Hold me or stroke me? Individual differences in static and dynamic affective touch
Low-threshold mechanosensory C-fibres, C-tactile afferents (CTs), respond optimally to sensations associated with a human caress. Additionally, CT-stimulation activates brain regions associated with processing affective states. This evidence has led to the social touch hypothesis, that CTs have a ke...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2023-05, Vol.18 (5), p.e0281253-e0281253 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0281253 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | e0281253 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 18 |
| creator | Ali, S Hasan Makdani, Adarsh D Cordero, Maria I Paltoglou, Aspasia E Marshall, Andrew G McFarquhar, Martyn J McGlone, Francis P Walker, Susannah C Trotter, Paula D |
| description | Low-threshold mechanosensory C-fibres, C-tactile afferents (CTs), respond optimally to sensations associated with a human caress. Additionally, CT-stimulation activates brain regions associated with processing affective states. This evidence has led to the social touch hypothesis, that CTs have a key role in encoding the affective properties of social touch. Thus, to date, the affective touch literature has focussed on gentle stroking touch. However, social touch interactions involve many touch types, including static, higher force touch such as hugging and holding. This study aimed to broaden our understanding of the social touch hypothesis by investigating relative preference for static vs dynamic touch and the influence of force on these preferences. Additionally, as recent literature has highlighted individual differences in CT-touch sensitivity, this study investigated the influence of affective touch experiences and attitudes, autistic traits, depressive symptomology and perceived stress on CT-touch sensitivity. Directly experienced, robotic touch responses were obtained through a lab-based study and vicarious touch responses through an online study where participants rated affective touch videos. Individual differences were determined by self-report questionnaire measures. In general, static touch was preferred over CT-non-optimal stroking touch, however, consistent with previous reports, CT-optimal stroking (velocity 1-10 cm/s) was rated most pleasant. However, static and CT-optimal vicarious touch were rated comparably for dorsal hand touch. For all velocities, 0.4N was preferred over 0.05N and 1.5N robotic touch. Participant dynamic touch quadratic terms were calculated for robotic and vicarious touch as a proxy CT-sensitivity measure. Attitudes to intimate touch significantly predict robotic and vicarious quadratic terms, as well as vicarious static dorsal hand touch ratings. Perceived stress negatively predicted robotic static touch ratings. This study has identified individual difference predictors of CT-touch sensitivity. Additionally, it has highlighted the context dependence of affective touch responses and the need to consider static, as well as dynamic affective touch. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0281253 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2818023410</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A750317911</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_40bfe3d598ea4598bbe6632f820be2e3</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A750317911</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c693t-ae90fca0e0e44ac9ce362c568f8775ea4c5bc2fc98ba8ce99622f748e00a751b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkttq3DAQhk1padK0b1BaQ6G0F7vVwSddhRDSZiEQSA-3QpZHu9pqpY0kL83bR-46YV1yUQzySP7mH8_oz7K3GM0xrfGXteu9FWa-dRbmiDSYlPRZdowZJbOKIPr8ID7KXoWwRqikTVW9zI5oTQjCGB1nN5fOdPkGcufzEL37DWlzmi9sp3e664XJO60UeLASQq5tgkTUMhe2y7s7KzZDnAAZ9Q7y6Hq5ep29UMIEeDO-T7KfXy9-nF_Orq6_Lc7PrmayYjTOBDCkpECAoCiEZBJoRWRZNaqp6xJEIctWEiVZ04pGAmMVIaouGkBI1CVu6Un2fq-7NS7wcRyBp0k0iNACo0Qs9kTnxJpvvd4If8ed0PzvgfNLLnzqxgAvUKuAdiVrUuW0ti1UFSWqIagFAjRpnY7V-nYDnQQbvTAT0ekXq1d86XYcI4IKVg4Kn0YF7257CJFvdJBgjLDg-v2P1wUrmgH98A_6dHsjtRSpA22VS4XlIMrP6hJRXDOMEzV_gkpPB-nyknmUTueThM-ThMRE-BOXog-BL77f_D97_WvKfjxgVyBMXAVn-qidDVOw2IPSuxA8qMcpY8QH7z9Mgw_e56P3U9q7wxt6THowO70H0EH-AA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2818023410</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Hold me or stroke me? Individual differences in static and dynamic affective touch</title><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Ali, S Hasan ; Makdani, Adarsh D ; Cordero, Maria I ; Paltoglou, Aspasia E ; Marshall, Andrew G ; McFarquhar, Martyn J ; McGlone, Francis P ; Walker, Susannah C ; Trotter, Paula D</creator><creatorcontrib>Ali, S Hasan ; Makdani, Adarsh D ; Cordero, Maria I ; Paltoglou, Aspasia E ; Marshall, Andrew G ; McFarquhar, Martyn J ; McGlone, Francis P ; Walker, Susannah C ; Trotter, Paula D</creatorcontrib><description>Low-threshold mechanosensory C-fibres, C-tactile afferents (CTs), respond optimally to sensations associated with a human caress. Additionally, CT-stimulation activates brain regions associated with processing affective states. This evidence has led to the social touch hypothesis, that CTs have a key role in encoding the affective properties of social touch. Thus, to date, the affective touch literature has