Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Defining pleasant touch stimuli: a systematic review and meta-analysis


Pleasantness is generally overlooked when investigating tactile functions. Addition of a pleasant stimulus could allow for a more complete characterisation of somatosensory function. The aims of this review were to systematically assess the methodologies used to elicit a pleasant sensation, measured via psychophysical techniques, and to perform a meta-analysis to measure the effect of brush stroking velocity on touch pleasantness. Eighteen studies were included in the systematic review, with five studies included in the meta-analysis. The review found that factors such as texture, velocity, force, and the duration of continuous stroking influence tactile evoked pleasantness. Specifically, using a soft material and stroking at a velocity of 3 cm/s with light force is generally considered as particularly pleasant. The meta-analysis showed that a brush stroking velocity of 30 cm/s was rated as less pleasant than 3 cm/s, on the forearm. The present study collates the factors that are most likely to provide a stimulus to elicit a pleasant sensation. The results should be important for studies requiring a well-defined pleasant stimulus including neurosensory assessment protocols, allowing for a more complete multimodality assessment of somatosensory function.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  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. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 54. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00054.

  2. Bennett, R. H., Bolling, D. Z., Anderson, L. C., Pelphrey, K. A., & Kaiser, M. D. (2014). fNIRS detects temporal lobe response to affective touch. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9, 470–476.

  3. Bessou, P., Burgess, P., Perl, E., & Taylor, C. (1971). Dynamic properties of mechanoreceptors with unmyelinated (C) fibers. Journal of Neurophysiology, 34, 116–131.

  4. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken: Wiley.

  5. Case, L. K., Čeko, M., Gracely, J. L., Richards, E. A., Olausson, H., & Bushnell, M. C. (2016a). Touch perception altered by chronic pain and by opioid blockade. eNeuro, 3, 0138.

  6. Case, L. K., Laubacher, C. M., Olausson, H., Wang, B. Q., Spagnolo, P. A., & Bushnell, M. C. (2016b). Encoding of touch intensity but not pleasantness in human primary somatosensory cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 5850–5860.

  7. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155.

  8. Croy, I., Geide, H., Paulus, M., Weidner, K., & Olausson, H. (2016). Affective touch awareness in mental health and disease relates to autistic traits—An explorative neurophysiological investigation. Psychiatry Research, 245, 491–496.

  9. Dunlap, W. P., Cortina, J. M., Vaslow, J. B., & Burke, M. J. (1996). Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods, 1, 170.

  10. Ellingsen, D.-M., Wessberg, J., Eikemo, M., Liljencrantz, J., Endestad, T., Olausson, H., & Leknes, S. (2013). Placebo improves pleasure and pain through opposite modulation of sensory processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 17993–17998.

  11. Essick, G. K., McGlone, F., Dancer, C., Fabricant, D., Ragin, Y., Phillips, N., … Guest, S. (2010). Quantitative assessment of pleasant touch. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 192–203.

  12. Etzi, R., Carta, C., & Gallace, A. (2018). Stroking and tapping the skin: behavioral and electrodermal effects. Experimental Brain Research, 236, 453–461.

  13. Etzi, R., Spence, C., & Gallace, A. (2014). Textures that we like to touch: An experimental study of aesthetic preferences for tactile stimuli. Consciousness and Cognition, 29, 178–188.

  14. Faraone, S. V. (2008). Interpreting estimates of treatment effects: Implications for managed care. Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 33, 700.

  15. Ferreira-Valente, M. A., Pais-Ribeiro, J. L., & Jensen, M. P. (2011). Validity of four pain intensity rating scales. Pain, 152, 2399–2404.

  16. Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2010). The science of interpersonal touch: an overview. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 246–259.

  17. Gordon, I., Voos, A. C., Bennett, R. H., Bolling, D. Z., Pelphrey, K. A., & Kaiser, M. D. (2013). Brain mechanisms for processing affective touch. Human Brain Mapping, 34, 914–922.

  18. Guest, S., & Essick, G. K. (2016). Psychophysical assessment of the sensory and affective components of touch. Affective Touch and the Neurophysiology of CT Afferents. New York: Springer.

  19. Hawker, G. A., Mian, S., Kendzerska, T., & French, M. (2011). Measures of adult pain: Visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain), numeric rating scale for pain (NRS pain), McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), chronic pain grade scale (CPGS), short form-36 bodily pain scale (SF-36 BPS), and measure of intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care & Research, 63, S240–S252.

  20. Heslin, R., Nguyen, T. D., & Nguyen, M. L. (1983). Meaning of touch: The case of touch from a stranger or same sex person. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 7, 147–157.

  21. Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. E. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] (Online). The Cochrane Collaboration. www.handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed September 2018.

