Subjective rating of ticklishness and pleasure of touch after video priming
Description
The dataset contains information of how different people rate touch after they recieved either pleasant or unpleasant video priming. Columns A defines the type of priming the participant received. Columns B and C describe age and gender of the participant. Columns E to M present the participant's rating of the emotional response to the video they whatched. Column N describe their attitude to touch measured with TEAQ-37 Rus. Columns O to Z present averaged and normalized ratings of received touch with four different forces (stated in the headings).
Files
Steps to reproduce
The participants were divided randomly into two groups. Each group had to watch a short video before the stimulation. Group 1 watched a video intended to provoke disgust. The video contained clips of different parasites, such as mites, bed bugs, lice, tsetse flies and roaches. The video started with a priming text on how touch helps to notice skin parasites. Group 2 was introduced to a video intended to provoke tenderness. The video contained clips of people receiving massage, children touching their mothers’ faces and a baby fondling a kitten. The video started with a priming text on hedonic properties of touch-based communication in humans. Touch stimulation was delivered with a robotic tactile stimulation system (RTS - Dancer Design, UK). Each sequence consisted of 16 pseudorandomized stimuli with 4 different forces: <0.1 N, 0.1 N, 0.7 N, 1.6 N, so each type of stimuli was delivered four times. The lightest touch was delivered with an artisan brush made of artificial peacock feather. Other three types of touch were delivered with a brush made from artificial mongoose fur. Both brushes had similar length (14 cm) and width (4 cm). The velocity of stimulation was 5.0 cm/s for all stimuli. The stimulation setup included a response block, consisting of a handheld slider response device and a common computer display. After each stimulus, a participant was presented with a visual analogue scale (VAS) synchronized with the slider. Each response block included three questions: “Please rate, how pleasant this touch was” rated 0 — very unpleasant, 5 — neutral, 10 — very pleasant; “Please rate, how ticklish this touch was” rated 0 — not ticklish at all, 10 — extremely ticklish; “Please rate your condition after the touch” rated 0 — relaxed and calm, 10 — aroused, agitated. After the stimulation each participant had to complete a short survey with their age, gender, their subjective rating of the video, and TEAQ-37 Rus (Trotter, Belovol, et al., 2018) — a Russian version of Touch Experiences and Attitudes Questionnaire (Trotter, McGlone, et al., 2018), a self-report form on attitude towards different experiences that include being touched by others or by oneself. Subjective rating of the video included nine scales: Disgust, Joy, Sorrow, Anger, Fear, Anxiety, Surprise, Happiness, and Disdain. Each emotion was measured with a 9-point Likert scale ranging from “I don’t feel it all” to “I feel it very intensively”.
Institutions
- Gosudarstvennyj institut russkogo azyka imeni A S Puskina