Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42045528›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Psychophysiological responses to tactile contact with hairy versus hairless plant leaves.

Xudong Wang, Jie Jia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Xudong Wang *School of Human Settlements, North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Zhengzhou, 450046, China. wangxudong@ncwu.edu.cn.
Jie Jia *School of Human Settlements, North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Zhengzhou, 450046, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tactile contact with ornamental plants promotes human health and healing. However, the impact of touching plant leaves on emotional and physiological responses requires further investigation. This study examined how leaf surface texture, hairy versus hairless, influences human psychophysiological responses in 30 Chinese female participants, using these two leaf types as stimuli. Subjective perception was measured using the Semantic Differential (SD) method, and physiological responses were assessed through electroencephalogram (EEG), heart rate variability (HRV), and electrodermal activity (EDA). Results showed that hairless leaves significantly increased α wave values in the C4 channel, indicating more pleasant and relaxed emotional responses, whereas hairy leaves significantly increased γ wave values, suggesting enhanced attention and exploration desire. Hairy leaves significantly decreased HRV indicators (pNN50, pNN20) compared with hairless leaves, indicating reduced parasympathetic activity and heightened emotional arousal; conversely, touching hairless leaves was associated with stronger parasympathetic activity and more relaxed emotional states. Additionally, EDA was significantly elevated when touching hairy leaves, indicating stronger emotional arousal. Therefore, hairless leaves demonstrate better performance in tactile comfort and emotional regulation. These findings provide theoretical and practical guidance for tactile design of plant landscapes and plant selection in sensory gardens for the blind.

Indexed as

Plant LeavesTouchTouch PerceptionAdultElectroencephalographyEmotionsFemaleHeart RateHumansYoung AdultElectroencephalogramHeart rate variabilityLeaf surface textureOrnamental plantsSensory gardenTactile perception

Identifiers

PMID42045528
PMCPMC13287664

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.