focussed on gentle stroking touch. However, social touch interactions involve many touch types, including static, higher force touch such as hugging and holding. This study aimed to broaden our understanding of the social touch hypothesis by investigating relative preference for static vs dynamic touch and the influence of force on these preferences. Additionally, as recent literature has highlighted individual differences in CT-touch sensitivity, this study investigated the influence of affective touch experiences and attitudes, autistic traits, depressive symptomology and perceived stress on CT-touch sensitivity. Directly experienced, robotic touch responses were obtained through a lab-based study and vicarious touch responses through an online study where participants rated affective touch videos. Individual differences were determined by self-report questionnaire measures. In general, static touch was preferred over CT-non-optimal stroking touch, however, consistent with previous reports, CT-optimal stroking (velocity 1-10 cm/s) was rated most pleasant. However, static and CT-optimal vicarious touch were rated comparably for dorsal hand touch. For all velocities, 0.4N was preferred over 0.05N and 1.5N robotic touch. Participant dynamic touch quadratic terms were calculated for robotic and vicarious touch as a proxy CT-sensitivity measure. Attitudes to intimate touch significantly predict robotic and vicarious quadratic terms, as well as vicarious static dorsal hand touch ratings. Perceived stress negatively predicted robotic static touch ratings. This study has identified individual difference predictors of CT-touch sensitivity. Additionally, it has highlighted the context dependence of affective touch responses and the need to consider static, as well as dynamic affective touch.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281253</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37220110</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Advance Directives ; Affect (Psychology) ; Analysis ; Attitudes ; Autism ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Brain ; CT imaging ; Emotional behavior ; Engineering and Technology ; Evaluation ; Health aspects ; Humans ; Hypotheses ; Individuality ; Laboratories ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Mental depression ; Newborn babies ; Optimization ; Physical Sciences ; Preferences ; Premature babies ; Psychological aspects ; Ratings ; Sensitivity ; Social Sciences ; Stroke ; Symptomology ; Tactile stimuli ; Touch ; Touch Perception ; Velocity</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2023-05, Vol.18 (5), p.e0281253-e0281253</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © 2023 Ali et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2023 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2023 Ali et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2023 Ali et al 2023 Ali et al</rights><rights>2023 Ali et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c693t-ae90fca0e0e44ac9ce362c568f8775ea4c5bc2fc98ba8ce99622f748e00a751b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c693t-ae90fca0e0e44ac9ce362c568f8775ea4c5bc2fc98ba8ce99622f748e00a751b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0692-8064 ; 0000-0003-1888-5137 ; 0000-0003-2667-011X ; 0000-0003-4744-4963</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10204953/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10204953/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37220110$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ali, S Hasan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Makdani, Adarsh D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cordero, Maria I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paltoglou, Aspasia E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marshall, Andrew G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McFarquhar, Martyn J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGlone, Francis P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walker, Susannah C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trotter, Paula D</creatorcontrib><title>Hold me or stroke me? Individual differences in static and dynamic affective touch</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Low-threshold mechanosensory C-fibres, C-tactile afferents (CTs), respond optimally to sensations associated with a human caress. Additionally, CT-stimulation activates brain regions associated with processing affective states. This evidence has led to the social touch hypothesis, that CTs have a key role in encoding the affective properties of social touch. Thus, to date, the affective touch literature has focussed on gentle stroking touch. However, social touch interactions involve many touch types, including static, higher force touch such as hugging and holding. This study aimed to broaden our understanding of the social touch hypothesis by investigating relative preference for static vs dynamic touch and the influence of force on these preferences. Additionally, as recent literature has highlighted individual differences in CT-touch sensitivity, this study investigated the influence of affective touch experiences and attitudes, autistic traits, depressive symptomology and perceived