Back

The activation of CT fibers or affective touch does not affect pain sensitization by secondary hyperalgesia

da-Silva, M.; Ribeiro-Carreira, A.; Oliveira, M.; Sampaio, A.; Coutinho, J.; Gonzalez-Villar, A. J.

2026-01-29 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.01.27.701964 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Interpersonal affective touch, that preferentially engages C-tactile (CT) afferents, has been shown to produce analgesic effects, yet its role in pain sensitization remains poorly understood. This study explores whether touch delivered at CT-optimal parameters--either artificial or interpersonal--modulates secondary hyperalgesia (SH) induced by high-frequency stimulation (HFS). Two experimental studies were conducted. In Study 1, 46 participants underwent SH induction during two conditions: robot stroking at CT-optimal velocities and vibrotactile stimulation. In Study 2, 64 participants (32 couples) experienced SH in two separate sessions: alone or accompanied by their partner delivering affective touch. Pain reports, electroencephalographic activity (N-P complex and time-frequency activity), electrocardiographic (ECG) and electrodermal activity data (EDA) were collected. HFS successfully established SH in both studies; however, no significant differences were found in the SH area between CT-stimulation and control conditions. In Study 2, partner-delivered affective touch significantly reduced reported acute pain during HFS compared to the alone condition, whereas no such effect was observed in Study 1 (robotic vs. vibrotactile). At the neural level, no condition effects were observed in the N-P complex, EEG time-frequency data and ECG indexes in either study. Tonic EDA after HFS was higher when participants received stroking from their romantic partner compared to being alone. No sex differences were observed. Overall, while affective touch from a romantic partner may reduce acute pain during nociceptive stimulation -an effect not observed with robotic CT-stimulation- neither robotic nor interpersonal affective touch appeared to modulate the development of secondary hyperalgesia.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Pain
70 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.9%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 2%
14.6%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 13%
14.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
The Journal of Pain
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.6%
5
Brain Stimulation
112 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
6
Experimental Brain Research
46 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
7
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
8
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.7%
9
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.5%
10
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 47%
1.4%
11
Neuroscience
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
12
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.2%
13
Brain Research
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
14
Brain Sciences
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
15
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.9%
16
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
17
Journal of Neurotrauma
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
18
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 34%
0.7%
19
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
20
Behavioural Brain Research
70 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
21
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%
22
The Journal of Headache and Pain
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.5%
23
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.5%