Capturing the imagination: mapping imagery ability across our multidimensional sense of touch

Tactile imagery has attracted growing fundamental and clinical interest. Previous studies often investigated neural and functional similarities between imagined and actual touch. Several functional aspects of touch, such as differences between active and passive touch, between different haptic features during active touch or sensitivity of different body parts for passive touch, have also been explored in tactile imagery. Furthermore, considerable individual differences in the ability to engage in tactile imagery have been observed. However, several important aspects, involving different imagery components and a wide variety of touch qualities remain to be explored within a single comprehensive study. The current study therefore aims to provide a wide-ranging assessment of tactile imagery in terms of imagery processing components (vividness, maintenance, transformation), type of touch (active versus passive) and touch qualities (object properties for active touch, different tactile sensations across body sites for passive touch). We developed a comprehensive questionnaire containing 72 items to assess tactile imagery ability. 136 healthy participants were asked to imagine different touch types and rate imagery vividness and their ability to maintain and transform each sensation on 5-point Likert-scales. Active touch varied by object (plastic bottle, modeling clay, sponge) and property (temperature, weight, texture, resistance). Passive touch varied by body site (lip, shin, sole of the foot, lower back) and sensation (stroking, vibration, pinching). Overall, participants were able to perform tactile imagery: the vast majority reported at least some imagery across touch types. Individual variability was substantial: scores bridged both ends of the scale. Active tactile imagery differed significantly between objects, depending on tactile property. Object-property pairs with particularly strong imagery were bottle-temperature, bottle-weight and sponge-texture, whereas bottle-resistance elicited weaker imagery, as did temperature and weight for both sponge and clay. Passive tactile imagery was significantly stronger for body sites with higher receptor density (i.e. lip and foot). Imagery of stroking was significantly weaker than vibration and pinching. Active and passive imagery showed a strong, positive correlation, though some participants had relatively strong active imagery, but weaker passive imagery, or vice versa. Our findings confirm that tactile imagery ability varies across individuals and touch types, underlining the importance of a comprehensive imagery ability assessment tool specific to the tactile domain.