouraged to investigate the situational motivation as a potential alternative factor that could influence the risk of EHS. It could be suggested that normal (or low) global motivation combined with a high situational motivation could ultimately result in a high level of self-determined motivation. In other words, motivational factors from different levels of generality could potentially have a cumulative effect on how individuals are engaged in an activity. To test this hypothesis, experimental settings need to include measurements of both trait motivation and situational motivation, or experimentally manipulate situational motivation of the participant by using incentive motivation paradigm.39 Classically, measurement of situational motivation relies on self-report instruments, such as the Situational Motivation Scale.40, 41 Yet, self-report instruments are often criticized because they may be vulnerable to limitations of introspection and social-desirability biases, and are potentially limited by individual’s unwillingness or inability to report their veridical psycho-cognitive state.42 We argue that even self-report instruments provide valuable information and are particularly attractive for field research, they should not be considered in isolation in future cognitive research into EHS. Interestingly, some works combining behavioural measures and neurocomputational models of motivation have opened promising opportunities to address the aforementioned issue related to self-report questionnaires. For instance, in the incentive motivation task developed by Pessiglione *et al* (2007), behavioral measures (e.g. the peak of force with which the participant squeezes the power grip) can be modeled as functions that approximate the solutions of an optimal motor-control model (which maximizes the cost/benefit tradeoff) at the individual level.39, 43 Such a neurocomputational approach has the advantage of providing motivation related measures (e.g. the parameter of expected reward) that are not contaminated by individual differences in other psycho-cognitive components (e.g., emotional thoughts, changes in attention, etc.). Therefore, we encourage future studies investigating motivational underpinnings of EHS to use this neurocomputational approach that has great potential to enhance the process of relating differences (in behaviour and neural processes) between healthy subjects and individuals who are at risk of EHS.

Regarding the other main component of our model that refers to interoceptive body awareness, it has been formalized as a multifaceted psycho-cognitive process that can be interrogated with complementary methods,44, 45 including self-report instruments and objective measurements (e.g., behavioural test or biomarker). Objective measurements of interoceptive body awareness mainly focus on cardiac interoception that refers to the process of sensing, storing and representing information about the state of the cardiovascular system.45 These measurements are mostly performed under conditions of physiological rest, *i.e*. without any significant experimentally-induced cardiovascular manipulation, which raises questions about their potential relevance to inform interoceptive dysfunction in the context of EHS. Indeed, physical effort is characterized by strong, continuous perturbations that affect the cardiovascular system (e.g. increased heart rate and arterial pressure). Interestingly, the pharmacological manipulation of cardiac arousal (via the administration of isoproterenol that modulates sympathetic nervous system) may provide an attractive experimental framework, because it has the advantage of a maskable manipulation of arousal (including placebo condition) that allows for measurements of responding bias.46 Beside behavioural tests that provide an indirect output of interoceptive signal processing, the neural bases of cardiac interoception can be investigated by probing brain activity in response to cardiac signals. The Heartbeat Evoked Potential, which refers to evoked changes in brain activity (measured using magnetoencephalography, electroencephalography, or intracranial neural recordings) that occurs after a heartbeat, has been proposed as a neurophysiological marker of interoceptive function/dysfunction.47, 48

To summarize, future studies are encouraged to pursue the development and validation of a psycho-cognitive model for EHS in using neurocomputational approach of motivation with the incentive motivation paradigm,39 and objective measurements of interoceptive body awareness (e.g., heartbeat perception task49 or analysis of the heartbeat evoked potential48) based on a paradigm involving pharmacological manipulation of cardiac arousal.46

### Neural mechanisms

Our theoretical model of EHS was framed at an (abstract) psycho-cognitive level of description. Yet, while this approach provides useful intuitions and a simple testable framework, the present work also opens up perspectives for the understanding of the pathophysiology of EHS. By studying a new pathway for uncontrolled hyperthermia at central neurosensory integration level, neurocomputational models and new functional brain exploration techniques could provide arguments to feed a neuroanatomical support for this theoretical model, relying on the effect of temperature increase and on the relationship between motivation and interoception complex neuronal networks.50 Thus, an important future endeavour will be to flesh it out at the neural level. We suggest that the system underlying cost-benefit evaluation for effort allocation during physical activity could be subserved by the posterior insula. Indeed, the posterior insula has been proposed to contain a dynamic representation of the body’s internal (physiological) state,21, 51 and its activity has also been highlighted as reflecting motivation one has to exert a physical effort over a long period of time.22, 52 The posterior insula may therefore play a critical role in the decision-making process of maintaining physical effort despite excessive physiological costs that characterizes EHS. Meyniel *et al* (2013) have shown that (over)motivation pushes back the bounds within which cost evidence fluctuates, namely that (over)motivation delays the decision to stop, and also slows accumulation of cost evidence.22 Interestingly, our psychometric findings shed light on an alternative psycho-cognitive factor influencing accumulation of cost evidence, by showing that EHS is characterized with low self-reported interoceptive body awareness. Indeed, from a neurocomputational perspective, it could be argued that low sensitivity to interoceptive signals could result in a slower accumulation (lower slope) of physiological cost evidence during physical effort, thus contributing to delay achievement of the threshold of decision-making to stop physical activity. Future studies may test this hypothesis by investigating relationship interoceptive body awareness (as assessed with self-report, behavioural or neurophysiological measures) has with parameters related to accumulation slope in the computational model of incentive motivation paradigm (see Meyniel *et al* (2013) for detailed description of the accumulation model and its parameters).

## Conclusion

In the present work, we proposed a psycho-cognitive model for EHS that might contribute to developing novel, complementary approaches to identify potential risk factors for EHS. While initiating empirical testing of our theoretical model using psychometric data, we showed that the (history of) EHS is associated with disruption of self-reported interoceptive body awareness. This result suggests that individuals at risk of EHS may be characterized with a deficit in exertional cost assessment, which may ultimately contribute to underestimate the stress status induced by prolonged exercise. Furthermore, we provide a psychometric argument based on the self-report measure of global motivation against our theoretical assumption whereby overmotivation might increase the risk of EHS. It should be recalled that the present study investigated the psycho-cognitive construct of motivation in focusing on its highest level of generality, *i.e*. as a personality trait, according to the hierarchical model of motivation. We encourage future studies to investigate the influence of other levels of generality, including situational motivation that might play a critical role in onset mechanisms of EHS. Potential benefit of preventive programs to reduce the risk of EHS needs to be tested using interventional studies, but our study provides preliminary evidence that mindfulness-based programs (e.g., mindfulness-based stress reduction) could be a good candidate as a prevention strategy to reduce the risk of EHS. EHS is thought to arise from the decompensation of several different factors, and it might involve physiological and psychological factor, depending on each individual. This work is doing its bit for the effort for understanding EHS. Validation of a pycho-cognitive model for EHS could help scientists and clinicians in refining the risk stratification for predicting individual susceptibility to the EHS based on psycho-cognitive measures, and could contribute to identify innovative countermeasures and pathophysiological pathways in the EHS field.

## Data Availability

The data and materials are currently private for peer review.

## Author Notes

This study is part of a project supported by the French Military Health Service. The opinions or assertions expressed herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be considered as official or as reflecting the views of the French Military Health Service.

## Author Contributions

CM and PETD conceptualized the research question, collected experimental data and wrote the paper. CV conceptualized the research question, conducted the analyses and wrote the paper. AM, AJ, and KC conceptualized the research question and collected experimental data. MT contributed to conceptualizing the research question. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

## Preregistration

This study was preregistered ([NCT04593316](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT04593316&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom)).

## Ethics Statement

The study has been approved by the regional ethics committee of the Agence Régionale de Santé Occitanie (Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud-Ouest et Outre-Mer II, ID-RCB: 2020-A01967-32) on September 29, 2020. The study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards of the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

## Informed Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

## Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

## Data accessibility

The data and materials are currently private for peer review.

## Supplementary

![Supplementary Fig. 1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/03/10/2022.08.12.22278401/F5.medium.gif)

[Supplementary Fig. 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2022.08.12.22278401/F5)

Supplementary Fig. 1 
Pathogenesis of exertional heatstroke: a graphical overview of suspected physiological mechanisms. **(A) Physiological thermoregulation**. Whatever exogene (outdoor) and/or endogene (exercise metabolism), heat exposure draws a regulatory loop. Thermoreceptors inform the thermoregulatory centers (hypothalamus) that will coordinate the response of the effectors. Thus, heat dissipation is obtained by generalized subcutaneous vasodilation and sweat evaporation. The reduction of heat stress can also come from behavioral regulation including the adaptation of the pace (decrease in metabolic production) and the search for shelter and the adaptation of the clothing (decrease of the external heat load). **(B) Pathophysiology of exertional heat stroke**. The occurrence of exercise heat stroke proceeds from the transition from a compensation of heat load to a non-compensable heat stress phasis (gains greater than heat losses) occurring when the cardiac output no longer allows to provide for thermoregulation needs. This uncontrolled hyperthermia leads to cytotoxic effects and a systemic inflammatory response that can lead to multi-organ failure. In this context of decompensated circulatory balance, the pathophysiological mechanisms would be based on disorders of intestinal permeability with release of activating molecules of the inflammatory and immune system. Endothelial alterations would also be responsible for coagulopathy. The direct cytotoxic effect of the temperature increase could also induce brain alterations, particularly hypothalamic. In a certain case, mutations in the ryanodine receptor RyR 1 (a muscle receptor involved in the release of intracellular calcium during contraction) could promote the occurrence of this decompensation of thermoregulation to exercise, by the disorders of the excitation coupling contraction that they induce (Epstein, 2019; Laitano 2019).

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2022.08.12.22278401/T2)

Supplementary Table 1 A descriptive and approximate classification scheme for the interpretation of the log scale of Bayes factor BF10 (adapted from Jeffreys, 1961).

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2022.08.12.22278401/T3)

Supplementary Table 2 Descriptive statistics for the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA) questionnaire in cases with a history of exertional heatstroke and controls.

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2022.08.12.22278401/T4)

Supplementary Table 3 Descriptive statistics for the Global Motivation Scale (GMS) questionnaire in cases with a history of exertional heatstroke and controls.

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 4](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2022.08.12.22278401/T5)

Supplementary Table 4 Descriptive statistics for the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory in cases with a history of exertional heatstroke and controls.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Walid Bouaziz, Caroline Dussaud, Julien Siracusa, Stéphane Baugé, Stephanie Bourdon, Benoit Lepetit, and Laurence Pillard for their technical support and help with data collection.

## Footnotes

*   The colors of the figures have been modified, and the list of references has been updated.

*   Received August 12, 2022.
*   Revision received March 10, 2023.
*   Accepted March 10, 2023.


*   © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Epstein Y, Yanovich R. Heatstroke. New England Journal of Medicine 2019;380:2449–59.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMra1810762&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 

2.  2.Hosokawa Y, Racinais S, Akama T, et al. Prehospital management of exertional heat stroke at sports competitions: International olympic committee adverse weather impact expert working group for the olympic games tokyo 2020. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2021.
    
    

3.  3.Stearns RL, Hosokawa Y, Adams WM, et al. Repeated exertional heat stroke incidence in a warm-weather road race. J Athl Train 2017;52:S106.
    
    

4.  4.Abriat A, Brosset C, Brégigeon M, Sagui E. Report of 182 cases of exertional heatstroke in the french armed forces. Military medicine 2014;179:309–14.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00315&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24594466&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 

5.  5.Gardner JW, Kark JA, Karnei K, et al. Risk factors predicting exertional heat illness in male marine corps recruits. Medicine and science in sports and exercise 1996;28:939–44.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00005768-199608000-00001&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8871901&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996VC74900001&link_type=ISI) 

6.  6.Mountjoy M, Moran J, Ahmed H, et al. Athlete health and safety at large sporting events: The development of consensus-driven guidelines. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2021;55:191–7.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiYmpzcG9ydHMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiNTUvNC8xOTEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wMy8xMC8yMDIyLjA4LjEyLjIyMjc4NDAxLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

7.  7.Parsons JT, Anderson SA, Casa DJ, Hainline B. Preventing catastrophic injury and death in collegiate athletes: Interassociation recommendations endorsed by 13 medical and sports medicine organisations. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2020;54:208–15.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiYmpzcG9ydHMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiNTQvNC8yMDgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wMy8xMC8yMDIyLjA4LjEyLjIyMjc4NDAxLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

8.  8.Laitano O, Leon LR, Roberts WO, Sawka MN. Controversies in exertional heat stroke diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Journal of Applied Physiology 2019;127:1338–48.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 

9.  9.Ivarsson A, Johnson U, Andersen MB, Tranaeus U, Stenling A, Lindwall M. Psychosocial factors and sport injuries: Meta-analyses for prediction and prevention. Sports medicine 2017;47:353–65.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s40279-016-0578-x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 

10. 10.Rav-Acha M, Hadad E, Epstein Y, Heled Y, Moran DS. Fatal exertional heat stroke: A case series. Am J Med Sci 2004;328:84–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00000441-200408000-00003&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15311166&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 

11. 11.Corbett J, White DK, Barwood MJ, et al. The effect of head-to-head competition on behavioural thermoregulation, thermophysiological strain and performance during exercise in the heat. Sports Medicine 2017;48:1269–79.
    
