Affective Touch is encoded by pupil dilation as a comprehensive social phenomenon

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4696797/v1

Download PDF

Article

Affective Touch is encoded by pupil dilation as a comprehensive social phenomenon

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4696797/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Affective Touch is characterized by both emotional and arousing dimensions that rely on specific features of a gentle human caress. In this study, we investigated whether and how both the nature of the touching effector (Human hand vs. Artificial hand) and touch type (Dynamic vs. Static) influenced the participants’ pupil dilation and their subjective experience during tactile stimulation.

We observed that when participants received a dynamic touch, their pupil dilation increased more when the touch was promoted by a human compared to an artificial hand. This discrimination was not present for static touch. Also, dynamic touch promoted by a human hand invoked a supralinear enhancement of pupil dilation indicating that the combination of these two features induced a stronger autonomic activation than the summed effects of each separately. Moreover, this specific type of touch was perceived as the most pleasant compared to all other tactile stimulations. Overall, our results suggest that pupil dilation could map the pleasant experience of human-to-human tactile interactions, supporting the notion that the autonomic nervous system encodes the emotional and hedonic aspects associated with Affective Touch as a complex and holistic social experience, rather than solely responding to its low-level sensory properties.

Pupil dilation

Affective touch

Stroke velocity

Human hand

Artificial hand

Skin-to-skin touch

Social interaction is a fundamental aspect of human life, and interpersonal touch plays a crucial role in shaping relationships and encouraging social connections ¹. Notably, social touch refers to the physical contact or tactile exchanges occurring between individuals during social engagements. It serves as a means of conveying greetings, affection, support, and comfort across diverse social scenarios ². A specific kind of social touch is Affective Touch, characterized by a gentle and enjoyable tactile stimulation capable of triggering profound emotional reactions and positive emotional states ^3,4. This form of touch can foster sentiments of care, intimacy, closeness, and trust among individuals ^5–7.

Recent studies have shed light on the distinctive attributes of Affective Touch, suggesting the existence of dedicated neural pathways and supporting its sui generis nature ^8–10. A specialized somatosensory system, referred to as the CT-afferent system, stands out as it is selectively activated by soft and gentle strokes. Specifically, CT-fibers are sensitive to slow-moving caresses (1–10 cm/s) and exhibit heightened activation in response to touch stimuli with a temperature that closely aligns to human skin (i.e., 32°C) ^11,12. These two key characteristics lend support to the notion that CT-fibers could distinguish Affective Touch from other kinds of touch exchange. Also, gentle stimulation of CT-innervated skin triggers the activation of the posterior insula ¹³, coupling it with both somatosensory and reward processing regions ¹⁴. The posterior insula plays a pivotal role in autonomic regulation and interoception by integrating sensory, affective, and rewarding aspects of tactile stimulation ⁴. Its direct connection with CT-fibers stimulation ¹⁵ further suggests how CT-targeted touch might trigger psychophysiological responses characterizing Affective Touch as a fundamental mechanism for emotion regulation and social-affective processing ¹⁶, even though recent advances suggest the possible involvement of Aβ mechanoreceptors contributing to the affective aspects of touch as well ¹⁷.

The complex interplay between Affective Touch, emotions, and the autonomic nervous system has been extensively investigated through psychophysiological responses. Notably, Affective Touch has been shown to induce transient increases in skin conductance ¹⁰: a response that can be influenced by salient contextual factors both in the person receiving the touch ^18,19 and in the person promoting it ²⁰. However, in line with the notion that Affective Touch can serve as a potential buffer against stressful situations ^3,21,22 it has also been linked to reductions in blood pressure ^23,24, stress hormone levels ^25,26 and heart rate ^27,28 along with an increase in heart rate variability ²⁸. Although skin conductance and heart rate have been extensively explored as markers of physiological modulation induced by Affective Touch, pupil dilation, a well-established indicator of physiological activation, remains relatively unexplored in this context ²⁹. Emotional stimuli indeed trigger the release of norepinephrine, a neurotransmitter involved in the regulation of pupil dilation ³⁰, and heightened pupil responses have been previously noted for both positive and negative arousing stimuli in both visual ^31–33 and auditory ^34,35 domains. Thus, understanding the relationship between Affective Touch and pupil dilation will provide important insights into the physiological responses evoked by this kind of tactile stimulation.

Earlier research has indicated that pupil dilation is influenced by the speed of touch rather than its pleasantness ³⁶, concluding that pupil responses primarily encode the sensory characteristics of tactile stimulation and do not distinctly respond to the emotional aspects of touch. However, the majority of the studies investigating Affective Touch employed brushes or mechanical tools to deliver tactile stimuli ^27,28,36,37. This might have restricted the possibility of targeting the hedonic effects associated with an actual human touch. Interestingly, Ellingsen and colleagues (2014)³⁸ have reported that pupil dilates more in response to human touch compared to artificial touch, particularly when Affective Touch is accompanied by the presentation of images displaying a positive facial expression. This observation implies that pupil response can discern between distinct types of tactile interactions and potentially even capture the emotional experience accompanying touch. Thus, a touch promoted by a human hand, as opposed to artificial means, appears to be a pivotal factor in evoking distinct pupillary responses that are aligned with the emotional aspect of touch.

Although previous studies have made strides in understanding the significance of specific attributes of Affective Touch, such as the stroking velocity and the nature of the touching effector, they have largely focused on investigating these features individually, examining one characteristic at a time. Thus, this approach has made it challenging to draw comprehensive conclusions on the intricate interplay between these distinct characteristics and how those contribute to eliciting a physiological response. Expanding on this literature, we investigated whether, beyond the bottom-up affective component of touch (CT-fibers) the social aspect of the effector (a real human hand) might play significant role in determining the salience of Affective Touch. Indeed, dynamic stimuli inherently convey more information than static ones and when targeting CT-fibers, they are known to evoke autonomic and affective responses ⁸. Moreover, a human hand is characterized by an ensemble of specific sensory characteristics (e.g., softness, warmness, texture) that signal to the receiver’s sensory system that they are being touched by another individual. Consequently, this type of sensory information, processed at a low level, becomes socially relevant ¹. Thus, we hypothesized that the combination of these characteristics—a human hand and a dynamic stimulus—would be more salient than their individual counterparts (i.e., an artificial hand and a static stimulation, respectively), thereby eliciting a stronger pupil response. In the present study, we explored whether and how the nature of the stroking effector (Human vs. Artificial) modulates pupillary responses in individuals receiving caress-like touches at CT-optimal velocity (Dynamic condition, 3 cm/s ¹²). Additionally, we collected explicit pleasantness ratings to examine the hedonic experience when a CT-optimal touch was promoted by a real human hand compared to the other conditions. As a control, experimental subjects also received static touch (Static condition) from both hand types, as we aimed to ensure that any observed differences between human and artificial hands were specific for the dynamic touch.

Our hypotheses encompass several scenarios. If pupil size merely tracked stroking speed, as hinted by prior research ³⁶, we anticipated finding greater pupil responses during a dynamic touch condition compared to the static touch condition, regardless of the nature of the hand promoting the touch (Human vs. Artificial). Conversely, if pupil size only encoded the nature of the hand promoting the touch, we expected to observe greater pupil responses during human-initiated touch compared to artificial-initiated touch, irrespective of the type of touch (Dynamic vs. Static). Finally, if pupil size had the capacity to jointly encode distinct features characterizing Affective Touch, we hypothesized that pupil responses to dynamic touch would be specially influenced by the nature of the hand promoting the touch. This would be reflected in larger pupil dilation when touch is promoted by a human hand, but exclusively under dynamic conditions.

Participants

Thirty right-handed Italian volunteers (16 females and 14 males, mean age 23.9 ± 2.3 and 24.6 ± 2.8 respectively) took part to this study. Most of the participants were undergraduate students at the Department of Psychology (University of Turin) and were recruited from a participants’ database or through flyers posted on the University website. All experimental subjects gave written informed consent to participate, which was approved by the local ethics committee and performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. At the end of the experiment, all participants were informed about the aims and the scopes of the experiment and did not receive any compensation for participation in this research study.

Experimental setting and design

Participants were invited to sit in a comfortable position, place their left arm on a table with their palm facing down, and lean their chin and forehead on a headrest to ensure stability and reduce any unintentional movement (Fig. 1a). Given that in this study we were interested in investigating how pupillary dilation vary as a function of different tactile stimulations, the experimental session started with a 9-point grid system calibration. Each touch was delivered by either a Human hand (i.e., the experimenter’s hand; Human condition) or an Artificial hand (i.e., a wooden hand; Artificial condition) (Fig. 1b). The wooden hand closely resembled a real human hand aesthetically. This enabled us to manipulate tactile low-level sensory aspects that characterize a real human hand while simultaneously controlling for visual similarities.

Additionally, participants received two types of touch: a dynamic [i.e., a dynamic stroking at 3 cm/s ¹²; Dynamic condition] and a static touch (Static condition). Each trial started with a 2-second fixation cross (baseline) followed by a 10-second grey square (stimulus) presented in the center of the screen, during which the participant received a tactile stimulation (Fig. 1c). In each experimental session, one of two experimenters delivered the tactile stimulation. The female experimenter delivered touch only to male participants, while the male experimenter delivered touch only to female participants. This allowed to control for any possible bias due to the experimenter’s biological sex. Both experimenters were trained to deliver touch at a constant pressure and velocity. Across all experimental sessions, the two experimenters were always the same.

Before the beginning of the experiment, participants’ left dorsal hand and forearm were marked with two 12-cm distant signs in order to guide the experimenter in the action of promoting the touch for the Dynamic Touch conditions. Moreover, a point in the middle of the subjects’ hand and forearm was measured to indicate the area for the Static Touch (Fig. 1d). In each experimental session, one of two experimenters delivered the tactile stimulation. The female experimenter delivered touch only to male participants, while the male experimenter delivered touch only to female participants. This allowed to control for any possible. Both experimenters were trained to deliver touch at a constant pressure and velocity. Across all experimental sessions, the two experimenters were always the same.

Given that pupil dilation recording is sensitive to eye movements and blinks, participants were instructed to keep their gaze fixed on the target stimulus and blink as little as possible. A 10-second period of tactile stimulation was followed by a 2-second ITI where subjects were allowed to rest. Before the beginning of the next trial participants were asked to rate the pleasantness of the touch received, on a scale from 0 to 10. Participants' subjective ratings were recorded by the experimenter as an indicator of the pleasantness associated with each touch. Each participant received 4 tactile stimuli per condition (i.e., Dynamic_Human, Dynamic_Artificial, Static_Human, and Static_Artificial) for a total of 16 tactile stimulations presented in a random order. For each condition, the touch was delivered twice on the dorsal side of the hand and twice on the dorsal side of the forearm, two hairy CT-rich sites mostly involved in interpersonal touch ^39,40. We delivered tactile stimulation in two different locations to avoid habituation effects.

Given that pupil dilation is sensitive to light we conducted the whole experimental session in a dark experimental room where the only source of illumination was the computer monitor. Specifically, stimuli were presented on a 17-inch LCD monitor at a screen resolution of 1280 × 1024 pixels (60‐Hz refresh rate), and the distance from the eyes to the monitor was set at 58 cm. The task was implemented on Psychtoolbox (MATLAB©, The Mathworks Inc.), and pupil size was recorded at a 1000 Hz sampling rate using an Eyelink®‐1000 monocular‐arm (SR Research, Osgoode, ON, Canada).

a) Experimental setting: the participants sat facing a computer monitor with their chin and forehead on a headrest to ensure stability and reduce any unintentional movement during pupil recording. They were invited to place their left arm on the table with their palm facing down. The researcher standing behind on the left side of the experimental subject promoted different types of tactile stimulations on either the dorsal side of the hand or the dorsal side of the forearm of the participant. b) Experimental variables: participants received either a Dynamic touch (a dynamic stroking with a speed of 3 cm/s) or Static touch, both delivered for the full 10 seconds. The nature of the stroking effector promoting the touch was either a Human hand or an Artificial hand. c) Task progression: Each trial started with a 2-second fixation cross (baseline) followed by a 10-second grey square (stimulus) presented in the center of the screen, during which the participant received a tactile stimulation. The tactile stimulation ended with the beginning of a 2-second ITI. d) Tactile stimulation progression: during Dynamic touch condition participants received a dynamic stroking at 3cm/s¹² for the whole 10-second touch epoch whereas during Static touch condition participants received a static touch lasting 10-second as well.

Data analysis

Control analysis

The spatial location control analysis allowed us to ensure that participants kept their gaze centered on the center of the screen while receiving tactile stimulations, and that pupillary measures were not biased by eye movements. Heatmaps in Fig. 2a represent the spatial distribution of fixations during tactile stimulations. Axes represent pixels coordinates calculated according to standard Eyelink®-1000 1024x768 screen resolution.

Pupillometry analysis

Pupillary changes were first baseline corrected on a trial-by-trial basis by subtracting the mean change in pupil diameter 1000ms before the beginning of tactile stimulations. Next, to control for inter-individual variability, pupil data were Z-scored for each subject across all conditions ^31,41. In each trial, missing samples due to blinks or loss of the eye-tracking signal during the tactile stimulation period were interpolated via spline interpolation using the nearest valid adjacent samples. Pupil responses were then averaged across trials for each condition. Based on visual inspection of the average response profile, the mean change in pupil diameter was extracted for the time window ranging from 0–4 seconds after stimulus onset (Fig. 2b). Data were analyzed via a 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA with Hand type (Human vs. Artificial) and Touch type (Dynamic vs. Static) as within subject factors. Post-hoc analyses following significant main effects and interactions were performed by running two-tailed pairwise t-tests, and multiple comparisons were corrected using False Discovery Rate (FDR ⁴²). All p values < 0.05 were considered significant. Crucially, to investigate any possible effect of gender and age on pupil responses we first ran a 2x2x2 repeated measures ANOVA with Gender, Hand type and Touch Type as factors. Then, we conducted four Pearson’s correlations (one for each experimental condition) to examine if pupil size varied with age.

