Advertisement

SpringerPlus

, 5:1449 | Cite as

Trypophobia is predicted by disgust sensitivity, empathic traits, and visual discomfort

  • Shu Imaizumi
  • Manami Furuno
  • Haruo Hibino
  • Shinichi Koyama
Open Access
Short report
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Behavioural Science

Abstract

Trypophobia refers to disgust for a cluster of objects, and is considered an extension of disgust for dangerous objects. Furthermore, trypophobic images possess certain spatial properties that can induce perceptually unpleasant states (i.e., visual discomfort). We examined whether trypophobia is associated with disgust sensitivity, empathic traits, and visual discomfort. Japanese adults (n = 126) completed four scales: the Trypophobia Questionnaire, which measures trypophobia proneness; the Disgust Scale-Revised, which measures disgust sensitivity; the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, which measures empathic traits; and the Visual Discomfort Scale, which measures proneness to visual discomfort. Trypophobia proneness was found to be predicted by Core disgust sensitivity (i.e., threat of disease), Personal Distress (i.e., the empathic trait of self-oriented emotional distress), and proneness to visual discomfort. We suggest a number of potential factors relating to individual differences in trypophobia and the possible cognitive and perceptual mechanisms underlying trypophobia.

Keywords

Emotion Trypophobia Disgust Empathy Vision Individual differences Questionnaire 

Abbreviations

TQ

Trypophobia Questionnaire

DS-R

Disgust Scale-Revised

IRI

Interpersonal Reactivity Index

VDS

Visual Discomfort Scale

Background

Trypophobia is the disgust response or unpleasant feelings—and often somatic responses (e.g., goosebumps)—induced by observing a cluster of innocuous objects (e.g., lotus seed pods) (Cole and Wilkins 2013). Trypophobia has yet to be listed in official classifications such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association 2013). Notably, the first study on trypophobia (Cole and Wilkins 2013) indicated a variability in individuals’ proneness to it, with 46 of 286 adults reporting aversion or unpleasantness in response to a trypophobic image while the others showed no response. A subsequently developed psychometric scale of trypophobia proneness confirmed these individual differences (Le et al. 2015). However, little is known about the psychological factors underlying trypophobia or its variability; thus, we explored the predictors of trypophobia in an attempt to identify these factors.

From an evolutionary perspective, trypophobia may be an extension of intrinsic disgust for scars, sores, and poisonous animals with spots, which may help in avoiding disease and germs (Cole and Wilkins 2013; Skaggs 2014). Disgust plays an important role in helping us avoid offensive situations (Rozin et al. 2008) and varies substantially among nonclinical individuals (Haidt et al. 1994; Rozin et al. 1999). This individual variability in disgust proneness is termed disgust sensitivity, and can be psychometrically assessed (Haidt et al. 1994; Olatunji et al. 2007b). Disgust sensitivity comprises three domains (Olatunji et al. 2007b): disgust for offensiveness and threat of disease (i.e., Core disgust), for stimuli serving as reminders of humans’ animal origins (i.e., Animal Reminder disgust), and for threat of transmission of contagion (i.e., Contamination disgust). As such trypophobia proneness, if related to avoidance of disease, might also relate to disgust sensitivity, particularly Core disgust.

Given the above cognitive account (Cole and Wilkins 2013; Skaggs 2014), if trypophobia is an extension of disgust for reminder of disease or danger, a disposition to project oneself into potentially threatening and dangerous situations or to perceive such situations and stimuli orienting towards oneself might be associated with trypophobia proneness. Empathic traits, which comprise four factors (Davis 1980, 1983), are the abilities to project oneself into others’ situations (i.e., Perspective Taking), transpose oneself imaginatively into the feelings of fictional characters (i.e., Fantasy), and share others’ emotions, whether other- or self-oriented (i.e., Empathic Concern or Personal Distress, respectively). We propose that trypophobia proneness may relate to empathic traits, especially Perspective Taking, Empathic Concern, and Personal Distress.

A perceptual account for trypophobia has also been proposed. Trypophobic images likely possess enhanced mid-spatial frequency properties (Cole and Wilkins 2013; Le et al. 2015), which can similarly be found in natural or artificial images capable of inducing visual discomfort (Fernandez and Wilkins 2008; O’Hare and Hibbard 2011), such as somatic unpleasantness, eyestrain, and perceptual distortions (Wilkins 1995). Since healthy individuals exhibit individual differences in visual discomfort (Conlon et al. 1999), there might be a linkage between the propensities for visual discomfort and trypophobia.

With the above background, we hypothesized that trypophobia proneness is associated with disgust sensitivity, emotional empathic traits, and visual discomfort.

Methods

Participants

One hundred twenty-six adults whose first language was Japanese (83 males, 43 females, mean age 39.72 years, SD = 9.41) participated in this study on April 2015. Age did not differ between the genders [t(124) = .14, p = .89, d = .03]. Participants were recruited using Yahoo! Crowdsourcing, an online labor market similar to Amazon Mechanical Turk, whose validity and reliability for psychometric studies have been confirmed (Buhrmester et al. 2011; Shapiro et al. 2013).

Measures

The Trypophobia Questionnaire (TQ; Le et al. 2015), Japanese version (Imaizumi et al. 2016) comprises 17 items with a one-factor structure assessing proneness to emotional (e.g., “Feel aversion, disgust or repulsion”) and somatic responses (e.g., “Have goosebumps”) induced by trypophobic stimuli (e.g., lotus seed pods, honeycombs). Participants rated their agreement with each item on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (“not at all”) to 5 (“extremely”). Responses were summed to produce a score of trypophobia proneness.

The Disgust Scale-Revised (DS-R; Haidt et al. 1994; modified by Olatunji et al. 2007b), Japanese version (Iwasa and Tanaka 2013), comprises 25 items measuring disgust sensitivity in three subscales: Core, Animal Reminder, and Contamination disgust. Participants indicated their agreement with 13 statements on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (“strongly disagree”) to 4 (“strongly agree”), and evaluated how disgusting they would find 12 situations, also on a five-point scale (0 = “not at all disgusting” to 4 = “extremely disgusting”). Although the original version adopted two- and three-point scales, five-point scales were used based on advice from the original authors of the English scale. Subscale scores were calculated by summing item scores.

Emotional and cognitive empathic traits were assessed with the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis 1980, 1983), Japanese version (Sakurai 1988), which comprises 28 items in four subscales: Perspective Taking, which assessed cognitive empathic traits; and Fantasy, Empathic Concern, and Personal Distress, which assessed emotional empathic traits. Each item was answered using a five-point scale ranging from 0 (“does not describe me well”) to 4 (“describes me very well”). The empathic traits were defined as the summed item scores of each subscale.

We used the 23-item Visual Discomfort Scale (VDS; Conlon et al. 1999) to assess daily experiences of visual discomfort, including abnormal perception and somatic symptoms. Each item was answered using a four-point scale ranging from 0 (“event never occurs”) to 3 (“almost always”). The sum of item scores indicated proneness to visual discomfort.

Procedure

This survey was administered via the online tool SurveyMonkey (http://www.surveymonkey.com) using participants’ own computers. Initially, potential participants were informed that participation was voluntary and that they could quit any time. Individuals who consented to participate first completed the TQ, then the DS-R, IRI, and VDS in a random order, and reported their gender and age. Finally, participants were thanked and paid 150 Japanese yen (approximately 1.25 US dollars).

Data analysis

We analyzed descriptive statistics and zero-order Pearson correlations for the TQ, DS-R subscales, IRI subscales, and VDS. Next, we checked for gender differences in these scales using two-tailed t tests because females may score higher on disgust sensitivity (Olatunji et al. 2008) and empathic traits (Davis 1980; Mestre et al. 2013) than males. To identify variables predicting trypophobia proneness, we performed stepwise multiple regression analysis with TQ as the dependent variable, and the DS-R subscales, IRI subscales, VDS, and gender as independent variables. All analyses were conducted using SPSS Statistics 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) with the significance level set at p < .05.

Results

Table 1 displays descriptive statistics, correlations, and Cronbach’s alphas of the current sample. TQ positively correlated with Core disgust sensitivity, Personal Distress, and VDS. Besides the within-scale positive correlations for the DS-R and IRI, we found that Core disgust negatively correlated with Perspective Taking and Empathic Concern. Core disgust sensitivity was higher in women [M men = 18.47, SD men = 5.72, M women = 21.44, SD women = 5.44, t(124) = 2.81, p < .01, d = .53]; no other gender differences were found (|t|s ≤ 1.44, ps ≥ .15, ds ≤ .26).
Table 1

Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlations

 

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1. TQ

28.35

11.18

(.92)

        

2. Core

19.48

5.78

.30***

(.83)

       

3. Animal reminder

10.37

2.11

.15

.45***

(.71)

      

4. Contamination

11.15

4.27

.17

.55***

.40***

(.69)

     

5. Perspective taking

22.69

4.22

−.06

−.24**

−.14

−.10

(.79)

    

6. Fantasy

22.37

4.89

.05

−.04

−.03

−.01

.38***

(.77)

   

7. Empathic Concern

22.78

3.11

−.12

−.19*

−.05

−.08

.42***

.40***

(.52)

  

8. Personal distress

20.79

4.73

.29**

.14

−.01

.06

−.15

.06

−.07

(.79)

 

9. VDS

9.31

8.71

.28**

.09

−.14

.07

.02

.17

−.03

.13

(.94)

N = 126. Cronbach’s alphas in parentheses

TQ Trypophobia Questionnaire, VDS Visual Discomfort Scale

p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Table 2 displays the regression results predicting TQ scores. The residuals in the analysis were independent (Durbin-Watson index, 1.98), and the predictors’ variance inflation factors for all steps were <1.42, indicating no issue of multicollinearity. In the final step, Core disgust, Personal Distress, and VDS all positively predicted TQ.
Table 2

Stepwise multiple regression predicting Trypophobia Questionnaire score

Predictors

R 2

Adjusted R 2

ΔR 2

F

B (SE)

β

t

VIF

Step 1

.09

.08

.09

11.83**

    

 Core disgust

    

.57 (.17)

.30

3.44**

1.00

Step 2

.15

.14

.07

11.00***

    

 Core disgust

    

.53 (.16)

.27

3.25**

1.01

 VDS

    

.33 (.11)

.26

3.06**

1.01

Step 3

.20

.18

.05

10.20***

    

 Core disgust

    

.47 (.16)

.24

2.96**

1.03

 VDS

    

.29 (.11)

.23

2.79**

1.02

 Personal distress

    

.53 (.20)

.23

2.73**

1.04

N = 126

VDS Visual Discomfort Scale, SE standard error, VIF variance inflation factor

** p < .01; *** p < .001

Discussion

We explored the predictors of trypophobia proneness, as measured by the TQ (Le et al. 2015), among Japanese adults. The significant predictors included Core disgust sensitivity, Personal Distress, and proneness to visual discomfort. Moreover, we observed no gender differences in trypophobia proneness, consistent with our previous study (Imaizumi et al. 2016); Core disgust, however, was higher among females, which accords with previous studies (Olatunji et al. 2008).

The predictive effect of Core disgust sensitivity is logical, given that it represents proneness to perceiving a threat of disease for stimuli such as waste products and small animals (Olatunji et al. 2007b; Rozin et al. 2008). In other words, it may partially overlap with disgust and discomfort elicited by trypophobic stimuli which displays a clusters of small objects and perhaps an appearance of poisonous animals (Cole and Wilkins 2013). Similarly, trypophobia propensity was also predicted by Personal Distress—namely, the proneness to have self-oriented feelings of anxiety and unease (Davis 1980, 1983) and to desire to reduce one’s own uneasiness and disgust (Batson et al. 1983). If trypophobia is an extension of disgust for dangerous animals and skin lesions (Cole and Wilkins 2013; Skaggs 2014), then trypophobic stimuli, being threats of danger and disease, might serve as self-oriented negative stimuli for individuals with high proneness to trypophobia. Thus, we hypothesize that, ecologically, increased emotional functioning that facilitates avoidant behavior with respect to potential threats (Rozin et al. 2008) results in trypophobia. Given evidence that behaviorally measured disgust sensitivity (e.g., how close participants are willing to approach disgust elicitors; Rozin et al. 1999; Olatunji et al. 2007a) and personal distress (e.g., prosocial behavior and heart rate variation while observing needy others; Eisenberg et al. 1989) may correlate with their questionnaire measures, further research combining behavioral and psychometric measures may further enhance our understanding of the relationships between trypophobia, disgust, and empathy.

