Is cultural context the crucial touch? Neurophysiological and self-reported responses to affective touch in women in South Africa and the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Affective touch, involving touch-sensitive C-tactile (CT) afferent nerve fibres, is integral to human development and well-being. Despite presumed cultural differences, affective touch research typically includes 'Western', minority-world contexts, with findings extrapolated cross-culturally. We report the first cross-cultural study to experimentally investigate subjective and neurophysiological correlates of affective touch in women in South Africa (SA) and the United Kingdom (UK) using (i) touch ratings and (ii) cortical oscillations for slow, CT-optimal (vs. faster, CT-suboptimal) touch on two body regions (arm and palm). We also controlled for individual differences in touch experiences, attitudes, and attachment style. Cultural context modulated affective touch: SA (vs. UK) participants rated touch as more positive and less intense, with enhanced differentiation in sensorimotor beta band oscillations, especially during palm touch. UK participants differentiated between stroking speeds, with opposite directions of effects at the arm and palm for frontal theta oscillations. Alpha band power showed consistent effects across countries. Results highlight the importance of cultural context in the subjective experience and neural processing of affective touch. Findings suggest that palm touch may hold greater social or emotional significance in SA than in the UK. Future research should further explore potential cultural influences on the meaning and function of touch across contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".