Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35533281›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2022

Tactile suppression stems from specific sensorimotor predictions.

Elena Fuehrer, Dimitris Voudouris, Alexandra Lezkan, Knut Drewing, Katja Fiehler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Spatially incompatible tool use does not induce tactile neglect.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

5 authors.

Elena FuehrerExperimental Psychology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, 35394 Giessen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9009-5087
Dimitris VoudourisExperimental Psychology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, 35394 Giessen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9110-0928
Alexandra LezkanExperimental Psychology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, 35394 Giessen, Germany.
Knut DrewingExperimental Psychology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, 35394 Giessen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6161-5912
Katja FiehlerExperimental Psychology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, 35394 Giessen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9682-444X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to sample sensory information with our hands is crucial for smooth and efficient interactions with the world. Despite this important role of touch, tactile sensations on a moving hand are perceived weaker than when presented on the same but stationary hand. This phenomenon of tactile suppression has been explained by predictive mechanisms, such as internal forward models, that estimate future sensory states of the body on the basis of the motor command and suppress the associated predicted sensory feedback. The origins of tactile suppression have sparked a lot of debate, with contemporary accounts claiming that suppression is independent of sensorimotor predictions and is instead due to an unspecific mechanism. Here, we target this debate and provide evidence for specific tactile suppression due to precise sensorimotor predictions. Participants stroked with their finger over textured objects that caused predictable vibrotactile feedback signals on that finger. Shortly before touching the texture, we probed tactile suppression by applying external vibrotactile probes on the moving finger that either matched or mismatched the frequency generated by the stroking movement along the texture. We found stronger suppression of the probes that matched the predicted sensory feedback. These results show that tactile suppression is specifically tuned to the predicted sensory states of a movement.

Indexed as

MovementTouch PerceptionFeedback, SensoryHandHumansTouchefference copysensorimotor predictionsensory gatingtactile attenuationtactile suppression

Identifiers

PMID35533281
PMCPMC9171803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.