Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Feb 11:8:34.
doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00034. eCollection 2014.

Quantifying the sensory and emotional perception of touch: differences between glabrous and hairy skin

Affiliations

Quantifying the sensory and emotional perception of touch: differences between glabrous and hairy skin

Rochelle Ackerley et al. Front Behav Neurosci. .

Abstract

The perception of touch is complex and there has been a lack of ways to describe the full tactile experience quantitatively. Guest et al. (2011) developed a Touch Perception Task (TPT) in order to capture such experiences, and here we used the TPT to examine differences in sensory and emotional aspects of touch at different skin sites. We compared touch on three skin sites: the hairy arm and cheek, and the glabrous palm. The hairy skin contains C-tactile (CT) afferents, which play a role in affective touch, whereas glabrous skin does not contain CT afferents and is involved in more discriminative touch. In healthy volunteers, three different materials (soft brush, sandpaper, fur) were stroked across these skin sites during self-touch or experimenter-applied touch. After each stimulus, participants rated the tactile experience using descriptors in the TPT. Sensory and emotional descriptors were analyzed using factor analyses. Five sensory factors were found: Texture, Pile, Moisture, Heat/Sharp and Cold/Slip, and three emotional factors: Positive Affect, Arousal, and Negative Affect. Significant differences were found in the use of descriptors in touch to hairy vs. glabrous skin: this was most evident in touch on forearm skin, which produced higher emotional content. The touch from another was also judged as more emotionally positive then self-touch, and participants readily discriminated between the materials on all factors. The TPT successfully probed sensory and emotional percepts of the touch experience, which aided in identifying skin where emotional touch was more pertinent. It also highlights the potentially important role for CTs in the affective processing of inter-personal touch, in combination with higher-order influences, such as through cultural belonging and previous experiences.

Keywords: affective touch; c-tactile; discriminative touch; pleasant; psychophysics; somatosensory.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The average scores for the sensory factors. Each factor (Texture, Pile, Moisture, Heat/Sharp, and Cold/Slip) is displayed with the average scores for the levels of each condition (left graphs) and the average for the Material and Site conditions on the right side. Significant differences between the levels of conditions showing significant main effects are marked with asterisks and show *p < 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01 or ***p ≤ 0.001. For more detail on the significant differences, see Table 3. The materials are shown in blue: brush, red: sandpaper, and purple: fur. Sandpaper is abbreviated to S-paper. Error bars ±1 s.e.m.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The average scores for the emotional factors. Each factor (Positive Affect, Arousal, and Negative Affect) is displayed with the average scores for the levels of each condition (far left graphs), then the average for the Material, Site and Mode conditions. Significant differences between the levels of conditions showing significant main effects are marked with asterisks and show *p < 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01 or ***p ≤ 0.001. For more detail on the significant differences, see Table 5. The materials are shown in blue: brush, red: sandpaper, and purple: fur. Sandpaper is abbreviated to S-paper. Error bars ±1 s.e.m.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ackerley R., Hassan E., Curran A., Wessberg J., Olausson H., McGlone F. (2012). An fMRI study on cortical responses during active self-touch and passive touch from others. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 6:51 10.3389/fnbeh.2012.00051 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ackerley R., Carlsson I., Wester H., Olausson H., Backlund Wasling H. (2014). Touch perceptions across skin sites: differences between sensitivity, direction discrimination and pleasantness. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 8:54 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00054 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Blakemore S. J., Wolpert D., Frith C. (2000). Why can't you tickle yourself? Neuroreport 11, R11–R16 10.1097/00001756-200008030-00002 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Blakemore S. J., Wolpert D. M., Frith C. D. (1998). Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation. Nat. Neurosci. 1, 635–640 10.1038/2870 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Craig A. D. (2011). Significance of the insula for the evolution of human awareness of feelings from the body. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1225, 72–82 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.05990.x - DOI - PubMed