Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38252623›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Perceptuo-affective organization of touched materials in younger and older adults.

Knut Drewing

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Knut DrewingHapLab, Institute for Psychology, Justus-Liebig University, Giessen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6161-5912
Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In everyday interaction we touch different materials, which we experience along a limited number of perceptual and emotional dimensions: For instances, a furry surface feels soft and pleasant, whereas sandpaper feels rough and unpleasant. In a previous study, younger adults manually explored a representative set of solid, fluid and granular materials. Their ratings were made along six perceptual dimensions (roughness, fluidity, granularity, deformability, fibrousness, heaviness) and three emotional ones (valence, arousal, dominance). Perceptual and emotional dimensions were systematically correlated. Here, we wondered how this perceptuo-affective organization of touched materials depends on age, given that older adults show decline in haptic abilities, in particular detail perception. 30 younger participants (~22 years, half females) and 15 older participants (~66 years) explored 25 materials using 18 perceptual and 9 emotional adjectives. We extracted 6 perceptual and 2 emotional dimensions. Older and younger adults showed similar dimensions. However, in younger participants roughness and granularity judgments were done separately, while they were collapsed in a single dimension in older people. Further, age groups differed in the perception of roughness, granularity and valence, and older people did not show a positive correlation between valence and granularity as did younger people. As expected, control analyses between young males and females did not reveal similar gender differences. Overall, the results demonstrate that older people organize and experience materials partly differently from younger people, which we lead back to sensory decline. However, other aspects of perceptual organization that also include fine perception are preserved into older age.

Indexed as

TouchTouch PerceptionAgedArousalEmotionsFemaleHumansJudgmentMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID38252623
PMCPMC10802953
OpenAlexW4391097780

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.