stress on CT-touch sensitivity. Directly experienced, robotic touch responses were obtained through a lab-based study and vicarious touch responses through an online study where participants rated affective touch videos. Individual differences were determined by self-report questionnaire measures. In general, static touch was preferred over CT-non-optimal stroking touch, however, consistent with previous reports, CT-optimal stroking (velocity 1-10 cm/s) was rated most pleasant. However, static and CT-optimal vicarious touch were rated comparably for dorsal hand touch. For all velocities, 0.4N was preferred over 0.05N and 1.5N robotic touch. Participant dynamic touch quadratic terms were calculated for robotic and vicarious touch as a proxy CT-sensitivity measure. Attitudes to intimate touch significantly predict robotic and vicarious quadratic terms, as well as vicarious static dorsal hand touch ratings. Perceived stress negatively predicted robotic static touch ratings. This study has identified individual difference predictors of CT-touch sensitivity. Additionally, it has highlighted the context dependence of affective touch responses and the need to consider static, as well as dynamic affective touch.</description><subject>Advance Directives</subject><subject>Affect (Psychology)</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Attitudes</subject><subject>Autism</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Brain</subject><subject>CT imaging</subject><subject>Emotional behavior</subject><subject>Engineering and Technology</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Individuality</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Mental depression</subject><subject>Newborn babies</subject><subject>Optimization</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Premature babies</subject><subject>Psychological aspects</subject><subject>Ratings</subject><subject>Sensitivity</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Stroke</subject><subject>Symptomology</subject><subject>Tactile stimuli</subject><subject>Touch</subject><subject>Touch Perception</subject><subject>Velocity</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkttq3DAQhk1padK0b1BaQ6G0F7vVwSddhRDSZiEQSA-3QpZHu9pqpY0kL83bR-46YV1yUQzySP7mH8_oz7K3GM0xrfGXteu9FWa-dRbmiDSYlPRZdowZJbOKIPr8ID7KXoWwRqikTVW9zI5oTQjCGB1nN5fOdPkGcufzEL37DWlzmi9sp3e664XJO60UeLASQq5tgkTUMhe2y7s7KzZDnAAZ9Q7y6Hq5ep29UMIEeDO-T7KfXy9-nF_Orq6_Lc7PrmayYjTOBDCkpECAoCiEZBJoRWRZNaqp6xJEIctWEiVZ04pGAmMVIaouGkBI1CVu6Un2fq-7NS7wcRyBp0k0iNACo0Qs9kTnxJpvvd4If8ed0PzvgfNLLnzqxgAvUKuAdiVrUuW0ti1UFSWqIagFAjRpnY7V-nYDnQQbvTAT0ekXq1d86XYcI4IKVg4Kn0YF7257CJFvdJBgjLDg-v2P1wUrmgH98A_6dHsjtRSpA22VS4XlIMrP6hJRXDOMEzV_gkpPB-nyknmUTueThM-ThMRE-BOXog-BL77f_D97_WvKfjxgVyBMXAVn-qidDVOw2IPSuxA8qMcpY8QH7z9Mgw_e56P3U9q7wxt6THowO70H0EH-AA</recordid><startdate>20230523</startdate><enddate>20230523</enddate><creator>Ali, S Hasan</creator><creator>Makdani, Adarsh D</creator><creator>Cordero, Maria I</creator><creator>Paltoglou, Aspasia E</creator><creator>Marshall, Andrew G</creator><creator>McFarquhar, Martyn J</creator><creator>McGlone, Francis P</creator><creator>Walker, Susannah C</creator><creator>Trotter, Paula D</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0692-8064</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1888-5137</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2667-011X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4744-4963</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230523</creationdate><title>Hold me or stroke me? Individual differences in static and dynamic affective touch</title><author>Ali, S Hasan ; Makdani, Adarsh D ; Cordero, Maria I ; Paltoglou, Aspasia E ; Marshall, Andrew G ; McFarquhar, Martyn J ; McGlone, Francis P ; Walker, Susannah C ; Trotter, Paula D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c693t-ae90fca0e0e44ac9ce362c568f8775ea4c5bc2fc98ba8ce99622f748e00a751b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Advance Directives</topic><topic>Affect (Psychology)</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Attitudes</topic><topic>Autism</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Brain</topic><topic>CT imaging</topic><topic>Emotional behavior</topic><topic>Engineering and Technology</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Individuality</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Mental depression</topic><topic>Newborn babies</topic><topic>Optimization</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Premature babies</topic><topic>Psychological aspects</topic><topic>Ratings</topic><topic>Sensitivity</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Stroke</topic><topic>Symptomology</topic><topic>Tactile stimuli</topic><topic>Touch</topic><topic>Touch Perception</topic><topic>Velocity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ali, S Hasan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Makdani, Adarsh D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cordero, Maria I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paltoglou, Aspasia E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marshall, Andrew G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McFarquhar, Martyn J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGlone, Francis P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walker, Susannah C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trotter, Paula D</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Opposing Viewpoints In Context</collection><collection>Science (Gale in Context)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database (1962 - current)</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies & aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ali, S Hasan</au><au>Makdani, Adarsh D</au><au>Cordero, Maria I</au><au>Paltoglou, Aspasia E</au><au>Marshall, Andrew G</au><au>McFarquhar, Martyn J</au><au>McGlone, Francis P</au><au>Walker, Susannah C</au><au>Trotter, Paula D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Hold me or stroke me? Individual differences in static and dynamic affective touch</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2023-05-23</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>e0281253</spage><epage>e0281253</epage><pages>e0281253-e0281253</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Low-threshold mechanosensory C-fibres, C-tactile afferents (CTs), respond optimally to sensations associated with a human caress. Additionally, CT-stimulation activates brain regions associated with processing affective states. This evidence has led to the social touch hypothesis, that CTs have a key role in encoding the affective properties of social touch. Thus, to date, the affective touch literature has focussed on gentle stroking touch. However, social touch interactions involve many touch types, including static, higher force touch such as hugging and holding. This study aimed to broaden our understanding of the social touch hypothesis by investigating relative preference for static vs dynamic touch and the influence of force on these preferences. Additionally, as recent literature has highlighted individual differences in CT-touch sensitivity, this study investigated the influence of affective touch experiences and attitudes, autistic traits, depressive symptomology and perceived stress on CT-touch sensitivity. Directly experienced, robotic touch responses were obtained through a lab-based study and vicarious touch responses through an online study where participants rated affective touch videos. Individual differences were determined by self-report questionnaire measures. In general, static touch was preferred over CT-non-optimal stroking touch, however, consistent with previous reports, CT-optimal stroking (velocity 1-10 cm/s) was rated most pleasant. However, static and CT-optimal vicarious touch were rated comparably for dorsal hand touch. For all velocities, 0.4N was preferred over 0.05N and 1.5N robotic touch. Participant dynamic touch quadratic terms were calculated for robotic and vicarious touch as a proxy CT-sensitivity measure. Attitudes to intimate touch significantly predict robotic and vicarious quadratic terms, as well as vicarious static dorsal hand touch ratings. Perceived stress negatively predicted robotic static touch ratings. This study has identified individual difference predictors of CT-touch sensitivity. Additionally, it has highlighted the context dependence of affective touch responses and the need to consider static, as well as dynamic affective touch.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>37220110</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0281253</doi><tpages>e0281253</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0692-8064</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1888-5137</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2667-011X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4744-4963</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2023-05, Vol.18 (5), p.e0281253-e0281253 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2818023410 |
| source | Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; EZB Electronic Journals Library |
| subjects | Advance Directives Affect (Psychology) Analysis Attitudes Autism Biology and Life Sciences Brain CT imaging Emotional behavior Engineering and Technology Evaluation Health aspects Humans Hypotheses Individuality Laboratories Medicine and Health Sciences Mental depression Newborn babies Optimization Physical Sciences Preferences Premature babies Psychological aspects Ratings Sensitivity Social Sciences Stroke Symptomology Tactile stimuli Touch Touch Perception Velocity |
| title | Hold me or stroke me? Individual differences in static and dynamic affective touch |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T17%3A59%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Hold%20me%20or%20stroke%20me?%20Individual%20differences%20in%20static%20and%20dynamic%20affective%20touch&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Ali,%20S%20Hasan&rft.date=2023-05-23&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e0281253&rft.epage=e0281253&rft.pages=e0281253-e0281253&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0281253&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA750317911%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2818023410&rft_id=info:pmid/37220110&rft_galeid=A750317911&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_40bfe3d598ea4598bbe6632f820be2e3&rfr_iscdi=true |