ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2019
Emotion Measurements Through the Touch of Materials Surfaces.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pupil Reactions to Tactile Stimulation: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Pooled it
- Choice enhances touch pleasantness.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- The Trade-Off Between Luminance and Color Contrast Assessed With Pupil Responses.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Effect of material properties on emotion: a virtual reality study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Atypical Response to Affective Touch in Children with Autism: Multi-Parametric Exploration of the Autonomic System.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Pupillary responses to differences in luminance, color and set size.Experimental brain research · 2022Article
- Does Nice or Nasty Matter? The Intensity of Touch Modulates the Rubber Hand Illusion.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The emotion generated by the touch of materials is studied via a protocol based on blind assessment of various stimuli. The human emotional reaction felt toward a material is estimated through (i) explicit measurements, using a questionnaire collecting valence and intensity, and (ii) implicit measurements of the activity of the autonomic nervous system, via a pupillometry equipment. A panel of 25 university students (13 women, 12 men), aged from 18 to 27, tested blind twelve materials such as polymers, sandpapers, wood, velvet and fur, randomly ordered. After measuring the initial pupil diameter, taken as a reference, its variation during the tactile exploration was recorded. After each touch, the participants were asked to quantify the emotional value of the material. The results show that the pupil size variation follows the emotional intensity. It is significantly larger during the touch of materials considered as pleasant or unpleasant, than with the touch of neutral materials. Moreover, after a time period of about 0.5 s following the stimulus, the results reveal significant differences between pleasant and unpleasant stimuli, as well as differences according to gender, i.e., higher pupil dilatation of women than men. These results suggest (i) that the autonomic nervous system is initially sensitive to high arousing stimulation, and (ii) that, after a certain period, the pupil size changes according to the cognitive interest induced and the emotional regulation adopted. This research shows the interest of the emotional characterization of materials for product design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.