  22. Higgins, J. P., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1539–1558.

  23. Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, 557.

  24. Hua, Q. P., Zeng, X. Z., Liu, J. Y., Wang, J. Y., Guo, J. Y., & Luo, F. (2008). Dynamic changes in brain activations and functional connectivity during affectively different tactile stimuli. Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, 28, 57–70.

  25. Huisman, G., Frederiks, A. D., van Erp, J. B. F., & Heylen, D. K. J. (2016). Simulating affective touch: Using a vibrotactile array to generate pleasant stroking sensations. In F. Bello, H. Kajimoto, & Y. Visell (Eds.), Haptics: Perception, devices, control, and applications. Cham: Springer.

  26. Iggo, A. (1960). Cutaneous mechanoreceptors with afferent C fibres. Journal of Physiology, 152, 337–353.

  27. Iggo, A., & Kornhuber, H. (1977). A quantitative study of C-mechanoreceptors in hairy skin of the cat. Journal of Physiology, 271, 549–565.

  28. Israel, H., & Richter, R. R. (2011). A guide to understanding meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 41, 496–504.

  29. Jönsson, E. H., Backlund Wasling, H., Wagnbeck, V., Dimitriadis, M., Georgiadis, J. R., Olausson, H., & Croy, I. (2015). Unmyelinated tactile cutaneous nerves signal erotic sensations. Journal of Sexual Medecine, 12, 1338–1345.

  30. Jönsson, E. H., Bendas, J., Weidner, K., Wessberg, J., Olausson, H., Wasling, H. B., & Croy, I. (2017). The relation between human hair follicle density and touch perception. Scientific Reports, 7, 2499.

  31. Kass-Iliyya, L., Leung, M., Marshall, A., Trotter, P., Kobylecki, C., Walker, S., et al. (2016). The perception of affective touch in Parkinson’s disease and its relation to small fibre neuropathy. European Journal of Neuroscience, 45, 232–237.

  32. Liljencrantz, J., Björnsdotter, M., Morrison, I., Bergstrand, S., Ceko, M., Seminowicz, D. A., … Olausson, H. (2013). Altered C-tactile processing in human dynamic tactile allodynia. Pain, 154, 227–234.

  33. Liljencrantz, J., Marshall, A., Ackerley, R., & Olausson, H. (2014). Discriminative and affective touch in human experimental tactile allodynia. Neuroscience Letters, 563, 75–79.

  34. Löken, L. S., Evert, M., & Wessberg, J. (2011). Pleasantness of touch in human glabrous and hairy skin: Order effects on affective ratings. Brain Research, 1417, 9–15.

  35. Löken, L. S., Wessberg, J., Morrison, I., McGlone, F., & Olausson, H. (2009). Coding of pleasant touch by unmyelinated afferents in humans. Nature Neuroscience, 12, 547–548.

  36. López-López, J. A., Page, M. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Higgins, J. P. (2018). Dealing with effect size multiplicity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Research Synthesis Methods, 9, 336–351.

  37. Luong, A., Bendas, J., Etzi, R., Olausson, H., & Croy, I. (2017). The individual preferred velocity of stroking touch as a stable measurement. Physiology & Behavior, 177, 129–134.

  38. McGlone, F., Olausson, H., Boyle, J. A., 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. European Journal of Neuroscience, 35, 1782–1788.

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

  40. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6, e1000097.

  41. Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7, 105.

  42. Morrison, I. (2012). CT afferents. Current Biology, 22, 77–78.

  43. Morrison, I., Björnsdotter, M., & Olausson, H. (2011). Vicarious responses to social touch in posterior insular cortex are tuned to pleasant caressing speeds. Jouranl of Neuroscience, 31, 9554–9562.

  44. Morrison, I., Loken, L. S., & Olausson, H. (2010). The skin as a social organ. Experimental Brain Research, 204, 305–314.

  45. Nordin, M. (1990). Low-threshold mechanoreceptive and nociceptive units with unmyelinated (C) fibres in the human supraorbital nerve. Journal of Physiology, 426, 229.

  46. Ohnhaus, E. E., & Adler, R. (1975). Methodological problems in the measurement of pain: a comparison between the verbal rating scale and the visual analogue scale. Pain, 1, 379–384.

  47. Olausson, H. W., Cole, J., Vallbo, Å., McGlone, F., Elam, M., Krämer, H. H., … Bushnell, M. C. (2008). Unmyelinated tactile afferents have opposite effects on insular and somatosensory cortical processing. Neuroscience Letters, 436, 128–132.

  48. Olausson, H., Lamarre, Y., Backlund, H., Morin, C., Wallin, B., Starck, G., … Vallbo, Å. (2002). Unmyelinated tactile afferents signal touch and project to insular cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 900–904.

  49. Olausson, H., Wessberg, J., McGlone, F., & Vallbo, Å. (2010). The neurophysiology of unmyelinated tactile afferents. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 185–191.

  50. Pawling, R., Cannon, P. R., McGlone, F. P., & Walker, S. C. (2017). C-tactile afferent stimulating touch carries a positive affective value. PLoS ONE, 12, e0173457.

  51. Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., & Rushton, L. (2006). Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA, 295, 676–680.

  52. Pigg, M., Baad-Hansen, L., Svensson, P., Drangsholt, M., & List, T. (2010). Reliability of intraoral quantitative sensory testing (QST). Pain, 148, 220–226.

  53. Poort, L. J., van Neck, J. W., & van der Wal, K. G. (2009). Sensory testing of inferior alveolar nerve injuries: A review of methods used in prospective studies. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 67, 292–300.

  54. Price, D. D., McGrath, P. A., Rafii, A., & Buckingham, B. (1983). The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain, 17, 45–56.

  55. Rolke, R., Magerl, W., Campbell, K. A., Schalber, C., Caspari, S., Birklein, F., & Treede, R. D. (2006). Quantitative sensory testing: A comprehensive protocol for clinical trials. European Journal of Pain, 10, 77.

  56. Sailer, U., Triscoli, C., Haggblad, G., Hamilton, P., Olausson, H., & Croy, I. (2016). Temporal dynamics of brain activation during 40 min of pleasant touch. NeuroImage, 139, 360–367.

  57. Sedgwick, P. (2013). Meta-analyses: heterogeneity and subgroup analysis. British Medical Journal, 346, f4040.

  58. Svensson, P., Baad-Hansen, L., Pigg, M., List, T., Eliav, E., Ettlin, D., … Jääskeläinen, S. (2011). Guidelines and recommendations for assessment of somatosensory function in oro-facial pain conditions—A taskforce report. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 38, 366–394.

  59. Taneja, P., Olausson, H., Trulsson, M., Vase, L., Svensson, P., & Baad-Hansen, L. (2019). Assessment of experimental orofacial pain, pleasantness and unpleasantness via standardised psychophysical testing. European Journal of Pain, 23, 1297–1308.

  60. Triscoli, C., Ackerley, R., & Sailer, U. (2014). Touch satiety: Differential effects of stroking velocity on liking and wanting touch over repetitions. PLoS ONE, 9(11), e113425.

  61. Triscoli, C., Olausson, H., Sailer, U., Ignell, H., & Croy, I. (2013). CT-optimized skin stroking delivered by hand or robot is comparable. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 208. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00208.

  62. Trotter, P. D., McGlone, F., McKie, S., McFarquhar, M., Elliott, R., Walker, S. C., … Foxe, J. (2016). Effects of acute tryptophan depletion on central processing of CT-targeted and discriminatory touch in humans. European Journal of Neuroscience, 44, 2072–2083.

  63. Tsalamlal, M. Y., Ouarti, N., Martin, J.-C. & Ammi, M. (2013). EmotionAir: Perception of emotions from air jet based tactile stimulation. In 2013 Humaine association conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction (ACII) (pp. 215–220). IEEE.

  64. Vallbo, Å., Olausson, H., & Wessberg, J. (1999). Unmyelinated afferents constitute a second system coding tactile stimuli of the human hairy skin. Journal of Neurophysiology, 81, 2753–2763.

  65. Vallbo, A. B., Olausson, H. K., Wessberg, J., & Norrsell, U. (1993). A system of unmyelinated afferents for innocuous mechanoreception in the human skin. Brain Research, 628, 301–304.

  66. Voos, A. C., Pelphrey, K. A., & Kaiser, M. D. (2013). Autistic traits are associated with diminished neural response to affective touch. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8, 378–386.

  67. Walker, S. C., Trotter, P. D., Woods, A., & McGlone, F. (2017). Vicarious ratings of social touch reflect the anatomical distribution & velocity tuning of C-tactile afferents: A hedonic homunculus? Behavioural Brain Research, 320, 91–96.

  68. Wewers, M. E., & Lowe, N. K. (1990). A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Research in Nursing & Health, 13, 227–236.

  69. Williamson, A., & Hoggart, B. (2005). Pain: A review of three commonly used pain rating scales. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 14, 798–804.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Pankaj Taneja.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors state that there is no conflict of interest in connection with this study.

Ethical standards

This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis and does not require ethical approval.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.



See Table 4

Table 4 14 item quality assessment checklist

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taneja, P., Olausson, H., Trulsson, M. et al. Defining pleasant touch stimuli: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Research (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01253-8

Download citation