Abstract
Previous research has shown that during multisensory perception, vision frequently dominates over the other sensory modalities. However, it is still unclear whether sensory dominance also implies the generation of a greater state of arousal. Here, we assess the psycho-physiological reactions to different materials when presented tactually (Group 1) or visually (Group 2). In Group 1, the participants’ forearm was stroked with different textures (satin, tinfoil, leather, sandpaper and abrasive sponge), by either a male or a female experimenter. The speed of stimulation was set to elicit a vigorous response of C-tactile afferents, involved in the perception of the more pleasant aspects of touch. The participants were asked to rate the pleasantness of the stimulation. In Group 2, the same textures were presented only visually, and the participants were asked to rate the imagined pleasantness of being touched by those stimuli. Skin conductance responses were recorded in both groups. The results revealed that the tactile presentation of the stimuli led to higher skin conductance responses than the visual presentation; this difference was higher for women than for men. Smooth materials were perceived as more pleasant than rough materials, but no differences in terms of skin conductance responses were found among them. Moreover, the textures were rated as less pleasant when presented visually than when presented tactually. These findings are relevant to understand how physiological arousal is modulated by different senses and to elucidate the mechanisms involved in hedonic tactile perception.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ackerley R, Carlsson I, Wester H, Olausson H, Wasling HB (2014a) Touch perceptions across skin sites: differences between sensitivity, direction discrimination and pleasantness. Front Behav Neurosci 8:54
Ackerley R, Saar K, McGlone F, Wasling HB (2014b) Quantifying the sensory and emotional perception of touch: differences between glabrous and hairy skin. Front Behav Neurosci 8:34
Ackerley R, Wasling HB, Liljencrantz J, Olausson H, Johnson RD, Wessberg J (2014c) Human C-tactile afferents are tuned to the temperature of a skin-stroking caress. J Neurosci 34:2879–2883
Balaji MS, Raghavan S, Jha S (2011) Role of tactile and visual inputs in product evaluation: a multisensory perspective. Asia Pac J Market Logist 23:513–530
Benedek M, Kaernbach C (2010) A continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity. J Neurosci Methods 190:80–91
Björnsdotter M, Löken L, Olausson H, Vallbo Å, Wessberg J (2009) Somatotopic organization of gentle touch processing in the posterior insular cortex. J Neurosci 29:9314–9320
Boucsein W (2012) Electrodermal activity. Springer, Berlin
Chatel-Goldman J, Congedo M, Jutten C, Schwartz JL (2014) Touch increases autonomic coupling between romantic partners. Front Behav Neurosci 8:95
Cho Y, Craig JC, Hsiao SS, Bensmaia SJ (2015) Vision is superior to touch in shape perception even with equivalent peripheral input. J Neurophysiol. doi:10.1152/jn.00654.2015
Colavita FB (1974) Human sensory dominance. Percept Psychophys 16:409–412
Colavita FB, Weisberg D (1979) A further investigation of visual dominance. Percept Psychophys 25:345–347
Craig AD (2002) How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nat Rev Neurosci 3:655–666
Craig AD (2009) How do you feel-now? The anterior insula and human awareness. Nat Rev Neurosci 10:59–70
Dunbar RI (2010) The social role of touch in humans and primates: behavioural function and neurobiological mechanisms. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34:260–268
Ekman G, Hosman J, Lindstrom B (1965) Roughness, smoothness, and preference: a study of quantitative relations in individual subjects. J Exp Psychol 70:18–26
Ernst MO, Banks MS (2002) Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415:429–433
Ernst MO, Bülthoff HH (2004) Merging the senses into a robust percept. Trends Cogn Sci 8:162–169
Essick GK, McGlone F, Dancer C, Fabricant D, Ragin Y, Phillips N, Jones T, Guest S (2010) Quantitative assessment of pleasant touch. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34:192–203
