Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 236, Issue 2, pp 453–461 | Cite as

Stroking and tapping the skin: behavioral and electrodermal effects

  • Roberta Etzi
  • Carlotta Carta
  • Alberto Gallace
Research Article
  • 232 Downloads

Abstract

Being caressed represents one of the most typical expressions of affection conveyed by touch. Converging evidence suggests that the pleasant perception of gentle and slow stroking delivered to the hairy skin is mediated by C-Tactile afferents (CTs). While behavioral and neural responses to CT-optimal touch have been moderately explored so far, less is known about the autonomic reaction to different kinds of touch (both CT-optimal and not). Here, we investigated whether physiological arousal varies as a function of the specific tactile stimulation provided. Stroking (slow: 3 cm/s ‘CT-optimal’; or fast: 30 cm/s) and tapping (random or fixed spatial order) stimulations were delivered to the participants’ forearm with a brush, for durations of 9 or 60 s. Participants’ skin conductance response (SCR) and level (SCL), as well as subjective evaluations, were recorded. The results revealed that being stroked (at both the velocities) induced higher SCR and SCL than being tapped. Moreover, while higher SCR was elicited by CT-suboptimal stroking compared to CT-optimal stroking, SCL was not affected differently by CT-optimal touch. No differences were found between the effects of 9 and 60 s stimulations. Slow stroking was evaluated as the most pleasant, relaxing and ‘social’ type of touch compared to the other tactile stimulations. Taken together, these findings shed light on the psychophysiological responses to stroking (including CT-optimal touch) and tapping, and contribute to elucidate the mechanisms underlying hedonic tactile perception.