    

12. 12.Albert PR, Benkelfat C. The neurobiology of depression—revisiting the serotonin hypothesis. Ii. Genetic, epigenetic and clinical studies. The Royal Society; 2013.
    
    

13. 13.Chaudhuri KR, Schapira AHV. Non-motor symptoms of parkinson’s disease: Dopaminergic pathophysiology and treatment. The Lancet Neurology 2009;8:464–74.
    
    

14. 14.Maslow AH. A theory of human motivation. Psychological review 1943;50:370.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/h0054346&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000200145300027&link_type=ISI) 

15. 15.Deci EL, Ryan RM. The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry 2000;11:227–68.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000166046400001&link_type=ISI) 

16. 16.Ryan R, Patrick H. Self-determination theory and physical activity: The dynamics of motivation in development and wellness. Hellenic journal of psychology 2009;6:107–24.
    
    

17. 17.Scheffer D, Heckhausen H. Trait theories of motivation. Motivation and action. Springer; 2018, p. 67–112.
    
    

18. 18.Vallerand RJ. A hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for sport and physical activity. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in exercise and sport. Champaign, IL, US: Human Kinetics; 2007, p. 255–79,356-63.
    
    

19. 19.Mehling WE, Gopisetty V, Daubenmier JJ, Price CJ, Hecht FM, Stewart A. Body awareness: Construct and self-report measures. PloS one 2009;4.
    
    

20. 20.Berntson GG, Khalsa SS. Neural circuits of interoception. Trends in Neurosciences 2021;44:17–28.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.tins.2020.09.011&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33378653&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 

21. 21.Craig AD. How do you feel? Interoception: The sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2002;3:655–66.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nrn894&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12154366&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000177447800016&link_type=ISI) 

22. 22.Meyniel F, Sergent C, Rigoux L, Daunizeau J, Pessiglione M. Neurocomputational account of how the human brain decides when to have a break. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2013;110:2641–6.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiMTEwLzcvMjY0MSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzAzLzEwLzIwMjIuMDguMTIuMjIyNzg0MDEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

23. 23.Farb N, Daubenmier J, Price CJ, et al. Interoception, contemplative practice, and health. Frontiers in psychology 2015;6.
    
    

24. 24.Lutz A, Jha AP, Dunne JD, Saron CD. Investigating the phenomenological matrix of mindfulness-related practices from a neurocognitive perspective. The American psychologist 2015;70:632–58.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/a0039585&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26436313&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 

25. 25.Hölzel BK, Lazar SW, Gard T, Schuman-Olivier Z, Vago DR, Ott U. How does mindfulness meditation work? Proposing mechanisms of action from a conceptual and neural perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2011;6:537–59.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/1745691611419671&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26168376&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 

26. 26.Treves IN, Tello LY, Davidson RJ, Goldberg SB. The relationship between mindfulness and objective measures of body awareness: A meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2019;9:1–12.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41598-019-40055-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30862893&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 

27. 27.Kabat-Zinn J. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (mbsr). Constructivism in the Human Sciences 2003;8:73.
    
    

28. 28.Mehling WE, Price C, Daubenmier JJ, Acree M, Bartmess E, Stewart A. The multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness (maia). PLoS One 2012;7:e48230.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0048230&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23133619&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 

29. 29.Willem C, Gandolphe MC, Nandrino JL, Grynberg D. French translation and validation of the multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness (maia-fr). Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement 2021.
    
    

30. 30.Vallerand RJ, Pelletier LG, Blais MR, Briere NM, Senecal C, Vallieres EF. The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and psychological measurement 1992;52:1003–17.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0013164492052004025&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1992KC75800025&link_type=ISI) 

31. 31.Trousselard M, Steiler D, Raphel C, et al. Validation of a french version of the freiburg mindfulness inventory - short version: Relationships between mindfulness and stress in an adult population. BioPsychoSocial Medicine 2010;4:1–11.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1751-0759-4-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20181219&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20181219&link_type=ISI) 

32. 32.Walach H, Buchheld N, Buttenmüller V, Kleinknecht N, Schmidt S. Measuring mindfulness - the freiburg mindfulness inventory (fmi). Personality and Individual Differences 2006;40:1543–55.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.025&link_type=DOI) 

33. 33.Rouder JN, Speckman PL, Sun D, Morey RD, Iverson G. Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic bulletin & review 2009;16:225–37.
    