Etzi R, Spence C, Gallace A (2014) Textures that we like to touch: an experimental study of aesthetic preferences for tactile stimuli. Conscious Cogn 29:178–188
Feldman R, Weller A, Sirota L, Eidelman AI (2003) Testing a family intervention hypothesis: the contribution of mother-infant skin-to-skin contact (kangaroo care) to family interaction, proximity, and touch. J Fam Psychol 17:94–107
Field T (2001) Touch. MIT Press, Cambridge
Field T (2014) Massage therapy research review. Complement Ther Clin Pract 20:224–229
Gallace A, Spence C (2008) A memory for touch: The cognitive science of tactile memory. In: Chatterjee E (ed) Touch in museums: policy and practice in object handling. Berg, Oxford, pp 163–186
Gallace A, Spence C (2010) The science of interpersonal touch: an overview. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34:246–259
Gallace A, Spence C (2014) In touch with the future: the sense of touch from cognitive neuroscience to virtual reality. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Gazzola V, Spezio ML, Etzel JA, Castelli F, Adolphs R, Keysers C (2012) Primary somatosensory cortex discriminates affective significance in social touch. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:E1657–E1666
Gregory RL (1967) Origin of eyes and brains. Nature 213:369–372
Guest S, Essick G, Dessirier JM, Blot K, Lopetcharat K, McGlone F (2009) Sensory and affective judgments of skin during inter-and intrapersonal touch. Acta Psychol 130:115–126
Guest S, Dessirier JM, Mehrabyan A, McGlone F, Essick G, Gescheider G, Fontana A, Xiong R, Ackerley R, Blot K (2011) The development and validation of sensory and emotional scales of touch perception. Atten Percept Psychophys 73:531–550
Hartcher-O’Brien J, Gallace A, Krings B, Koppen C, Spence C (2008) When vision ‘extinguishes’ touch in neurologically-normal people: extending the Colavita visual dominance effect. Exp Brain Res 186:643–658
Hartcher-O’Brien J, Levitan C, Spence C (2010) Extending visual dominance over touch for input off the body. Brain Res 1362:48–55
Hecht D, Reiner M (2009) Sensory dominance in combinations of audio, visual and haptic stimuli. Exp Brain Res 193:307–314
Hertenstein MJ, Verkamp JM, Kerestes AM, Holmes RM (2006) The communicative functions of touch in humans, nonhuman primates, and rats: a review and synthesis of the empirical research. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 132:5–94
Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessell TM (eds) (2000) Principles of neural science. McGraw-Hill, New York
Kennell J, McGrath S (2005) Starting the process of mother–infant bonding. Acta Paediatr 94:775–777
Koppen C, Spence C (2007) Seeing the light: exploring the Colavita visual dominance effect. Exp Brain Res 180:737–754
Kring AM, Gordon AH (1998) Sex differences in emotion: expression, experience, and physiology. J Pers Soc Psychol 74:686–703
Lenschow C, Brecht M (2015) Barrel cortex membrane potential dynamics in social touch. Neuron 85:718–725
Liu Q, Vrontou S, Rice FL, Zylka MJ, Dong X, Anderson DJ (2007) Molecular genetic visualization of a rare subset of unmyelinated sensory neurons that may detect gentle touch. Nat Neurosci 10:946–948
Löken LS, Wessberg J, McGlone F, Olausson H (2009) Coding of pleasant touch by unmyelinated afferents in humans. Nat Neurosci 12:547–548
Ludden GD, Schifferstein HN, Hekkert P (2009) Visual–tactual incongruities in products as sources of surprise. Empir Stud Arts 27:61–87
MacDowell KA, Mandler G (1989) Constructions of emotion: discrepancy, arousal, and mood. Motiv Emot 13:105–124
McCabe DB, Nowlis SM (2003) The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference. J Consum Psychol 13:431–439
McCabe C, Rolls ET, Bilderbeck A, McGlone F (2008) Cognitive influences on the affective representation of touch and the sight of touch in the human brain. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 3:97–108
McGlone F, Olausson H, Boyle JA, Jones-Gotman M, Dancer C, Guest S, Essick G (2012) Touching and feeling: differences in pleasant touch processing between glabrous and hairy skin in humans. Eur J Neurosci 35:1782–1788