We found an association between trypophobia proneness and visual discomfort, both of which are induced by stimuli showing excessive energy at medium spatial frequencies that are unnatural and physiologically stressful for human vision (Fernandez and Wilkins 2008; Cole and Wilkins 2013; Le et al. 2015). A previous event-related potential study suggested that a larger amplitude of early posterior negativity, which reflects differential processing of emotional compared to neutral stimuli (Schupp et al. 2006), was evoked by trypophobic images selectively in the occipital area, implying that trypophobia results from low-level visual properties (Van Strien and Van der Peijl 2015). Thus, trypophobia may be triggered by both the cognitive (i.e., disgust) and physical (i.e., visual discomfort) properties of visual stimuli. Neuropsychological evidence locating disgust in the insula and basal ganglia (Calder et al. 2001; Murphy et al. 2003) and visual discomfort in the early visual cortices (Huang et al. 2003, 2011) can support this notion. However, it remains unclear whether and how disgust and visual discomfort derived from trypophobia interact. As there is evidence that individuals with migraine headaches are prone to visual discomfort (Marcus and Soso 1989) due to their cortical hyperexcitability (Huang et al. 2003), they might be also prone to trypophobia. Comparison of trypophobia proneness between individuals with and without migraine may help clarify the association of the visual discomfort and disgust components of trypophobia.

The determination coefficients in our multiple regression were relatively low, suggesting that other psychological factors may contribute to trypophobia. Neuroticism, one of the components of the Big Five personality traits, has been shown to predict disgust sensitivity, suggesting that disgust-sensitive individuals might be sensitive to general emotional stimuli and psychological distress (Druschel and Sherman 1999). This may be consistent with our results indicating relationships among trypophobia, Core disgust sensitivity, and Personal Distress. Moreover, studies have suggested that proneness to trypophobia weakly correlates with general anxiety (Le et al. 2015) and is predicted by social anxiety (Chaya et al. 2016). Therefore, further exploration of potential psychological and psychiatric factors of trypophobia is needed.

Findings of the current study were obtained from the online labor market in Japan. Replication using traditional paper-and-pencil surveys would strengthen the findings. Moreover, given that the factor structure of disgust sensitivity in a Japanese sample might differ from that in European, American, and Australian samples (Olatunji et al. 2009), investigation of trypophobia in various cultural groups will help to identify its cultural and ecological origins.

Conclusions

We replicated previously found individual differences in trypophobia (Cole and Wilkins 2013; Le et al. 2015), and provided preliminary evidence for the predictors of trypophobia proneness. Future studies might attempt to elucidate the mechanisms underlying trypophobia to aid in developing interventions and to determine whether trypophobia is a full-blown psychiatric condition.

Notes

Authors’ contributions

SI designed the study and performed the survey. SI, MF, and SK analyzed the results. SI, MF, HH, and SK wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments

None.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is included within the article (Additional file 1).

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the local ethical committee of the Graduate School of Engineering, Chiba University (27-04), and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent to participate in this study was obtained from each participant prior to the survey.

Funding

This work was supported by Grant-in-Aids for JSPS Fellows from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science to SI (13J00943 and 16J00411).

