This study assesses C-tactile responses in patients with mild cognitive impairment, suggesting altered affective touch perception in Alzheimer's disease.
Background C-tactile (CT) afferents preferentially activate in response to slow caress-like touch, evoking a diffuse pleasant sensation and promoting autonomic regulation. According to Braak's classic model, the neurodegenerative process in Alzheimer's disease (AD) only affects somatosensory cortices in advanced disease stages; however, the processing of complex sensory stimuli, such as CT-mediated Affective Touch, may be impacted in earlier phases. Objective The present study aimed to assess the behavioral and psychophysiological response to CT-targeted touch in a group of biomarker-tested patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD, compared to a group of age, sex, and education matched controls. Methods The preference for CT-optimal stimulations (3 cm/s) over non-CT-optimal stimulations (30 cm/s), in terms of perceived pleasantness, was first assessed in both groups. The behavioral (i.e., perceived pleasantness) and psychophysiological (i.e., heart rate and heart rate variability) responses to 16 min of continuous CT-targeted stimulations were then evaluated. All participants also underwent quantitative sensory testing for the screening of tactile sensitivity, tactile acuity, nociception, and interoception. Results Despite both groups rating CT-optimal stimulations as more pleasant than non-CT-optimal ones, MCI patients specifically exhibited an altered response to prolonged CT-targeted stimulations, characterized by a progressive reduction of their perceived pleasantness and by an unvaried Heart Rate Variability. No group-differences emerged in other somatosensory-related functions. Conclusions A specific multi-level alteration of the pleasant and soothing features of CT-optimal touch was identified as a prodromal marker of AD, providing the first indications of how the CT system degrades in conditions of pathological aging.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zanini et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: