Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The arousing power of everyday materials: an analysis of the physiological and behavioral responses to visually and tactually presented textures

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

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

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benedek M, Kaernbach C (2010) A continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity. J Neurosci Methods 190:80–91

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boucsein W (2012) Electrodermal activity. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chatel-Goldman J, Congedo M, Jutten C, Schwartz JL (2014) Touch increases autonomic coupling between romantic partners. Front Behav Neurosci 8:95

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Colavita FB (1974) Human sensory dominance. Percept Psychophys 16:409–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colavita FB, Weisberg D (1979) A further investigation of visual dominance. Percept Psychophys 25:345–347

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Craig AD (2002) How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nat Rev Neurosci 3:655–666

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Craig AD (2009) How do you feel-now? The anterior insula and human awareness. Nat Rev Neurosci 10:59–70

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar RI (2010) The social role of touch in humans and primates: behavioural function and neurobiological mechanisms. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34:260–268

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst MO, Banks MS (2002) Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415:429–433

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst MO, Bülthoff HH (2004) Merging the senses into a robust percept. Trends Cogn Sci 8:162–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Field T (2001) Touch. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Field T (2014) Massage therapy research review. Complement Ther Clin Pract 20:224–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallace A, Spence C (2010) The science of interpersonal touch: an overview. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34:246–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gallace A, Spence C (2014) In touch with the future: the sense of touch from cognitive neuroscience to virtual reality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory RL (1967) Origin of eyes and brains. Nature 213:369–372

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hartcher-O’Brien J, Levitan C, Spence C (2010) Extending visual dominance over touch for input off the body. Brain Res 1362:48–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hecht D, Reiner M (2009) Sensory dominance in combinations of audio, visual and haptic stimuli. Exp Brain Res 193:307–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessell TM (eds) (2000) Principles of neural science. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennell J, McGrath S (2005) Starting the process of mother–infant bonding. Acta Paediatr 94:775–777

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koppen C, Spence C (2007) Seeing the light: exploring the Colavita visual dominance effect. Exp Brain Res 180:737–754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kring AM, Gordon AH (1998) Sex differences in emotion: expression, experience, and physiology. J Pers Soc Psychol 74:686–703

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lenschow C, Brecht M (2015) Barrel cortex membrane potential dynamics in social touch. Neuron 85:718–725

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Löken LS, Wessberg J, McGlone F, Olausson H (2009) Coding of pleasant touch by unmyelinated afferents in humans. Nat Neurosci 12:547–548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ludden GD, Schifferstein HN, Hekkert P (2009) Visual–tactual incongruities in products as sources of surprise. Empir Stud Arts 27:61–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDowell KA, Mandler G (1989) Constructions of emotion: discrepancy, arousal, and mood. Motiv Emot 13:105–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe DB, Nowlis SM (2003) The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference. J Consum Psychol 13:431–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McGlone F, Wessberg J, Olausson H (2014) Discriminative and affective touch: sensing and feeling. Neuron 82:737–755

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus MP (2007) Neural basis of reward and craving-a homeostatic point of view. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 9:379–387

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Perini I, Olausson H, Morrison I (2015) Seeking pleasant touch: neural correlates of behavioral preferences for skin stroking. Front Behav Neurosci 9:8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Posner MI, Nissen MJ, Klein RM (1976) Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychol Rev 83:157–171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ramachandran VS, Brang D (2008) Tactile-emotion synesthesia. Neurocase 14:390–399

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rock I, Victor J (1964) Vision and touch: an experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science 143:594–596

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro KL, Egerman B, Klein RM (1984) Effects of arousal on human visual dominance. Percept Psychophys 35:547–552

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sinnett S, Spence C, Soto-Faraco S (2007) Visual dominance and attention: the Colavita effect revisited. Percept Psychophys 69:673–686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spence C (2009) Explaining the Colavita visual dominance effect. Prog Brain Res 176:245–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence C, Gallace A (2011) Multisensory design: reaching out to touch the consumer. Psychol Market 28:267–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Venables PH, Christie MJ (1980) Electrodermal activity. Tech Psychophysiol 74:3–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Verrillo T, Bolanowski SJ, McGlone FP (1999) Subjective magnitude of tactile roughness. Somatosens Mot Res 16:352–360

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walker SC, McGlone FP (2013) The social brain: neurobiological basis of affiliative behaviours and psychological well-being. Neuropeptides 47:379–393

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welch RB, Warren DH (1980) Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychol Bull 88:638–667

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Milan-Bicocca, P.zza dell’Ateneo Nuovo, 1, 20126, Milan, Italy

    Roberta Etzi & Alberto Gallace

  2. Milan Neuroscience Center (NeuroMi), Milan, Italy

    Roberta Etzi & Alberto Gallace

Authors
  1. Roberta Etzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alberto Gallace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberta Etzi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4574-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation