Cited by 140Tactile and Sensory InteractionsPain Management and Placebo EffectPain Mechanisms and Treatments

Pleasant human touch is represented in pregenual anterior cingulate cortex

Lindgren, Lenita, Westling, Göran, Brulin, Christine, Lehtipalo, Stefan, Andersson, Micael, Nyberg, Lars·2012·NeuroImage

Abstract

Touch massage (TM) is a form of pleasant touch stimulation used as treatment in clinical settings and found to improve well-being and decrease anxiety, stress, and pain. Emotional responses reported during and after TM have been studied, but the underlying mechanisms are still largely unexplored. In this study, we used functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) to test the hypothesis that the combination of human touch (i.e. skin-to-skin contact) with movement is eliciting a specific response in brain areas coding for pleasant sensations. The design included four different touch conditions; human touch with or without movement and rubber glove with or without movement. Force (2.5 N) and velocity (1.5 cm/s) were held constant across conditions. The pleasantness of the four different touch stimulations was rated on a visual analog scale (VAS-scale) and human touch was rated as most pleasant, particularly in combination with movement. The fMRI results revealed that TM stimulation most strongly activated the pregenual anterior cingulate cortex (pgACC). These results are consistent with findings showing pgACC activation during various rewarding pleasant stimulations. This area is also known to be activated by both opioid analgesia and placebo. Together with these prior results, our finding furthers the understanding of the basis for positive TM treatment effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.013

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lindgren, L., Westling, G., Brulin, C., Lehtipalo, S., Andersson, M., & Nyberg, L.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital of Umeå (SE)
  • Umeå University (SE)
Corresponding author
Lindgren, Lenita
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-02
Volume
59
Issue
4
Pages
3427-3432
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2069561524
Cited by
140
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research
  • Umeå University, Sweden
  • Swedish Research Council
  • The Strategic Research Program in Neuroscience at Umeå University and Karoliska Institutet
  • Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
human touch, pregenual anterior cingulate cortex, skin-to-skin contact, reward processing, placebo analgesia, opioid analgesia, analgesia, well-being
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Brain Mapping, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Touch Perception, Young Adult, Pleasure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review