Stroking and tapping the skin: behavioral and electrodermal effects
- 232 Downloads
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.
KeywordsAffective touch CT afferents Arousal Stroking Tapping Skin conductance
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.
- Craig AD (2008) Interoception and emotion: a neuroanatomical perspective. Handb Emot 3:272–288Google Scholar
- Damasio AR (1994) Descartes’ error: emotion, rationality and the human brain. Crosset/Putnam, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Field TM (2014) Touch in early development. Psychology Press, HoveGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Venables PH, Christie MJ (1980). Electrodermal activity. Tech Psychophysiol 74:3–67Google Scholar
- 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