To test the hypothesis that Dynamic_Human touch alone induced a larger pupil size than Dynamic_Artificial plus Static_Human touch, supralinearity was quantified by contrasting, for each participant, the average pupil size in the Dynamic_Human condition against the sum of the average pupil size in the Dynamic_Artificial plus Static_Human conditions. The effect of Dynamic_Human condition was then compared with the added Dynamic_Artificial and Static_Human condition with a paired-sample t test to determine significance.

Finally, we investigated whether the blink rate changed across the four conditions by using nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests, as Kolmogrov-Smirnov tests showed that blink rate distributions were highly skewed in all conditions (all ps < 0.001).

Subjective Rating

To test whether different kinds of tactile stimulations impacted the perceived pleasantness, subjective ratings were analyzed by running a 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA with Hand type (Human vs. Artificial) and Touch type (Dynamic vs. Static) as within subject factors. Post-hoc analyses following significant main effects and interactions were performed by running two-tailed pairwise t-tests, and multiple comparisons were corrected using FDR. All p values < 0.05 were considered significant.

Pupil size

We found a main effect of Hand type [F_(1,119) = 10.196, p = 0.002, η² = 0.079], indicating a stronger pupil dilation when participants received a touch from a Human hand compared to an Artificial hand [t₍₁₁₉₎ = 3.193, p = 0.002]. Crucially, we also found a significant Hand type by Touch type interaction [F_(1,119) = 7.402, p = 0.007, η² = 0.059], indicating that the magnitude of increase in pupil dilation during the touch promoted by a Human hand differed depending on the type of touch. Specifically, post-hoc t-tests showed that only during Dynamic touch participants exhibited a stronger pupil dilation when receiving a touch from a Human hand compared to an Artificial hand [t₍₁₁₉₎ = 4.023; p < 0.001], indicating that pupil dilation specifically encodes skin-stroking caress only when promoted by a Human hand. Furthermore, we observed that a touch promoted by a Human hand elicited a significant increase in pupil dilation for Dynamic compared to Static touch [t₍₁₁₉₎ = 2.966; p = 0.007]. During Static touch participants did not show any difference between a Human and Artificial hand [t₍₁₁₉₎ = 0.213; p = 0.832]. More importantly, we did not observe any difference in pupil dilation between Dynamic and Static conditions when the touch was promoted by an Artificial hand [t₍₁₁₉₎ = 1.079; p = 0.379] (Fig. 2b and 2c). Crucially these effects were not influenced by participant’s gender (all ps > 0.05) nor by the age (all correlations across all conditions showed a p > 0.05 between age and pupil size).

For supralinearity analyses, we summed, for each participant, the pupil size of “Human Static” and “Artificial Dynamic” conditions and scattered this sum against the participant’s pupil size in the only “Human Dynamic” condition. As such, a participant whose pupil size is larger in the “Human Dynamic” than in the sum of “Human Static” and “Artificial Dynamic” conditions, would fall above the unity line indicating equality between the two measures plotted on the X and Y axes. These analyses showed that 70% (n = 21) of participants fell above the unity line, thus displaying a supralinear effect revealing a larger pupil size in the Dynamic_Human condition alone than in the Dynamic_Artificial plus Static_Human conditions summed together [t₍₂₉₎ = 1.781, p = 0.043] (Fig. 2d). Our results show a stronger pupil dilation when touch was delivered simultaneously at CT-optimal speed and by a human hand. This kind of touch invoked a supralinear enhancement of pupil dilation indicating that the combination of these two features induced a significantly stronger physiological activation than the summed effects of each delivered separately.

Moreover, we did not find any differences in blink rates across conditions (all ps > 0.160), suggesting that participants did not show differences in blinking activity depending on the Hand type nor on Touch type.

Subjective ratings

In line with pupil dilation findings, we observed a main effect of Hand type [F_(1,119) = 32.062, p < 0.001, η² = 0.212], indicating that participants preferred to receive a touch from a Human hand than from an Artificial hand [t₍₁₁₉₎ = 5.662, p < 0.001]. Also, we found a main effect of Touch type [F_(1,119) = 15.087, p < 0.001, η² = 0.113], indicating that participants preferred to receive a Dynamic than a Static touch [t₍₁₁₉₎ = 3.884, p < 0.001]. Finally, we also found a significant Hand type by Touch type interaction [F_(1,119) = 4.125, p = 0.045, η² = 0.034], which showed that participants preferred to receive a Dynamic touch from a Human hand. Indeed, post-hoc pairwise comparisons showed that Dynamic touch from a Human hand condition received the highest ratings compared to all other conditions [Dynamic_Human vs. Dynamic_Artificial: t₍₁₁₉₎ = 3.657, p < 0.001; Dynamic_Human vs. Static_Human: t₍₁₁₉₎ = 2.343, p = 0.021; Dynamic_Human vs. Static_Artificial: t₍₁₁₉₎ = 7.070, p < 0.001] (Fig. 2e). These results, in line with physiological findings, indicate that participants rated as the most pleasant a dynamic touch delivered by a human hand.

In the present study, we investigated whether Affective Touch is encoded as a comprehensive social phenomenon at the autonomic level. We explored whether and how the nature of the stroking effector (Human vs. Artificial) modulates pupillary responses and subjective experiences in individuals receiving a caress-like touch. We employed a static touch as a control to ensure that any observed differences were specific only for touch delivered at CT-optimal speed (3 cm/s ¹²); and not for other types of touch. Overall, we observed that when participants received a dynamic touch, they displayed an increase in pupil dilation for touch administered by a human compared to an artificial hand. Interestingly, such a difference did not emerge for the control static touch condition. Additionally, participants' self-reports consistently indicated that dynamic touch delivered by a human hand was perceived as the most pleasant in comparison to all other touch conditions.

Previous studies ³⁶ investigated and compared the impact of different stroking velocities on autonomic parameters, including pupil dilation, and reported that pupil dilation increases as a function of stimulation velocity. However, it is noteworthy that most studies employed artificial tools to reproduce Affective Touch at a CT-optimal speed ^28,36,37. While this approach is valuable for precisely controlling stroking velocity, it may lack ecological validity as it does not account for the nuances of human-to-human tactile interactions. Our results add knowledge to this body of work as we found that a dynamic touch elicits higher pupil dilation responses but only when touch is characterized by skin-to-skin contact. Thus, the autonomic nervous system seems to encode also high-level characteristics of the stroking effector. Indeed, as haptic features convey information about the nature of an external object ⁴³, both the temperature and the softness of the touching hand likely inform the nervous system that the dynamic touch is coming from another individual. As such, this information becomes socially relevant ¹, yielding autonomic reactions such as the strong modulation we observed in pupil dilation. Taken together, these results consistently support the idea that Affective Touch is linked to autonomic regulation and that pupil size encodes Affective Touch not only for the speed or the effector features, but as a holistic experience. Indeed, we observed a higher pupil dilation when touch was delivered simultaneously at CT-optimal speed and by a human hand. Also, the observation of supralinear enhancement of pupil dilation in this kind of touch further supports the idea that the combination of these two features (velocity and stroking effector) can induce a significantly stronger autonomic activation than the summed effects of each delivered separately.

In our study, we also invited participants to rate the pleasantness of the touch they received. Consistently with prior research ^36,44–47, our participants reported higher levels of pleasantness when received a gentle stroking promoted by a human rather than an artificial hand. This suggests that C-tactile afferents, the neural pathways responsible for the emotional and rewarding aspects of touch ⁴⁸, may have a preference for slow, caress-like touch ¹² and are finely tuned to touch that mimics human skin temperature ⁴⁹. However, recent evidence has begun to challenge the complex but apparently not direct relationship between Affective Touch and CT-system, given that numerous unresolved questions have emerged about the mechanisms of CT-fibers and their role in affect and emotion ¹⁷. Nonetheless, our findings emphasize the pivotal role of human contact in evoking positive emotional responses, as our participants reported the highest levels of pleasantness when tactile stimulation was delivered by a human hand at a speed resembling that of a caress. It's worth noting that these findings exhibited a similar pattern to those observed for pupil dilation. As pupil dilation has been associated with salient and rewarding stimuli ^50,51 and to social interest in others ⁵², a stronger pupil responses may reflect the reward-related processing of a socially relevant interaction occurring. However, although it has been reported that CT-optimal speed tactile stimulation carries a positive affective valence ²⁷, pupillary responses mostly track salience (not valence) of a stimulus and several top-down contextual factors might come at play in driving the association between pleasantness and autonomic activation ⁵³. Indeed, the way individuals experience social touch in general ⁵⁴ and Affective Touch specifically ⁵⁵ can be influenced by several contextual and top-down factors beyond the physical sensation of the touch itself. Hence, future studies might build upon the present results and explicitly address such an intriguing question.

