ArticleExperimental brain research2018
Stroking and tapping the skin: behavioral and electrodermal effects.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Defining pleasant touch stimuli: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Psychological research · 2021Pooled it
- Neurobiological and Anti-Inflammatory Effects of a Deep Diaphragmatic Breathing Technique Based on Neofunctional Psychotherapy: A Pilot RCT.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2024Trial
- Modulation of pain by affective touch: effects of childhood trauma, depression, chronic pain, and spinal segment.The Journal of physiology · 2026Article
- Psychophysiological responses to tactile contact with hairy versus hairless plant leaves.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Classical back massage is associated with lower heart rate and sustained mean skin conductance during recovery after cognitive load: an exploratory controlled pilot study.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Paving the way for social touch at a distance: Sonifying tactile interactions and their underlying emotions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- The Impact of Relaxation Massage Prior to Bedtime on Sleep Quality and Quantity in People with Symptoms of Chronic Insomnia: A Home-Based Sleep Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Semi-autonomous touch method merging robot's autonomous touch and user-operated touch for improving user experience in robot touch.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Enjoying art: an evolutionary perspective on the esthetic experience from emotion elicitors.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Atypical Response to Affective Touch in Children with Autism: Multi-Parametric Exploration of the Autonomic System.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Bliss in and Out of the Body: The (Extra)Corporeal Space Is Impervious to Social Pleasant Touch.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Dynamic touch reduces physiological arousal in preterm infants: A role for c-tactile afferents?Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Being caressed represents one of the most typical expressions of affection conveyed by touch. Converging evidence suggests that the pleasant perception of gentle and slow stroking delivered to the hairy skin is mediated by C-Tactile afferents (CTs). While behavioral and neural responses to CT-optimal touch have been moderately explored so far, less is known about the autonomic reaction to different kinds of touch (both CT-optimal and not). Here, we investigated whether physiological arousal varies as a function of the specific tactile stimulation provided. Stroking (slow: 3 cm/s 'CT-optimal'; or fast: 30 cm/s) and tapping (random or fixed spatial order) stimulations were delivered to the participants' forearm with a brush, for durations of 9 or 60 s. Participants' skin conductance response (SCR) and level (SCL), as well as subjective evaluations, were recorded. The results revealed that being stroked (at both the velocities) induced higher SCR and SCL than being tapped. Moreover, while higher SCR was elicited by CT-suboptimal stroking compared to CT-optimal stroking, SCL was not affected differently by CT-optimal touch. No differences were found between the effects of 9 and 60 s stimulations. Slow stroking was evaluated as the most pleasant, relaxing and 'social' type of touch compared to the other tactile stimulations. Taken together, these findings shed light on the psychophysiological responses to stroking (including CT-optimal touch) and tapping, and contribute to elucidate the mechanisms underlying hedonic tactile perception.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29214391What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.