Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28080967›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2016

Affective touch and attachment style modulate pain: a laser-evoked potentials study.

Charlotte Krahé, Marianne M Drabek, Yannis Paloyelis, Aikaterini Fotopoulou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Charlotte KrahéDepartment of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK charlotte.krahe@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0620-1263
Marianne M DrabekArthritis Research UK Pain Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Yannis PaloyelisDepartment of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Aikaterini FotopoulouResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Affective touch and cutaneous pain are two sub-modalities of interoception with contrasting affective qualities (pleasantness/unpleasantness) and social meanings (care/harm), yet their direct relationship has not been investigated. In 50 women, taking into account individual attachment styles, we assessed the role of affective touch and particularly the contribution of the C tactile (CT) system in subjective and electrophysiological responses to noxious skin stimulation, namely N1 and N2-P2 laser-evoked potentials. When pleasant, slow (versus fast) velocity touch was administered to the (non-CT-containing) palm of the hand, higher attachment anxiety predicted increased subjective pain ratings, in the same direction as changes in N2 amplitude. By contrast, when pleasant touch was administered to CT-containing skin of the arm, higher attachment anxiety predicted attenuated N1 and N2 amplitudes. Higher attachment avoidance predicted opposite results. Thus, CT-based affective touch can modulate pain in early and late processing stages (N1 and N2 components), with the direction of effects depending on attachment style. Affective touch not involving the CT system seems to affect predominately the conscious perception of pain, possibly reflecting socio-cognitive factors further up the neurocognitive hierarchy. Affective touch may thus convey information about available social resources and gate pain responses depending on individual expectations of social support.This article is part of the themed issue 'Interoception beyond homeostasis: affect, cognition and mental health'.

Indexed as

AffectTouchAdultFemaleHumansLaser-Evoked PotentialsMalePainPhysical StimulationRandom AllocationYoung Adultaffective touchattachment styleinteroceptionlaser-evoked potentialspain

Identifiers

PMID28080967
PMCPMC5062098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.