ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020
Dynamic Touch as Common Ground for Enactivism and Ecological Psychology.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contact, agency, and haptic experience in sport: a conceptual analysis of embodied skill, interpersonal touch, and digital mediation.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Patient-Practitioner-Environment Synchronization: Four-Step Process for Integrating Interprofessional and Distinctive Competencies in Osteopathic Practice-A Scoping Review with Integrative Hypothesis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Materiality and Cognitive Development: Contemporary Debates and Empirical Studies in Early Childhood.Europe's journal of psychology · 2024Article
- An Ecological Approach to Conceptual Thinking in Material Engagement.Europe's journal of psychology · 2024Article
- Embodying cognitive ethology.Theory & psychology · 2023Article
- Therapeutic touch and therapeutic alliance in pediatric care and neonatology: An active inference framework.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- An Interaction Theory Account of (Mediated) Social Touch.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- How Enaction and Ecological Approaches Can Contribute to Sports and Skill Learning.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Review
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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main purpose of this article is to show that enactivism and ecological psychology share more aspects than is often recognized. Rather than debating about differences, commonalities between the approaches are illustrated with the example of dynamic touch. Dynamic touch is a form of touch that implies muscles and tendons and that allows the perception of hand-held objects that are wielded but not seen. Given that perceivers perform the wielding movements with effort, dynamic touch necessarily implies active exploration. The strength of dynamic touch as an example lies in the fact that it has been formalized and analyzed in detail at the level of the laws that govern the organism-environment system. The example provides empirically supported instantiations of sensorimotor contingencies, in enactivist terms, and of intentional exploration and information detection, in ecological terms. Moreover, dynamic touch is a practical example of the enactivist concepts of bringing-forth the world and sense-making. As a second purpose, we use the example of dynamic touch to clarify key concepts of the ecological approach. Specifically, we analyze the concepts of invariance and affordance, indicating the crucial difference between perceiving and actualizing affordances, and highlighting the importance of these concepts for the dialogue between enactivism and ecological psychology.
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.