Keywords

Affective touch CT afferents Arousal Stroking Tapping Skin conductance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Mirko Di Biase for the help that he provided in the data collection process.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. Ackerley R, Wasling HB, Liljencrantz J, Olausson H, Johnson RD, Wessberg J (2014). Human C—tactile afferents are tuned to the temperature of a skin—stroking caress. J Neurosci 34:2879–2883CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Benedek M, Kaernbach C (2010) A continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity. J Neurosci Methods 190:80–91CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett RH, Bolling DZ, Anderson LC, Pelphrey KA, Kaiser MD (2014) fNIRS detects temporal lobe response to affective touch. Soc Cognit Affect Neurosci 9:470–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bessou P, Burgess PR, Perl ER, Taylor CB (1971) Dynamic properties of mechanoreceptors with unmyelinated (C) fibers. J Neurophysiol 34:116–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Billhult A, Määttä S (2009) Light pressure massage for patients with severe anxiety. Complement Ther Clin Pract 15:96–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Björnsdotter M, Löken L, Olausson H, Vallbo Å, Wessberg J (2009) Somatotopic organization of gentle touch processing in the posterior insular cortex. J Neurosci 29:9314–9320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Björnsdotter M, Morrison I, Olausson H (2010) Feeling good: on the role of C fiber mediated touch in interoception. Exp Brain Res 207:149–155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Boucsein W (2012) Electrodermal activity. Springer, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradley MM (2009) Natural selective attention: orienting and emotion. Psychophysiology 46:1–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cascio CJ, Moana-Filho EJ, Guest S, Nebel MB, Weisner J, Baranek GT, Essick GK (2012) Perceptual and neural response to affective tactile texture stimulation in adults with autism spectrum disorders. Autism Res 5:231–244CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Chatel-Goldman J, Congedo M, Jutten C, Schwartz JL (2014) Touch increases autonomic coupling between romantic partners. Front Behav Neurosci 8:95CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Craig AD (2002) Opinion: how do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nat Rev Neurosci 3:655–666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Craig AD (2008) Interoception and emotion: a neuroanatomical perspective. Handb Emot 3:272–288Google Scholar
  14. Croy I, Geide H, Paulus M, Weidner K, Olausson H (2016) Affective touch awareness in mental health and disease relates to autistic traits: an explorative neurophysiological investigation. Psychiatry Res 245:491–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Crucianelli L, Cardi V, Treasure J, Jenkinson PM, Fotopoulou A (2016) The perception of affective touch in anorexia nervosa. Psychiatry Res 239:72–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Damasio AR (1994) Descartes’ error: emotion, rationality and the human brain. Crosset/Putnam, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Davidovic M, Jönsson EH, Olausson H, Björnsdotter M (2016) Posterior superior temporal sulcus responses predict perceived pleasantness of skin stroking. Front Hum Neurosci 10:432CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Dawson ME, Schell AM, Filion DL (1990) The electrodermal system. In: Cacioppo JT, Tassinary LG (eds) Principles of psychophysiology: physical, social, and inferential elements. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 295–324Google Scholar
  19. Ditzen B, Neumann ID, Bodenmann G, von Dawans B, Turner RA, Ehlert U, Heinrichs M (2007) Effects of different kinds of couple interaction on cortisol and heart rate responses to stress in women. Psychoneuroendocrinology 32:565–574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ditzen B, Hoppmann C, Klumb P (2008) Positive couple interactions and daily cortisol: on the stress—protecting role of intimacy. Psychosom Med 70:883–889CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Etkin A, Egner T, Kalisch R (2011) Emotional processing in anterior cingulate and medial prefrontal cortex. Trends Cognit Sci 15:85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Etzi R, Gallace A (2016) The arousing power of everyday materials: an analysis of the physiological and behavioral responses to visually and tactually presented textures. Exp Brain Res 234:1659–1666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Fairhurst MT, Löken L, Grossmann T (2014) Physiological and behavioral responses reveal 9-month-old infants’ sensitivity to pleasant touch. Psychol Sci 25:1124–1131CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Field TM (2010) Touch for socioemotional and physical well-being: a review. Dev Rev 30:367–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Field TM (2014) Touch in early development. Psychology Press, HoveGoogle Scholar
  26. Field T, Diego MA, Hernandez-Reif M, Schanberg S, Kuhn C (2004). Massage therapy effects on depressed pregnant women. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol 25:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gallace A, Spence C (2010). The science of interpersonal touch: an overview. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34:246–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Gallace A, Spence C (2014) In touch with the future: the sense of touch from cognitive neuroscience to virtual reality. University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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–E1666CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Geldard FA, Sherrick CE (1972) The cutaneous” rabbit”: a perceptual illusion. Science 178:178–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Gordon I, Voos AC, Bennett RH, Bolling DZ, Pelphrey KA, Kaiser MD (2013) Brain mechanisms for processing affective touch. Hum Brain Mapp 34:914–922CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Greco A, Valenza G, Nardelli M, Bianchi M, Lanata A, Scilingo EP (2015) Electrodermal activity analysis during affective haptic elicitation. In: 37th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC), pp 5777–5780Google Scholar
  33. Grewen KM, Anderson BJ, Girdler SS, Light KC (2003) Warm partner contact is related to lower cardiovascular reactivity. Behav Med 29:123–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hertenstein MJ, Keltner D, App B, Bulleit BA, Jaskolka AR (2006) Touch communicates distinct emotions. Emotion 6:528–533CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Hertenstein MJ, Holmes R, McCullough M, Keltner D (2009) The communication of emotion via touch. Emotion 9:566–573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Holt-Lunstad J, Birmingham WA, Light KC (2008) Influence of a “warm touch” support enhancement intervention among married couples on ambulatory blood pressure, oxytocin, alpha amylase, and cortisol. Psychosom Med 70:976–985CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Johansson RS, Vallbo ÅB (1979) Tactile sensibility in the human hand: relative and absolute densities of four types of mechanoreceptive units in glabrous skin. J Physiol 286:283–300CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaiser MD, Yang DYJ, Voos AC, Bennett RH, Gordon I, Pretzsch C et al (2016) Brain mechanisms for processing affective (and nonaffective) touch are atypical in autism. Cereb Cortex 26:2705–2714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Kirsch LP, Krahé C, Blom N, Crucianelli L, Moro V, Jenkinson PM, Fotopoulou A (2017) Reading the mind in the touch: neurophysiological specificity in the communication of emotions by touch. Neuropsychologia.