McGlone F, Wessberg J, Olausson H (2014) Discriminative and affective touch: sensing and feeling. Neuron 82:737–755
Morrison I, Björnsdotter M, Olausson H (2011) Vicarious responses to social touch in posterior insular cortex are tuned to pleasant caressing speeds. J Neurosci 31:9554–9562
Olausson H, Lamarre Y, Backlund H, Morin C, Wallin BG, Starck G, Ekholm S, Strigo I, Worsley K, Vallbo Å, Bushnell MC (2002) Unmyelinated tactile afferents signal touch and project to insular cortex. Nat Neurosci 5:900–904
Olausson HW, Cole J, Vallbo Å, McGlone F, Elam M, Krämer HH, Rylander K, Wessberg J, Bushnell MC (2008) Unmyelinated tactile afferents have opposite effects on insular and somatosensory cortical processing. Neurosci Lett 436:128–132
Paulus MP (2007) Neural basis of reward and craving-a homeostatic point of view. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 9:379–387
Perini I, Olausson H, Morrison I (2015) Seeking pleasant touch: neural correlates of behavioral preferences for skin stroking. Front Behav Neurosci 9:8
Posner MI, Nissen MJ, Klein RM (1976) Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychol Rev 83:157–171
Ramachandran VS, Brang D (2008) Tactile-emotion synesthesia. Neurocase 14:390–399
Rock I, Victor J (1964) Vision and touch: an experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science 143:594–596
Rolls ET, O’Doherty J, Kringelbach ML, Francis S, Bowtell R, McGlone F (2003) Representations of pleasant and painful touch in the human orbitofrontal and cingulate cortices. Cereb Cortex 13:308–317
Shapiro KL, Egerman B, Klein RM (1984) Effects of arousal on human visual dominance. Percept Psychophys 35:547–552
Sinnett S, Spence C, Soto-Faraco S (2007) Visual dominance and attention: the Colavita effect revisited. Percept Psychophys 69:673–686
Spence C (2009) Explaining the Colavita visual dominance effect. Prog Brain Res 176:245–258
Spence C, Gallace A (2008) Making sense of touch. In: Chatterjee E (ed) Touch in museums: policy and practice in object handling. Berg, Oxford, pp 21–40
Spence C, Gallace A (2011) Multisensory design: reaching out to touch the consumer. Psychol Market 28:267–308
Tousignant-Laflamme Y, Marchand S (2006) Sex differences in cardiac and autonomic response to clinical and experimental pain in LBP patients. Eur J Pain 10:603–614
Triscoli C, Olausson H, Sailer U, Ignell H, Croy I (2013) CT-optimized skin stroking delivered by hand or robot is comparable. Front Behav Neurosci 7:208
Triscoli C, Ackerley R, Sailer U (2014) Touch satiety: differential effects of stroking velocity on liking and wanting touch over repetitions. Plos One 9:e113425
Tröndle M, Greenwood S, Kirchberg V, Tschacher W (2012) An integrative and comprehensive methodology for studying aesthetic experience in the field: merging movement tracking, physiology, and psychological data. Environ Behav 46:102–135
Tschacher W, Greenwood S, Kirchberg V, Wintzerith S, van den Berg K, Tröndle M (2012) Physiological correlates of aesthetic perception of artworks in a museum. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts 6:96–103
Vallbo ÅB, Olausson H, Wessberg J (1999) Unmyelinated afferents constitute a second system coding tactile stimuli of the human hairy skin. J Neurophysiol 81:2753–2763
Van Damme S, Crombez G, Spence C (2009) Is visual dominance modulated by the threat value of visual and auditory stimuli? Exp Brain Res 193:197–204
Venables PH, Christie MJ (1980) Electrodermal activity. Tech Psychophysiol 74:3–67
Verrillo T, Bolanowski SJ, McGlone FP (1999) Subjective magnitude of tactile roughness. Somatosens Mot Res 16:352–360
Walker SC, McGlone FP (2013) The social brain: neurobiological basis of affiliative behaviours and psychological well-being. Neuropeptides 47:379–393
Welch RB, Warren DH (1980) Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychol Bull 88:638–667
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Etzi, R., Gallace, A. The arousing power of everyday materials: an analysis of the physiological and behavioral responses to visually and tactually presented textures. Exp Brain Res 234, 1659–1666 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4574-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4574-z