ArticleIEEE transactions on haptics
Evaluating the Physics and Repeatability of Human Brushers in Delivering Affective Touch.
Article in IEEE transactions on haptics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Technologies to investigate the mechanisms of force-based manipulations: a narrative methods review.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
Research in affective touch often utilizes a pleasant stroking paradigm, with touch typically delivered at velocities between 0.3-30 cm/s and forces about 0.4 N. These values are derived from perceptual and physiological responses of touch receivers rather than natural behaviors of touchers. Herein, we observe untrained touchers in delivering pleasant touch as gentle strokes to a receiver's forearm through high-resolution force and position measurement using an instrumented brush. Twenty participants delivered about eleven strokes in each of five trials, yielding data on stroke velocity, force, duration, and length. The cohort deployed forces (0.37 N ± 0.24, 2 SD) near 0.4 N, but stroking velocities (13.7 cm/s ± 8.8, 2 SD) slightly higher than typically considered "optimal" (1-10 cm/s). We observed no correlation between stroke force and velocity, which led us to consider these factors jointly in characterizing an individual's brushing strategy. Moreover, while the cohort of participants exhibited a compact range of forces and velocities, individuals tended to occupy only subsets of this range with high repeatability across trials. Altogether, the findings suggest a need to further evaluate the velocity range between 10-30 cm/s and to jointly consider force, velocity, and consistency in characterizing an individual's brushing strategy.
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.