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.05.024 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Kringelbach ML (2005) The human orbitofrontal cortex: linking reward to hedonic experience. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:691–702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Kutner JS, Smith MC, Corbin L, Hemphill L, Benton K, Mellis BK et al (2008) Massage therapy vs. simple touch to improve pain and mood in patients with advanced cancer: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 149:369–379CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Light KC, Grewen KM, Amico JA (2005) More frequent partner hugs and higher oxytocin levels are linked to lower blood pressure and heart rate in premenopausal women. Biol Psychol 69:5–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Lindgren L, Rundgren S, Winsö O, Lehtipalo S, Wiklund U, Karlsson M et al (2010) Physiological responses to touch massage in healthy volunteers. Auton Neurosci 158:105–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Lindgren L, Westling G, Brulin C, Lehtipalo S, Andersson M, Nyberg L (2012) Pleasant human touch is represented in pregenual anterior cingulate cortex. Neuroimage 59:3427–3432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Lindgren L, Jacobsson M, Lämås K (2014) Touch massage, a rewarding experience. J Holist Nurs 32:261–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Löken LS, Wessberg J, McGlone F, Olausson H (2009) Coding of pleasant touch by unmyelinated afferents in humans. Nat Neurosci 12:547–548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Mancini F, Nash T, Iannetti GD, Haggard P (2014) Pain relief by touch: a quantitative approach. Pain 155:635–642CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Mancini F, Beaumont AL, Hu L, Haggard P, Iannetti GDD (2015) Touch inhibits subcortical and cortical nociceptive responses. Pain 156:1936–1944CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 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 Cognit Affect Neurosci 3:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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 35:1782–1788CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. McGlone F, Wessberg J, Olausson H (2014) Discriminative and affective touch: sensing and feeling. Neuron 82:737–755CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Miyazaki M, Hirashima M, Nozaki D (2010) The “cutaneous rabbit” hopping out of the body. J Neurosci 30:1856–1860CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Morhenn V, Beavin LE, Zak PJ (2012) Massage increases oxytocin and reduces adrenocorticotropin hormone in humans. Altern Ther Health Med 18:11–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Morrison I (2016) ALE meta-analysis reveals dissociable networks for affective and discriminative aspects of touch. Hum Brain Mapp 37:1308–1320CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Morrison I, Löken LS, Olausson H (2010) The skin as a social organ. Exp Brain Res 204:305–314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Olausson H, Lamarre Y, Backlund H, Morin C, Wallin BG, Starck G et al (2002) Unmyelinated tactile afferents signal touch and project to insular cortex. Nat Neurosci 5:900–904CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Olausson H, Cole J, Vallbo Å, McGlone F, Elam M, Krämer HH et al (2008a) Unmyelinated tactile afferents have opposite effects on insular and somatosensory cortical processing. Neurosci Lett 436:128–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Olausson H, Cole J, Rylander K, McGlone F, Lamarre Y, Wallin BG et al (2008b) Functional role of unmyelinated tactile afferents in human hairy skin: sympathetic response and perceptual localization. Exp Brain Res 184:135–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Olausson H, Wessberg J, Morrison I, McGlone F (2016) Affective touch and the neurophysiology of ct afferents. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pawling R, Cannon PR, McGlone FP, Walker SC, Shirinyan D, Lieberman M (2017a). C-tactile afferent stimulating touch carries a positive affective value. Plos One 12:e0173457CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Pawling R, Trotter PD, McGlone FP, Walker SC (2017b) A positive touch: c-tactile afferent targeted skin stimulation carries an appetitive motivational value. Biol Psychol 129:186–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Perini I, Olausson H, Morrison I (2015) Seeking pleasant touch: neural correlates of behavioral preferences for skin stroking. Front Behav Neurosci 9:8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Sailer U, Triscoli C, Häggblad G, Hamilton P, Olausson H, Croy I (2016) Temporal dynamics of brain activation during 40 min of pleasant touch. NeuroImage 139:360–367CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Sefidgar YS, MacLean KE, Yohanan S, Van der Loos HM, Croft EA, Garland EJ (2016) Design and evaluation of a touch—centered calming interaction with a social robot. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 7:108–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sliz D, Smith A, Wiebking C, Northoff G, Hayley S (2012) Neural correlates of a single–session massage treatment. Brain Imaging Behav 6:77–87CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Soden K, Vincent K, Craske S, Lucas C, Ashley S (2004). A randomized controlled trial of aromatherapy massage in a hospice setting. Palliat Med 18:87–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 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 7:208CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Triscoli C, Ackerley R, Sailer U (2014) Touch satiety: differential effects of stroking velocity on liking and wanting touch over repetitions. PLoS One 9:e113425CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Triscoli C, Croy I, Olausson H, Sailer U (2017a) Touch between romantic partners: being stroked is more pleasant than stroking and decelerates heart rate. Physiol Behav 177:169–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Triscoli C, Croy I, Steudte-Schmiedgen S, Olausson H, Sailer U (2017b) Heart rate variability is enhanced by long-lasting pleasant touch at CT-optimized velocity. Biol Psychol 128:71–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Vallbo ÅB, Olausson H, Wessberg J (1999) Unmyelinated afferents constitute a second system coding tactile stimuli of the human hairy skin. J Neurophysiol 81:2753–2763CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Venables PH, Christie MJ (1980). Electrodermal activity. Tech Psychophysiol 74:3–67Google Scholar
  73. Voos AC, Pelphrey KA, Kaiser MD (2012). Autistic traits are associated with diminished neural response to affective touch. Soc Cognit Affect Neurosci 8:378–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yohanan S, MacLean KE (2008) The haptic creature project: social human–robot interaction through affective touch. In: Proceedings of the AISB 2008 symposium on the reign of catz and dogs: the second AISB symposium on the role of virtual creatures in a computerised society, vol 1, pp 7–11Google Scholar
  75. Yohanan S, MacLean KE (2012) The role of affective touch in human–robot interaction: human intent and expectations in touching the haptic creature. Int J Social Robot 4:163–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology and NeuroMi, Milan Center for NeuroscienceUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations