Cognitive and emotional regulation processes of spontaneous facial self-touch are activated in the first milliseconds of touch: Replication of previous EEG findings and further insights

Abstract

Spontaneously touching one’s own face (sFST) is an everyday behavior that occurs in people of all ages, worldwide. It is—as opposed to actively touching the own face—performed without directing one’s attention to the action, and it serves neither instrumental (scratching, nose picking) nor communicative purposes. These sFST have been discussed in the context of self-regulation, emotional homeostasis, working memory processes, and attention focus. Even though self-touch research dates back decades, neuroimaging studies of this spontaneous behavior are basically nonexistent. To date, there is only one electroencephalography study that analyzed spectral power changes before and after sFST in 14 participants. The present study replicates the previous study on a larger sample. Sixty participants completed a delayed memory task of complex haptic relief stimuli while distracting sounds were played. During the retention interval 44 of the participants exhibited spontaneous face touch. Spectral power analyses corroborated the results of the replicated study. Decreased power shortly before sFST and increased power right after sFST indicated an involvement of regulation of attentional, emotional, and working memory processes. Additional analyses of spectral power changes during the skin contact phase of sFST revealed that significant neurophysiological changes do not occur while skin contact is in progress but at the beginning of sFST (movement toward face and initial skin contact). The present findings clearly illustrate the complexity of sFST and that the specific trigger mechanisms and functions of this spontaneous behavior need to be further investigated in controlled, experimental studies.

The suppression of spontaneous face touch and resulting consequences on memory performance of high and low self-touching individuals

“…This assumption is supported by the finding that significantly more sFST occurred during the presentation of distracting sounds than in the silences between sounds 6 . Electroencephalographic study results support the hypothesis that sFST serve the regulation of cognitive processes in demanding situations such as working memory tasks 5 , 35 .…”

“…In addition to varying external situational factors, future research should also ascertain the state of the participants. Following the assumption that sFST are involved in the regulation of emotional and cognitive processes 5 , 35 , a possible explanation for the varying sFST behavior might be the individuals' current mental state. It may be that a person in a balanced state of mind has fewer regulatory needs and therefore exhibits less sFST.…”

“…Based on these studies, it cannot be concluded whether the experimental situation mainly influenced the sFST behavior or whether the elevated sFST behavior may be explained by stable personality traits such as shyness or emotionality. A higher sFST frequency was also observed during the accomplishment of cognitive tasks requiring the focusing of attention 5 , 35 . Barroso and colleagues further found that higher numbers of sFST were associated with better performances in a memory task and an attentional task 41 .…”

“…It is remarkable how many research groups are currently investigating possibilities to suppress sFST without addressing possible consequences of this suppression, although the underlying psychological mechanisms of sFST are still poorly understood 13 . Following the assumption that sFST serve the regulation of attentional and memory processes 5 , 6 , 35 , 41 , it is important to consider whether suppressing this inherent regulatory mechanism also affects behavioral outcomes. Suppressing this spontaneous behavior may have negative consequences on attention focus or memory performance.…”

Bifocal emotion regulation through acupoint tapping in fear of flying

“…Applying the concept of fear structures to the present work, we argue that fear inducing stimuli are present at the same time as the perception of (self-)touch which is known to have emotion regulatory properties from infancy ( Bai et al, 2016 , Duhn, 2010 , Feldman et al, 2010 ) into adulthood ( Cascio et al, 2019 , Grunwald et al, 2014 , Mueller et al, 2019 , Pawling et al, 2017 , Spille et al, 2022 ). Furthermore, C-afferent touch is known to relay to the posterior insula ( Gordon et al, 2013 , Morrison et al, 2011 , Olausson et al, 2008 , Pawling et al, 2017 ), a pattern we also see during tapping in the present study.…”