Back to all research

Thinking about touch facilitates tactile but not auditory processing

DOI: 10.1007/s00221-012-3020-0
Anema, H. A., de Haan, A. M., Gebuis, T., & Dijkerman, H. C. (2012). Thinking about touch facilitates tactile but not auditory processing. Experimental Brain Research, 218(3), 373–380. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3020-0

Abstract

Mental imagery is considered to be important for normal conscious experience. It is most frequently investigated in the visual, auditory and motor domain (imagination of movement), while the studies on tactile imagery (imagination of touch) are scarce. The current study investigated the effect of tactile and auditory imagery on the left/right discriminations of tactile and auditory stimuli. In line with our hypothesis, we observed that after tactile imagery, tactile stimuli were responded to faster as compared to auditory stimuli and vice versa. On average, tactile stimuli were responded to faster as compared to auditory stimuli, and stimuli in the imagery condition were on average responded to slower as compared to baseline performance (left/right discrimination without imagery assignment). The former is probably due to the spatial and somatotopic proximity of the fingers receiving the taps and the thumbs performing the response (button press), the latter to a dual task cost. Together, these results provide the first evidence of a behavioural effect of a tactile imagery assignment on the perception of real tactile stimuli.

Authors

  • Helen A. Anema1
  • Alyanne M. de Haan1
  • Titia Gebuis1
  • H. Chris Dijkerman1

Overview/Introduction

Mental imagery plays a crucial role in our everyday conscious experiences, often explored in visual, auditory, and motor domains. However, the study of tactile imagery, or the imagination of touch, remains limited. This research aimed to investigate how imagining touch and sound affects our ability to distinguish between left and right tactile and auditory stimuli. The study found that imagining touch can enhance the processing of real tactile stimuli, while imagining sound can do the same for auditory stimuli.

Methodology

  • Participants: The study involved participants who were approved by an ethical board and conducted in line with the Declaration of Helsinki.
  • Setup: Participants sat at a table with their hands placed under a response device, allowing them to press buttons with their thumbs.
  • Stimuli: Pictures that evoked both tactile and auditory sensations were used to guide the imagery process.
  • Procedure: The study consisted of three parts:
1. Baseline Measurement: Participants viewed images without any imagery instructions and responded to tactile and auditory stimuli.
2. Imagery Practice: Participants practiced generating vivid tactile or auditory images based on the pictures.
3. Imagery Experiment: Participants imagined tactile or auditory sensations and then responded to real tactile or auditory stimuli.

Key Findings

  • Faster Responses: Participants responded faster to tactile stimuli after imagining touch and to auditory stimuli after imagining sound.
  • Overall Speed: Tactile stimuli were generally responded to faster than auditory stimuli.
  • Imagery Slows Down Responses: Responses in the imagery condition were slower compared to the baseline, likely due to the dual task of imagery and discrimination.

Implications

  • Shared Neural Pathways: The study provides evidence that imagery and perception might share common neural pathways, as imagining a sensation can influence the perception of real stimuli.
  • Practical Applications: This finding could have practical applications in fields like rehabilitation, where tactile imagery might be used to enhance sensory processing or recovery.

Limitations

  • Imagery Complexity: Participants might have used both visual and kinaesthetic imagery, making it challenging to isolate the effect of purely tactile imagery.
  • Task Complexity: The dual task nature of the experiment (imagery and discrimination) may have influenced the results, highlighting the need for further research to isolate these effects.
In summary, this study sheds light on the power of mental imagery, particularly tactile imagery, in influencing how we perceive real-world stimuli, opening up new avenues for research and application in sensory processing and rehabilitation.