ArticlePloS one2025
Can impersonal touch replace interpersonal touch? An investigation using the rubber hand illusion.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our socio-emotional development and well-being critically depends on interpersonal tactile interactions, which are sensed by the skin through C-tactile (CT) afferents that respond to gentle, slow touch at typical skin temperatures. In the present study, we investigated whether impersonal touch would be able to provide similar pleasantness compared to interpersonal touch within a body-ownership illusion paradigm. To provide impersonal touch at similar parameters, we used a thermal probe kept at [Formula: see text]C (typical skin-to-skin temperature) compared to a flat hand as interpersonal touch. Both forms of touch were performed at CT-compatible speeds of 3cm/s by a male trained experimenter within a classic rubber hand illusion (RHI) paradigm in two counter-balanced within-participant conditions. A sample of N=45 healthy participants was tested and pleasantness ratings, touch deprivation, and the Need-For-Touch-Scale (NFT) were gathered. Overall, the illusion was similar in both touch conditions and, importantly, we found no statistically significant difference in pleasantness between interpersonal and impersonal touch. Interestingly, neither NFT scores, nor touch deprivation measures correlated with individual differences in the RHI and affective ratings. Our results suggest that impersonal touch with CT-optimal components provide a pleasantness and subjective illusion experience compared to interpersonal touch under the RHI paradigm.
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.