4.5 Article

Feeling Touched: Empathy Is Associated With Performance in a Tactile Acuity Task

期刊

FRONTIERS IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.593425

关键词

empathy; tactile perception; two-point discrimination threshold; primary somatosensory cortex; touch (haptic; cutaneous; tactile; kinesthesia)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The concept of empathy describes our capacity to understand the emotions and intentions of others and to relate to our conspecifics. Recent studies in neuroscience suggest a role of the somatosensory cortices for empathy, with findings indicating a positive association between trait empathy and tactile acuity performance.
The concept of empathy describes our capacity to understand the emotions and intentions of others and to relate to our conspecifics. Numerous studies investigated empathy as a state as well as a stable personality trait. For example, recent studies in neuroscience suggest, among other brain areas such as the insula or the ACC, a role of the somatosensory cortices for empathy (e.g., when observing someone else being touched). Since the classic understanding of the primary somatosensory cortex is to represent touch on the body surface, we here aimed to test whether tactile performance is linked to the personality trait empathy. To test this, we examined the tactile acuity of 95 healthy participants (mean age 31 years) by using a two-point discrimination threshold task at the index fingers. Trait empathy was assessed by employing the interpersonal reactivity index (IRI), which measures self-reported empathy with four scales (empathic concern, perspective taking, fantasy, and personal distress). Results of regression analyses suggested the subscale empathic concern to be positively associated with performance in the tactile acuity task. We discuss this finding in the light of recent studies on empathy and consider possible implications of tactile training to enhance empathy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据