Development and Validation of the Interoceptive Attribution of Physical Effort Scale (IAPES) [Review]

The introduction acknowledges interoception but fails to specify which dimensions or aspects are being examined. A clear definition of interoception and its relevance to physical activity should be provided initially. Subsequently, the specific aspect of interoception that the IAPES is designed to measure should be detailed. The relationship between interoception and RPE is not adequately explained. Both concepts relate to internal sensations during physical activity, yet the introduction does not effectively describe their interconnection or the influence of interoception on RPE. An elaboration on how interoceptive awareness affects the perception of exertion, supported by relevant literature, would clarify this connection and underline the IAPES's intended contribution. The introduction refers to a three-dimensional model of interoception but doesn't specify the relevant dimensions for the study, creating ambiguity about the research focus. It should be made clear whether the study addresses interoceptive accuracy, sensibility, awareness, or all these dimensions. The introduction shifts from interoception to the subjective perceptions and regulation of exertion without pinpointing the research's particular interest in interoception. The research question needs to be more precisely defined. The phrasing in lines 58-59 hints at a link between interoceptive processing and exertion regulation, potentially conflating interoception with subjective perceptions. Although interoception is a subjective experience, the wording might suggest a distinction between the two. Considering the outlined issues, a complete reworking of the introduction might be needed. It should start with a definition of interoception and its significance to physical effort, establish the connection to RPE, and articulate the research gap that IAPES aims to address. I acknowledge my limitations in fully assessing the statistical methods used in your study. While the sample sizes and procedural steps seem appropriate, the reasoning behind certain methods lacks clarity and theoretical grounding. The phrase "determining interoceptive attribution in reporting perceived physical effort" found in line 139 remains unclear to me. I am unsure about the criterion validation approach in your study. The aim is to develop a scale for measuring interoceptive accuracy in physical effort, yet the validation employs a heartbeat counting task, which may not align with the scale's focus. More clarity or rationale is needed for this validation method in relation to the scale. The discussion section left me puzzled, particularly about the scale's application and purpose. It appears that additional steps might be necessary before the scale can be practically implemented. The paragraph starting at line 370 doesn't seem to effectively engage with, compare, or contrast your findings with previous studies. It is predominantly descriptive, and its relevance to your research is not immediately apparent.