Touch is important for many aspects of our daily activities. One of the most important tactile characteristics is its perceived intensity. However, quantifying the intensity of perceived tactile stimulation beyond subjective self-reports remains challenging. Here, we show that pupil responses can objectively index the intensity of tactile stimulation in the absence of overt participant responses. In Experiment 1 (n=32), we stimulated three reportedly differentially sensitive body locations (finger, forearm, calf) with a single tap of a tactor while tracking pupil responses. Tactile stimulation resulted in greater pupil dilation than a baseline without stimulation. Furthermore, pupils dilated more for the more sensitive location (finger) than for the less sensitive locations (forearm, calf). In Experiment 2 (n=20) we extended these findings by manipulating the intensity of the stimulation with three different intensities, here a short vibration, always at the little finger. Again, pupils dilated more when being stimulated at higher intensities as compared to lower intensities. In summary, pupils dilated more for more sensitive parts of the body at constant stimulation intensity and for more intense stimulation at constant location. Taken together, the results show that the intensity of perceived tactile stimulation can be objectively measured with pupil responses – and that such responses are a versatile marker for touch research. Our findings may pave the way for previously impossible objective tests of tactile sensitivity, for example in minimally conscious state patients.

Interoception is mainly related to morpho-functional characteristics of the insula, which shows hypnotizability-related differences in grey matter volume. Interoceptive accuracy (IA, measured by the heartbeat counting task and by HEP, heartbeat evoked cortical potential) is lower in high (highs) than in low hypnotizables (lows). The aim of the present study was to investigate IA in highs, lows, and medium hypnotizables (mediums), who represent most of the population (according to the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (SHSS), Form A), during a session including a simple relaxation (Part 1) and three trials of consecutive open eyes, closed eyes, heartbeat counting and post-counting conditions (Part 2). ECG and EEG were recorded in 14 highs, 14 mediums and 18 lows. HEP were extracted throughout the entire session and IA index was obtained for the heartbeat counting task. In Part 1, significant hypnotizability-related differences were observed in the right central region in both early and late HEP components, with lows showing positive and highs/mediums negative HEP amplitudes. In Part 2, the same group differences were limited to the early HEP component. Moreover, in the left frontal regions, only mediums modified their HEP during the counting task with respect to the open/closed eyes conditions, whereas highs displayed HEP differences between counting and post-counting rest. In conclusion, highs and mediums seem to be more similar than mediums and lows regarding HEP, despite the absence of differences in the counting task. Nonetheless, a negative correlation between SHSS scores and HEP amplitudes was observed in the regions showing group differences.

Electronic gambling machines include a suite of design characteristics that may contribute to gambling related harms and require more careful attention of regulators and policymakers. One strategy that has contributed to these concerns is the presentation of “losses disguised as wins” (LDWs), a type of salient losing outcome in which a gambling payout is less than the amount wagered (i.e., a net loss), but is nonetheless accompanied by the celebratory audio-visual stimuli that typically accompanies a genuine win. These events could thereby be mistaken for gains, or otherwise act as a reward signal, reinforcing persistent gambling, despite being a loss. This study aimed to determine whether LDWs evoke a reward positivity component in a task modelled on slot-machine gambling. A prominent account of the reward positivity event-related potential suggests that it is evoked during the positive appraisal of task related feedback, relative to neutral or negative events, or that it is evoked by neural systems that implement the computation of a positive reward prediction error. We recruited 32 individuals from university recruitment pools and asked them to engage in a simple gambling task designed to mimic key features of a slot machine design. The reward positivity was identified using temporospatial principal components analysis. Results indicated a more positive reward positivity following LDWs relative to clear losses, consistent with the theory that LDWs contribute to positive reinforcement of continued gambling, despite being net losses.Now peer-reviewed, updated and published in psychophysiology. Cite as: Myles, D., Carter, A., Yücel, M., & Bode, S. (2024). Losses disguised as wins evoke the reward positivity event-related potential in a simulated machine gambling task. Psychophysiology, 00, e14541. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14541

Our sensory system is able to build a unified perception of the world, which although rich, is limited and inaccurate. Sometimes, features from different objects are erroneously combined. At the neural level, the role of the parietal cortex in feature integration is well-known (Humphreys, 2016; Shafritz et al., 2002). However, the brain dynamics underlying correct and incorrect feature integration are less clear. To explore the temporal dynamics of feature integration, we studied the modulation of different frequency bands in trials in which feature integration was correct or incorrect. Participants responded to the color of a shape target, surrounded by distractors. A calibration procedure ensured that accuracy was around 70% in each participant. To explore the role of expectancy in feature integration, we introduced an unexpected feature to the target in the last blocks of trials. Results demonstrated the contribution of several frequency bands to feature integration both pre- and post-stimulus. During the pre-stimulus period, alpha power was higher for illusions compared to hits. After stimulus onset, alpha, beta, and gamma-band power was reduced for hits compared to illusions. Moreover, gamma power was overall larger during the experiment for participants who were aware of the unexpected target presented during the last blocks of trials (as compared to unaware participants). These results demonstrate that feature integration is a complex process that can go wrong at different stages of information processing and is influenced by top-down expectancies.