Literature DB >> 32224227

Individual Variability of Pleasantness Ratings to Stroking Touch Over Different Velocities.

Ilona Croy1, Antonie Bierling1, Uta Sailer2, Rochelle Ackerley3.   

Abstract

Many studies have investigated the perception of tactile pleasantness over a range of stroking velocities. On average, pleasantness is low at slow (e.g. 0.3 cm/s) and fast (e.g. 30 cm/s) stroking velocities, but is rated highest at velocities between 1 and 10 cm/s. On a group level, this results in an inverted-U shape pleasantness ratings curve, which is described statistically by a negative quadratic equation. We reanalyzed the data from five earlier studies to investigate whether the inverted-U shape pleasantness curve at the group level is also present at the level of the individual, - a precondition for using tactile pleasantness perception as a diagnostic marker. We pooled the data from five studies with a total of 127 participants. Each study included a 'standard condition' of stroking on the dorsal forearm over different velocities (0.3, 1, 3, 10, 30 cm/s) and participants rated the pleasantness. Factors other than stroking velocity were also varied in these studies. On the whole-group level and in each study, pleasantness ratings produced a significant negative quadratic pleasantness curve over the stroking velocities. In individual participants, ratings varied greatly and only 42% of the participants showed a significant negative quadratic curve. The steepness of the inverted-U correlated only moderately across other experimental conditions, showing that the experimental circumstances can influence pleasantness ratings. Our findings have important implications for future work, where differences in the tactile pleasantness curve should not be used to predict or diagnose issues at an individual level.
Copyright © 2020 IBRO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  brushing; pleasant; positive affect; touch; variability

Year:  2020        PMID: 32224227     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.03.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroscience        ISSN: 0306-4522            Impact factor:   3.590


  9 in total

1.  The role of affective touch in whole-body embodiment remains equivocal.

Authors:  Mark Carey; Laura Crucianelli; Catherine Preston; Aikaterini Fotopoulou
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2020-12-07

2.  Thin Films on the Skin, but not Frictional Agents, Attenuate the Percept of Pleasantness to Brushed Stimuli.

Authors:  Merat Rezaei; Saad S Nagi; Chang Xu; Sarah McIntyre; Håkan Olausson; Gregory J Gerling
Journal:  World Haptics Conf       Date:  2021-08-23

3.  Individual Performance in Compliance Discrimination is Constrained by Skin Mechanics but Improved under Active Control.

Authors:  Chang Xu; Yuxiang Wang; Gregory J Gerling
Journal:  World Haptics Conf       Date:  2021-08-23

4.  Subtle Contact Nuances in the Delivery of Human-to-Human Touch Distinguish Emotional Sentiment.

Authors:  Shan Xu; Chang Xu; Sarah McIntyre; Hakan Olausson; Gregory J Gerling
Journal:  IEEE Trans Haptics       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 3.105

5.  Affective touch topography and body image.

Authors:  Valentina Cazzato; Sofia Sacchetti; Shelby Shin; Adarsh Makdani; Paula D Trotter; Francis McGlone
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Pleasantness Only?

Authors:  Uta Sailer; Marlene Hausmann; Ilona Croy
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2020-07

7.  Effects of sickness manipulation on disgust and pleasantness in interpersonal touch.

Authors:  Anne Gruhl; Supreet Saluja; Richard Stevenson; Ilona Croy
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2022-09-20

8.  3D Visual Tracking to Quantify Physical Contact Interactions in Human-to-Human Touch.

Authors:  Shan Xu; Chang Xu; Sarah McIntyre; Håkan Olausson; Gregory J Gerling
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-06-09       Impact factor: 4.755

9.  Gentle stroking elicits somatosensory ERP that differentiates between hairy and glabrous skin.

Authors:  Annett Schirmer; Oscar Lai; Francis McGlone; Clare Cham; Darwin Lau
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 4.235

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.