    

34. 34.Wagenmakers EJ, Marsman M, Jamil T, et al. Bayesian inference for psychology. Part i: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic bulletin & review 2018;25:35–57.
    
    

35. 35.Jeffreys H. Theory of probability. 1961.
    
    

36. 36.Glass GV. Note on rank biserial correlation. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1966;26:623–31.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/001316446602600307&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A19668245800007&link_type=ISI) 

37. 37.Brown KW, Ryan RM. The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2003;84:822–48.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12703651&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000181864200010&link_type=ISI) 

38. 38.Kiken L, Garland E, Bluth K, Palsson OS, Gaylord SA. From a state to a trait: Trajectories of state mindfulness in meditation during intervention predict changes in trait mindfulness. Personality and Individual differences 2015;81:41–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.044&link_type=DOI) 

39. 39.Pessiglione M, Schmidt L, Draganski B, et al. How the brain translates money into force: A neuroimaging study of subliminal motivation. science 2007;316:904–6.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMTYvNTgyNi85MDQiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wMy8xMC8yMDIyLjA4LjEyLjIyMjc4NDAxLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

40. 40.Clancy RB, Herring MP, Campbell MJ. Motivation measures in sport: A critical review and bibliometric analysis. Frontiers in psychology 2017;8.
    
    

41. 41.Guay F, Vallerand RJ, Blanchard C. On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The situational motivation scale (sims). Motivation and emotion 2000;24:175–213.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1023/A:1005614228250&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000166821000002&link_type=ISI) 

42. 42.Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, Funder DC. Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science 2007;2:396–403.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26151975&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 

43. 43.Le Bouc R, Rigoux L, Schmidt L, et al. Computational dissection of dopamine motor and motivational functions in humans. Journal of Neuroscience 2016;36:6623–33.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Njoiam5ldXJvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIzNi8yNS82NjIzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDMvMTAvMjAyMi4wOC4xMi4yMjI3ODQwMS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

44. 44.Garfinkel SN, Seth AK, Barrett AB, Suzuki K, Critchley HD. Knowing your own heart: Distinguishing interoceptive accuracy from interoceptive awareness. Biological Psychology 2015;104:65–74.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.11.004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25451381&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 

45. 45.Khalsa SS, Lapidus RC. Can interoception improve the pragmatic search for biomarkers in psychiatry? Frontiers in Psychiatry 2016;7.
    
    

46. 46.Khalsa SS, Rudrauf D, Sandesara C, Olshansky B, Tranel D. Bolus isoproterenol infusions provide a reliable method for assessing interoceptive awareness. International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology 2009;72:34–45.
    
    

47. 47.Coll MP, Hobson H, Bird G, Murphy J. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between the heartbeat-evoked potential and interoception. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 2021.
    
    

48. 48.Park HD, Blanke O. Heartbeat-evoked cortical responses: Underlying mechanisms, functional roles, and methodological considerations. Neuroimage 2019;197:502–11.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.04.081&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31051293&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 

49. 49.Brener J, Ring C. Towards a psychophysics of interoceptive processes: The measurement of heartbeat detection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2016;371:20160015.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1098/rstb.2016.0015&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28080972&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 

50. 50.McMorris T, Barwood M, Corbett J. Central fatigue theory and endurance exercise: Toward an interoceptive model. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 2018;93:93–107.
    
    

51. 51.Hassanpour MS, Simmons WK, Feinstein JS, et al. The insular cortex dynamically maps changes in cardiorespiratory interoception. Neuropsychopharmacology 2018;43:426–34.
    
    

52. 52.Schmit C, Brisswalter J. Executive functioning during prolonged exercise: A fatigue-based neurocognitive perspective. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 2020;13:21–39.
    
    

## Supplementary references

1.  1.Epstein Y, Yanovich R. Heatstroke. New England Journal of Medicine 2019;380:2449-59.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMra1810762&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom) 

2.  2.Jeffreys H. Theory of probability. 1961.
    
    

3.  3.Laitano O, Leon LR, Roberts WO, Sawka MN. Controversies in exertional heat stroke diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Journal of Applied Physiology 2019;127:1338-48.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2022.08.12.22278401.atom)