Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36399466›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Vicarious experiences of touch (mirror touch) in a Chinese sample: Cross-cultural and individual differences.

Mengze Li, Lei Hao, Zhiting Ren, Jiang Qiu, Jamie Ward

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mengze LiSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0206-0093
Lei HaoSchool of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
Zhiting RenSchool of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
Jiang QiuSchool of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
Jamie WardSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China · CNUniversity of Sussex · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mirror-touch synaesthesia (MTS) refers to tactile sensations people have on their own body when they see another person being touched. This trait has been linked to individual differences in computing body awareness and ownership (e.g., on questionnaires, cognitive tests) as well as differences in the brain. Here it is assessed for the first time in a non-Western (Chinese) population. Study 1 shows that reports of mirror-touch are elevated in a Chinese sample (N = 298) relative to comparable Western samples shown identical stimuli. In other respects, they are qualitatively similar (e.g., showing a difference between whether humans or inanimate objects are touched) and, overall, these differences could not be attributed to an acquiescence bias. The Chinese sample also completed a battery of questionnaires relating to body awareness and social-emotional functioning including mental health (Study 2) and had participated in brain imaging (the structural scans were analysed using voxel-based morphometry in Study 3). Participants reporting higher levels of mirror touch reported higher levels of anxiety. There were no reliable differences in the VBM analysis. It is suggested instead that cross-cultural differences in embodied cognition can manifest themselves in different rates of vicarious experience such as mirror touch.

Indexed as

TouchTouch PerceptionChinaCross-Cultural ComparisonHumansIndividuality

Identifiers

PMID36399466
PMCPMC9674153
OpenAlexW4309307630

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.