ArticlePloS one2022
Vicarious experiences of touch (mirror touch) in a Chinese sample: Cross-cultural and individual differences.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characteristics of vicarious touch reports in a general population.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Can the neural representation of physical pain predict empathy for pain in others?Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.