Panagiotopoulou · PloS one 2018 · experimental crossover study · n=70

Dissociable sources of erogeneity in social touch: Imagining and perceiving C-Tactile optimal touch in erogenous zones.

Cited 20 times in the scientific literature.

Level 2 - randomized trial

Within-subject experimental laboratory study with randomized conditions (by design analogy, not clinical CEBM).

PubMed 30142185 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203039 · record verified 2026-08-27

What was done

Researchers conducted two laboratory experiments to test whether touch erogeneity depends on body site (erogenous vs. non-erogenous), touch modality (C-Tactile optimal velocity of 3 cm/s vs. CT-suboptimal 18 cm/s), or their interaction. In Experiment 1, 19 romantic couples (38 participants, 20 females and 18 males, mean age 32.34 years) were assigned giver and receiver roles; givers applied 3 cm/s or 18 cm/s touch to the receiver's neck (erogenous) or forehead (non-erogenous), and both rated pleasantness and sexual arousal. In Experiment 2, 32 healthy females (mean age 25.16 years) imagined CT-optimal vs. suboptimal touch (stroking vs. patting; 3 cm/s vs. 18 cm/s) across different erogenous and non-erogenous zones and rated imagined pleasantness.

What was found

The abstract reports no exact numerical values, effect sizes, or test statistics. Directionally, both erogenous body site and CT-optimal velocity increased pleasant and erotic sensations independently, with no significant interaction between body location and touch modality. Mere imagination of touch stimulated pleasantness without physical tactile input. In addition, touch experienced as sexually arousing by the receiver was rated as more sexually arousing by the giver.

Why it matters

This study suggests that tactile stimulation modality and anatomical location contribute to sexual and pleasant sensations via distinct, dissociable mechanisms. It also demonstrates that top-down cognitive expectations alone can generate pleasant sensations from imagined touch.

Limits

The total sample size was modest (19 couples in Experiment 1 and 32 females in Experiment 2), and Experiment 2 was restricted exclusively to female participants. All outcomes relied entirely on subjective self-report ratings rather than objective physiological measures of arousal, and no numerical statistics were provided in the abstract.

Cited by