ArticlePloS one2025
The balance stabilising benefit of social touch: Influence of an individual's age and the partner's relative body characteristics.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interpersonal touch (IPT) is a successful strategy to support balance during a wide range of activities in daily life, including physical education and therapy. Despite common practice, however, the influence of individual characteristics - such as age, balancing skills, motor experience, sex and anthropometry - and differences between interaction partners on the balance stabilising benefit of social touch is unknown. In an opportunity sample of 72 pairs (age range 4-63 years), we assessed an individual's postural sway and change due to IPT during single-legged stance under four sensory conditions: with or without vision in combination with IPT or without. Following hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward's method) based on individual relative responses to IPT, individual and relative partner's characteristics two participant subgroups were identified: one of less stable, more vulnerable individuals, and another of more stable, mature participants. We developed multiple linear regression models, including moderating variables, to identify predictors of IPT benefit under each condition. Without visual input, an individual's benefit of IPT was determined by their balancing skill and the partner-related difference in balancing skill but not by any other factor or partner-related difference. Especially vulnerable individuals improved considerably with IPT when visual feedback was unavailable. When vision accompanied IPT, an individual's age-related motor developmental potential also played a significant moderating role. These findings indicate that the extent to which IPT is benefitting mutual balance stabilisation does not depend on biomechanical factors. Instead, the IPT benefit emerges as a product of both partners' sensorimotor capabilities and when visual feedback is available is also moderated by a person's motor developmental potential. We discuss a theoretical framework that accounts for the observed dependencies of the effect of haptic social support on balance control.
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.