Supplementary material

40064_2016_3149_MOESM1_ESM.xls (33 kb)
  Additional file 1. The raw questionnaire data.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. American Psychiatric Publishing, ArlingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batson CD, Oquin K, Fultz J, Vanderplas M, Isen AM (1983) Influence of self-reported distress and empathy on egoistic versus altruistic motivation to help. J Pers Soc Psychol 45:706–718. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.45.3.706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci 6:3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calder AJ, Lawrence AD, Young AW (2001) Neuropsychology of fear and loathing. Nat Rev Neurosci 2:352–363. doi: 10.1038/35072584 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chaya K, Xue Y, Uto Y, Yao Q, Yamada Y (2016) Fear of eyes: triadic relation among social anxiety, trypophobia, and discomfort for eye cluster. PeerJ 4:e1942. doi: 10.7717/peerj.1942 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cole GG, Wilkins AJ (2013) Fear of holes. Psychol Sci 24:1980–1985. doi: 10.1177/0956797613484937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conlon EG, Lovegrove WJ, Chekaluk E, Pattison PE (1999) Measuring visual discomfort. Vis Cogn 6:637–663. doi: 10.1080/135062899394885 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis MH (1980) A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Cat Sel Doc Psychol 10:85Google Scholar
  9. Davis MH (1983) Measuring individual-differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 44:113–126. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.44.1.113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Druschel BA, Sherman MF (1999) Disgust sensitivity as a function of the Big Five and gender. Pers Individ Dif 26:739–748. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00196-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Miller PA, Fultz J, Shell R, Mathy RM, Reno RR (1989) Relation of sympathy and personal distress to prosocial behavior: a multimethod study. J Pers Soc Psychol 57:55–66. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.1.55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fernandez D, Wilkins AJ (2008) Uncomfortable images in art and nature. Perception 37:1098–1113. doi: 10.1068/p5814 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haidt J, McCauley C, Rozin P (1994) Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: a scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Pers Individ Differ 16:701–713. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(94)90212-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang J, Cooper TG, Satana B, Kaufman DI, Cao Y (2003) Visual distortion provoked by a stimulus in migraine associated with hyperneuronal activity. Headache 43:664–671. doi: 10.1046/j.1526-4610.2003.03110.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang J, Zong X, Wilkins A, Jenkins B, Bozoki A, Cao Y (2011) fMRI evidence that precision ophthalmic tints reduce cortical hyperactivation in migraine. Cephalalgia 31:925–936. doi: 10.1177/0333102411409076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Imaizumi S, Furuno M, Hibino H, Koyama S (2016) Development of the Japanese version of Trypophobia Questionnaire. Jpn J Pers 25.Google Scholar
  17. Iwasa K, Tanaka T (2013) Development of the Japanese version of the Disgust Scale-Revised (DS-R). In: The 77th annual convention of the Japanese Psychological Association, Sapporo Convention Center, Sapporo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  18. Le AT, Cole GG, Wilkins AJ (2015) Assessment of trypophobia and an analysis of its visual precipitation. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) 68:2304–2322. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1013970 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marcus DA, Soso MJ (1989) Migraine and stripe-induced visual discomfort. Arch Neurol 46:1129–1132. doi: 10.1001/archneur.1989.00520460125024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mestre MV, Samper P, Frías MD, Tur AM (2013) Are women more empathetic than men? A longitudinal study in adolescence. Span J Psychol 12:76–83. doi: 10.1017/s1138741600001499 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Murphy FC, Nimmo-Smith I, Lawrence AD (2003) Functional neuroanatomy of emotions: a meta-analysis. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 3:207–233. doi: 10.3758/cabn.3.3.207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Hare L, Hibbard PB (2011) Spatial frequency and visual discomfort. Vis Res 51:1767–1777. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olatunji BO, Lohr JM, Sawchuk CN, Tolin DF (2007a) Multimodal assessment of disgust in contamination-related obsessive-compulsive disorder. Behav Res Ther 45:263–276. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2006.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Olatunji BO, Williams NL, Tolin DF, Abramowitz JS, Sawchuk CN, Lohr JM, Elwood LS (2007b) The Disgust Scale: item analysis, factor structure, and suggestions for refinement. Psychol Assess 19:281–297. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.19.3.281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Olatunji BO, Haidt J, Mckay D, David B (2008) Core, animal reminder, and contamination disgust: three kinds of disgust with distinct personality, behavioral, physiological, and clinical correlates. J Res Pers 42:1243–1259. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.03.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Olatunji BO, Moretz MW, Mckay D et al (2009) Confirming the three-factor structure of the Disgust Scale-Revised in eight countries. J Cross Cult Psychol 40:234–255. doi: 10.1177/0022022108328918 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rozin P, Haidt J, McCauley C, Dunlop L, Ashmore M (1999) Individual differences in disgust sensitivity: comparisons and evaluations of paper-and-pencil versus behavioral measures. J Res Pers 33:330–351. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.1999.2251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rozin P, Haidt J, McCauley CR (2008) Disgust. In: Lewis M, Haviland-Jones JM, Barrett LF (eds) Handbook of emotions, 3rd edn. Guilford Press, New York, pp 757–776Google Scholar
  29. Sakurai S (1988) The relationship between empathy and helping behavior in college students. Bull Nara Univ Educ 37:149–154Google Scholar
  30. Schupp HT, Flaisch T, Stockburger J, Junghöfer M (2006) Emotion and attention: event-related brain potential studies. In: Anders S, Ende G, Junghofer M, Kissler J, Wildgruber D (eds) Progress in brain research. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 31–51Google Scholar
  31. Shapiro DN, Chandler J, Mueller PA (2013) Using Mechanical Turk to study clinical populations. Clin Psychol Sci 1:213–220. doi: 10.1177/2167702612469015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Skaggs W (2014) Fear of holes. Scientific American. Mind 25:12. doi: 10.1038/scientificamericanmind0314-12b Google Scholar
  33. Van Strien JW, Van der Peijl MK (2015) Enhanced early posterior negativity in response to trypophobic stimuli. Psychophysiology 52:S90. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12495 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilkins AJ (1995) Visual stress. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Arts and SciencesUniversity of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of EngineeringChiba UniversityChibaJapan
  3. 3.Japan Society for the Promotion of ScienceTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations