MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413838534 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp19860

Cuddling as a Form of Social Touch and Its Role in Early Cognitive Development

2025· article· en· W4413838534 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Angelica Doctolero, Mark A. Sabbagh

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitionCognitive psychologyCognitive scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children’s understanding that others’ mental states influence their actions develops rapidly during early childhood (Sabbagh & Bowman, 2018). This ability, known as theory of mind (ToM), is linked to the social brain, a network of neural regions that become active when humans interpret and respond to their social environment (Brauer et al., 2017). As these parts of the brain develop, so too do young children’s ToM skills (Sabbagh et al., 2009). Yet, little is known about what influences healthy development of these regions. Although many environmental factors may have importance, one that is particularly intriguing is affectionate contact or “social touch.” Social touch is a context-dependent form of affective touch (Cascio et al., 2018). It stimulates C-tactile afferents, unmyelinated fibers on hairy skin that respond to slow affective touch (e.g., patting or stroking) and has been linked to healthy brain development in infants and young children (Cascio et al., 2018). Recent research has shown that social touch is associated with increased activities in neural regions linked to the social brain (Croy et al., 2021; Gothard & Fuglevand, 2021). These findings suggest that a key factor pacing children’s ToM development is their exposure to social touch. Previous research has observed cuddling, a form of affective touch, to be associated with children’s improved ToM performance. However, it is unclear whether these effects are linked to neural mechanisms involving ToM. Using electroencephalogram (EEG), this study investigates whether cuddling with a parent affects activity in regions of the social brain in 3-to-5-year-old children. Over the summer, twelve participants completed a pilot study. Participants were randomly assigned to cuddle or no-cuddle conditions while resting-state EEG was recorded before and after a storybook task. Children then completed games assessing ToM. Data collection will begin in the fall to further examine cuddling’s effects on children’s cognitive development. References Brauer, J., Xiao, Y., Poulain, T., Friederici, A. D., & Schirmer, A. (2017). Frequency of maternal touch predicts resting activity and connectivity of the developing social brain. Cerebral Cortex, 28(2), 692. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx323 Cascio, C. J., Moore, D., & McGlone, F. (2018). Social touch and human development. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 35, 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2018.04.009 Croy, I., Fairhurst, M. T., & McGlone, F. (2021). The role of C-tactile nerve fibers in human social development. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 43, 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.06.010 Gothard, K. M., & Fuglevand, A. J. (2021). The role of the amygdala in processing social and affective touch. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 43, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.08.004 Sabbagh, M. A., Bowman, L. C., Evraire, L. E., & Ito, J. M. B. (2009). Neurodevelopmental correlates of theory of mind in preschool children. Child Development, 80(4), 1147–1162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01322.x Sabbagh, M. A., & Bowman, L. C. (2018). Theory of mind. Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119170174.epcn408

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207