It is important to acknowledge some limitations in our study and consider potential avenues for future research. Firstly, in our study, we only examined two different stroke speeds. Future investigations should explore a broader range of stroke-speed conditions while still using a human hand, and possibly compare these effects with those of an artificial hand from both a physiological and hedonic point of view. Secondly, touch pressure ^36,56,57 has been identified as significant factor in other studies. Here the experimenter underwent a training before the beginning of the study to maintain consistent pressure, both during the dynamic and the static Touch, following procedures described in the literature ^27,36. Nevertheless, given the importance of applied force, future studies should also investigate this aspect in a more controlled manner as an essential aspect of Affective Touch. Next, to avoid effects of habituation and tiredness on pupillary responses ⁵⁸, in our study we only exposed participants to four trials per condition. However, even though most studies adopted less than 10 trials, recent research showed that this might not be an adequate number of repetitions ⁵⁹. Therefore, future research should consider adopting a larger number of repetitions when investigating the hedonic aspects of Affective Touch. Furthermore, in this study, we always employed an opposite-gender experimenter and this choice did not allow us to account for same-sex affective interactions. It would be valuable for future studies to consider these variables as well as participants' sexual preferences and cultural differences to mitigate potential interference effects and personal attitudes towards interpersonal touch. For instance, research has indicated that individuals who lacked tactile, enjoyable experiences with close family members during early development may perceive Affective Touch as less pleasant ^60,61. Lastly, our study focused exclusively on young subjects. Future research should expand upon these findings and explore the effects of age. A more diverse and heterogeneous sample could provide further insights into the hedonic and physiological responses related to Affective Touch throughout the lifespan ^1,62.

Summarizing, the present study investigated how two key features characterizing Affective Touch, such as touch velocity and the nature of the hand promoting the touch, influence both pupil dilation and subjective experience in the person receiving a tactile stimulation. We not only replicated previous observations regarding each feature alone, but also reported, for the first time, that their combination triggers a stronger physiological reaction than their isolated components along with a positive hedonic experience. These results shed light on the uniqueness of real human-to-human contact in shaping Affective Touch as a means of support and affection ^63–65 having a strong adaptive and evolutionary value central to our relational and social development.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

G.B. and O.D.M. designed the study, G.B. performed the experiment, G.B. and A.M. analyzed the data, and G.B., A.M., F.C., and O.D.M. wrote the paper. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Giuseppe Pica and Luca Melchionda for assistance with data collection. We also thank Lucia De Francesco and Giulia Romano Cappi for their insightful comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by MIUR (DALO_RILO_19_01) and GFI (DALO_GFI_22_01_F) grant to ODM.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data and code used for this paper’s analyses are made publicly available at https://github.com/SocialInteractionLabUnito/Pupil_AffectiveTouch

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

ETHICAL STATEMENT

The experimental procedure was approved by the Bioethical Committee of the University of Turin and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2013).

Cascio, C. J., Moore, D. & McGlone, F. Social touch and human development. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 35, 5–11 (2019).
Hertenstein, M. J., Keltner, D., App, B., Bulleit, B. A. & Jaskolka, A. R. Touch communicates distinct emotions. Emotion 6, 528–533 (2006).
Morrison, I. Keep Calm and Cuddle on: Social Touch as a Stress Buffer. Adapt. Hum. Behav. Physiol. 2, 344–362 (2016).
Morrison, I., Löken, L. S. & Olausson, H. The skin as a social organ. Exp. Brain Res. 204, 305–314 (2010).
Field, T. Touch for socioemotional and physical well-being: A review. Dev. Rev. 30, 367–383 (2010).
Gulledge, A., Hill, M., Lister, Z. & Sallion, C. Non-Erotic Physical Affection: It’s Good for You. in Low-Cost Approaches to Promote Physical and Mental Health: Theory, Research, and Practice 371–384 (2007). doi:10.1007/0-387-36899-X_18.
Robinson, K. J., Hoplock, L. B. & Cameron, J. J. When in Doubt, Reach Out: Touch Is a Covert but Effective Mode of Soliciting and Providing Social Support. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 6, 831–839 (2015).
Gallace, A. & Spence, C. Social Touch. in Affective Touch and the Neurophysiology of CT Afferents (eds. Olausson, H., Wessberg, J., Morrison, I. & McGlone, F.) 227–238 (Springer, New York, NY, 2016). doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-6418-5_14.
Morrison, I. CT Afferent-Mediated Affective Touch: Brain Networks and Functional Hypotheses. in Affective Touch and the Neurophysiology of CT Afferents 195–208 (2016). doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-6418-5_12.
Olausson, H. W. et al. Unmyelinated tactile afferents have opposite effects on insular and somatosensory cortical processing. Neurosci. Lett. 436, 128–132 (2008).
Ackerley, R. Touch perceptions across skin sites: differences between sensitivity, direction discrimination and pleasantness. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 8, 54 (2014).
Löken, L. S., Wessberg, J., Morrison, I., McGlone, F. & Olausson, H. Coding of pleasant touch by unmyelinated afferents in humans. Nat. Neurosci. 12, 547–548 (2009).
Gordon, I. et al. Brain mechanisms for processing affective touch. Hum. Brain Mapp. 34, 914–922 (2013).
Sailer, U. et al. Temporal dynamics of brain activation during 40 minutes of pleasant touch. NeuroImage 139, 360–367 (2016).
Kirsch, L. P. et al. Damage to the right insula disrupts the perception of affective touch. eLife 9, e47895 (2020).
Björnsdotter, M., Löken, L., Olausson, H., Vallbo, A. & Wessberg, J. Somatotopic organization of gentle touch processing in the posterior insular cortex. J. Neurosci. Off. J. Soc. Neurosci. 29, 9314–9320 (2009).
Schirmer, A., Croy, I. & Ackerley, R. What are C-tactile afferents and how do they relate to ‘affective touch’? Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 151, 105236 (2023).
Nava, E., Etzi, R., Gallace, A. & Macchi Cassia, V. Socially-relevant Visual Stimulation Modulates Physiological Response to Affective Touch in Human Infants. Neuroscience 464, 59–66 (2021).
Novembre, G., Etzi, R. & Morrison, I. Hedonic Responses to Touch are Modulated by the Perceived Attractiveness of the Caresser. Neuroscience 464, 79–89 (2021).
Mazza, A. et al. Hedonic and autonomic responses in promoting affective touch. Sci. Rep. 13, 11201 (2023).
Mazza, A. et al. Pain perception and physiological responses are modulated by active support from a romantic partner. Psychophysiology 60, e14299 (2023).
Walker, S. C., Marshall, A. & Pawling, R. Psychophysiology and motivated emotion: testing the affective touch hypothesis of C-tactile afferent function. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 43, 131–137 (2022).
Grewen, K. M., Girdler, S. S., Amico, J. & Light, K. C. Effects of partner support on resting oxytocin, cortisol, norepinephrine, and blood pressure before and after warm partner contact. Psychosom. Med. 67, 531–538 (2005).
Lee, J. & Cichy, K. Complex Role of Touch in Social Relationships for Older Adults’ Cardiovascular Disease Risk. Res. Aging 42, 016402752091579 (2020).
Heinrichs, M., Baumgartner, T., Kirschbaum, C. & Ehlert, U. Social support and oxytocin interact to suppress cortisol and subjective responses to psychosocial stress. Biol. Psychiatry 54, 1389–1398 (2003).
Henricson, M., Berglund, A.-L., Määttä, S., Ekman, R. & Segesten, K. The outcome of tactile touch on oxytocin in intensive care patients: a randomised controlled trial. J. Clin. Nurs. 17, 2624–2633 (2008).
Pawling, R., Cannon, P. R., McGlone, F. P. & Walker, S. C. C-tactile afferent stimulating touch carries a positive affective value. PloS One 12, e0173457 (2017).
Triscoli, C., Croy, I., Steudte-Schmiedgen, S., Olausson, H. & Sailer, U. Heart rate variability is enhanced by long-lasting pleasant touch at CT-optimized velocity. Biol. Psychol. 128, 71–81 (2017).
Gusso, M. de M., Serur, G. & Nohama, P. Pupil Reactions to Tactile Stimulation: A Systematic Review. Front. Neurosci. 15, (2021).
Joshi, S. & Gold, J. I. Pupil size as a window on neural substrates of cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 24, 466–480 (2020).
Basile, B. M. et al. Autonomic arousal tracks outcome salience not valence in monkeys making social decisions. Behav. Neurosci. 135, 443–452 (2021).
Dal Monte, O., Costa, V. D., Noble, P. L., Murray, E. A. & Averbeck, B. B. Amygdala lesions in rhesus macaques decrease attention to threat. Nat. Commun. 6, 10161 (2015).
Pagliaccio, D. et al. Cross-species convergence in pupillary response: understanding human anxiety via non-human primate amygdala lesion. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 14, 591–599 (2019).
Oliva, M. & Anikin, A. Pupil dilation reflects the time course of emotion recognition in human vocalizations. Sci. Rep. 8, 4871 (2018).
Partala, T. & Surakka, V. Pupil size variation as an indication of affective processing. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 59, 185–198 (2003).
van Hooijdonk, R. et al. Touch-induced pupil size reflects stimulus intensity, not subjective pleasantness. Exp. Brain Res. 237, 201–210 (2019).
Bertheaux, C. et al. Emotion Measurements Through the Touch of Materials Surfaces. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 13, (2020).
Ellingsen, D.-M. et al. In touch with your emotions: Oxytocin and touch change social impressions while others’ facial expressions can alter touch. Psychoneuroendocrinology 39, 11–20 (2014).
Cruciani, G. et al. Strengths and weaknesses of affective touch studies over the lifetime: A systematic review. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 127, 1–24 (2021).
Pyasik, M. et al. Self-other distinction modulates the social softness illusion. Psychol. Res. 86, 1165–1173 (2022).
Rudebeck, P. H. et al. A role for primate subgenual cingulate cortex in sustaining autonomic arousal. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 111, 5391–5396 (2014).
Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 57, 289–300 (1995).
Kappers, A. M. L. & Bergmann Tiest, W. M. Haptic perception. WIREs Cogn. Sci. 4, 357–374 (2013).
Ali, S. H. et al. Hold me or stroke me? Individual differences in static and dynamic affective touch. PLOS ONE 18, e0281253 (2023).
Pfabigan, D. M. et al. Ghrelin is related to lower brain reward activation during touch. Psychophysiology n/a, e14443 (2023).
von Mohr, M., Kirsch, L. P. & Fotopoulou, A. The soothing function of touch: affective touch reduces feelings of social exclusion. Sci. Rep. 7, 13516 (2017).
Zheng, C. Y. et al. Comparing soft robotic affective touch to human and brush affective touch. in 2021 IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC) 352–352 (2021). doi:10.1109/WHC49131.2021.9517156.
McGlone, F., Wessberg, J. & Olausson, H. Discriminative and affective touch: sensing and feeling. Neuron 82, 737–755 (2014).
Ackerley, R. Human C-tactile afferents are tuned to the temperature of a skin-stroking caress. J. Neurosci. Off. J. Soc. Neurosci. 34, 2879–2883 (2014).
Beatty, J. Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychol. Bull. 91, 276–292 (1982).
Laeng, B., Sirois, S. & Gredebäck, G. Pupillometry: A Window to the Preconscious? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. J. Assoc. Psychol. Sci. 7, 18–27 (2012).
Laeng, B. & Falkenberg, L. Women’s pupillary responses to sexually significant others during the hormonal cycle. Horm. Behav. 52, 520–530 (2007).
Sailer, U. & Leknes, S. Meaning makes touch affective. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 44, 101099 (2022).
Saarinen, A., Harjunen, V., Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Jääskeläinen, I. P. & Ravaja, N. Social touch experience in different contexts: A review. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 131, 360–372 (2021).
Ellingsen, D.-M., Leknes, S., Løseth, G., Wessberg, J. & Olausson, H. The Neurobiology Shaping Affective Touch: Expectation, Motivation, and Meaning in the Multisensory Context. Front. Psychol. 6, (2016).
Case, L. K. et al. Pleasant Deep Pressure: Expanding the Social Touch Hypothesis. Neuroscience 464, 3–11 (2021).
Ten Brink, A. F., Heiner, I., Dijkerman, H. C. & Strauch, C. Pupil dilation reveals the intensity of touch. Psychophysiology e14538 (2024) doi:10.1111/psyp.14538.
Morad, Y., Lemberg, H., Yofe, N. & Dagan, Y. Pupillography as an objective indicator of fatigue. Curr. Eye Res. 21, 535–542 (2000).
Schirmer, A. et al. Understanding sex differences in affective touch: Sensory pleasantness, social comfort, and precursive experiences. Physiol. Behav. 250, 113797 (2022).
Devine, S. L. et al. Childhood Adversity and Affective Touch Perception: A Comparison of United Kingdom Care Leavers and Non-care Leavers. Front. Psychol. 11, (2020).
Sailer, U. & Ackerley, R. Exposure shapes the perception of affective touch. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 35, 109–114 (2019).
Sehlstedt, I. et al. Gentle touch perception across the lifespan. Psychol. Aging 31, 176–184 (2016).
Bytomski, A. et al. Maternal stroking is a fine-tuned mechanism relating to C-tactile afferent activation: An exploratory study. Psychol. Neurosci. 13, 149–157 (2020).
Croy, I. et al. Interpersonal stroking touch is targeted to C tactile afferent activation. Behav. Brain Res. SreeTestContent1 297, 37–40 (2016).
Lo, C., Chu, S. T., Penney, T. B. & Schirmer, A. 3D Hand-Motion Tracking and Bottom-Up Classification Sheds Light on the Physical Properties of Gentle Stroking. Neuroscience 464, 90–104 (2021).

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
05 Aug, 2024
Reviews received at journal
02 Aug, 2024
Reviews received at journal
26 Jul, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
25 Jul, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
23 Jul, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
23 Jul, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
23 Jul, 2024
Editor invited by journal
23 Jul, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
18 Jul, 2024
First submitted to journal
06 Jul, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Affective Touch is encoded by pupil dilation as a comprehensive social phenomenon

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

INTRODUCTION

MATERIALS and METHODS

Participants

Experimental setting and design

Data analysis

Control analysis

Pupillometry analysis

Subjective Rating

RESULTS

Pupil size

Subjective ratings

DISCUSSION

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1