Introduction
Touch is a nonverbal means of communication at the same time it is a basic necessity of emotional connection and therefore necessary for the wellbeing and social interaction of humans (Gallace and Spence, 2010). The sense of touch is integral to the human experience, meaning it is vital and prone to multiple interpretations (Stevens et al., 2024). It is not just a choice; rather, it is an innate human need. Touch activates a complex network of nerves that support various physiological functions, such as improved sleep, immune system stimulation, and digestion (Nuszbaum et al., 2014; Kulkarni et al., 2010). The human body is naturally made to respond to touch, largely via the activation of mechanoreceptors in the skin, which transmit the signals via afferent nerves to the central nervous system (Olausson et al., 2002; Morrison et al., 2011; McGlone et al., 2016). This feeling of touch not only engages neuronal circuits but also activates them, like the insular cortex and the somatosensory cortex. Both are essential for understanding the social brain hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, these circuits are essential to understand social interaction and affiliative behaviors, as they highlight the evolutionary importance of touch in building social relationships (Dunbar, 1998; Rolls, 2010).
This study builds the foundation and explores the impact of touch on semantic processing as well as on cognitive functioning because absence of touch can lead to deprivation of touch, which affects poorly on social and emotional growth (Field, 2001; Cascio et al., 2019; Suvilehto et al., 2023). Children raised in institutions are at higher risk of developing an insecure attachment style due to the lack of contact (touch) with a primary caregiver (Davis et al., 2017). In pandemic, reduction in physical touch was associated with increased anxiety, depression, and stress, with notable declines in mood and heightened loneliness (Grandi and Bruni, 2024). So, touch is not only physiologically beneficial, psychologically it fosters a sense of safety, community engagement, and emotional support (Fields, 2011; Gallace and Spence, 2010). Moreover, understanding and use of touch among individuals are profoundly shaped by sociocultural practices, and deeply rooted religious ideologies (Khattak et al., 2024). Khattak et al. further explore that patriarchal society also limits the access of female adolescents to physical gatherings to fulfill their touch needs or express them openly hampering their semantic processing, which contributes to cognitive and emotional behaviors (Jablonski, 2021). Therefore, it is critical to assess how these limitations impact female adolescents' semantic processing and cognitive development in conservative societies.
Touch in semantics
Semantics is an important branch of linguistics that studies how meanings are created, interpreted, and understood within language. It looks at the meanings of words, phrases, sentences, and texts (Frawley, 2013), and has historically focused more on spoken language, exploring how the context, the syntax, and the pragmatic elements impact meaning. Fields such as lexical semantics examine word relationships, while compositional semantics examines how word meanings come together to form sentences (Lyons, 1995; Saeed, 2015). Nonetheless, the notion of semantics can encompass nonverbal means of communication including touch in addition to verbal communication (Madella et al., 2023). For instance, depending on the cultural and situational context, a handshake or an embrace can convey a variety of feelings and intentions, from friendship and support to power dynamics (Hertenstein et al., 2006; Gallace and Spence, 2010). For example, the Japanese often avoid hugging as it is perceived as too intimate, whereas Latin Americans embrace warmly, and it is a common practice of greeting there. In Western culture, a handshake is a professional gesture in the workplace; yet, in India and even in the Sindh province of Pakistan, greeting with folded hands to show respect. These nonverbal forms of communication are deeply rooted in human interaction, where the meanings conveyed by touch are as context-dependent and culturally variable as those of spoken language, illustrating that touch, much like language, plays a crucial role in conveying meaning and fostering understanding in social interactions (Burgoon et al., 2021). Conversely, cultures with frequent touch may have a more literal touch-related vocabulary, reflecting the direct and frequent nature of physical contact in daily life (Guest et al., 2011).
Moreover, theories of embodied cognition have gained significant influence, with research highlighting the centrality of sensorimotor experiences in cognitive and language processing (Wellsby and Pexman, 2014). In language processing, specifically semantics processing, the meanings of words are deeply rooted in context referencing and cultural sensory-motor practices. For instance, initial referencing of the words soft and rough is tangible and gives physical sensations but their meanings are conveyed metaphorically, as a soft voice or a rough day. This progression in language illustrates how embodied experiences (including touch) influence both abstract thinking and semantic processing (Williams and Bargh, 2008). It enables every individual to interpret the language and use it in complex ways. This process of semanticizing language plays an important and expressive role between sensory experiences and higher-order cognitive functions. In the process of thinking, abstract concepts connect with physical experiences. This connection highlights the embodied cognition. Consequently, embodied cognition facilitates the integration of language, thought, and social interactions. Given its important role, there is a dire need for empirical investigations to explore the mechanisms and implications of this in lab settings.
Cognitive functioning
In orphanages, specifically newborn babies consistently lack physical touch from caregivers (Spitz, 1945; Ainsworth, 1979; Harlow and Zimmermann, 1958). Such newborn babies experience delayed physical growth and cognitive impairments, weaker immunity, and emotional dysregulation (Fields, 2011). In the 1980s, a study was conducted in Romanian orphanages, where attachment disorders and delayed growth were observed in the children who received no or little touch and were also socially isolated (Nelson et al., 2007). This phenomenon, which is later known as failure to thrive, warns, that lack or no touch is a critical issue that reinforces various psychological and cognitive dysfunctions (Oster, 1978; Valentijn et al., 2005).
The experience of limited or no touch affects mental health, which further leads to depression and anxiety (Croy et al., 2016). Its effects show poor academic performance and social engagement specifically in young individuals. The development of cognitive deficiencies has far-reaching societal implications, and potentially impacts the human life cycle, i.e., from infancy to old age. A disrupted social life, linked to loneliness, can lead to negative health issues such as heart disease, strokes, anxiety, depression, and cognitive conditions like dementia. Touch helps reduce such health issues. When a body is touched, deep inside the brain, the hypothalamus produces oxytocin, a hormone related to bonding and relaxation (Cascio et al., 2019). Oxytocin plays an important role in the childbirth process. Gaining a deeper understanding of oxytocin helps individuals take better care of their health and better insights into body functions (Uvnas-Moberg, 1998).
Cognitive functions, such as attention, memory, and problem-solving are interconnected with sensory inputs (Nadeau, 2020; Pulvermüller, 2005; Diamond, 2013). Research shows that touch experience strengthens the memory retrieval and formation processes by establishing connections between physical sensations and abstract concepts (Hargreaves et al., 2015). Touch experience illustrates touch semantics that shape our language comprehension and maintain cognitive performance, specifically, in decision-making (Engelen et al., 2011).
Impacts and insights in the context of Pakistan
In the Pakistani patriarchal society, females are restricted from participating in social activities, including healthy physical activities in institutional settings (Laar et al., 2019; Ali et al., 2011). These restrictions impact the female adolescents' perceptions and experiences of their daily life opinions to express them. Even they have no autonomy to express their physical and sexual needs with their life partners, forced by religio-cultural narratives. Moreover, there is a lack of institutional support for females. Their voices for their rights are silenced and systematically ignored under the exalted ideal of social or cultural modesty (Khattak et al., 2024). These social, cultural, or religious limitations (Montagu, 1971; Gallace and Spence, 2010), aggravate mental and physical health issues, specifically, touch semantics disruptions to understand and interpret their touch experiences. This complicates social communication and relationship dynamics, not understanding the issues or misinterpreting them damages social cognition (Henley and Patrick, 1977; Field, 2001). Resultantly, these issues hamper professional effectiveness and social integration, ultimately impacting social cohesion as well as economic productivity (Bloom and Grant, 2005).
A society that limits touch for its female population may experience cognitive dysfunction, evidenced by significant social issues such as domestic violence, child abuse, and honor killings. The most severe consequences of these limitations manifest in intellectual deficiencies, slow learning, and an unskilled workforce (Field, 2001). Additionally, cultural norms often serve as a barrier to touch experience, with Pakistani society being an example where strict norms governing physical contact are often shaped by religious narratives (Ali et al., 2011). As a result, the language developed for touch semantics in such societies differs from that of Western cultures, with a more limited vocabulary related to touch, further hindering the full recognition and expression of this fundamental human need. Such an example is also seen in other conservative Asian cultures too, where hugging is not common. Specifically, in South Asia at the workplace, people avoid patting on the back as a supportive gesture, though it boosts morale in Western workplace culture. In the Middle East, due to gender norms, healthcare interaction limits therapeutic touch impacting less emotional care. The culture of United Arab Emirates discourages public display of affection, having minimal linguistic expressive frameworks to discuss their emotions. Similar discouraging emotional values are seen in Japanese culture, where suicide is prevalent (Davies and Ikeno, 2011). So, this shortage of touch vocabulary hinders well-being's emotional value.
The way forward
Hence, the absence of physical contact interferes with the semantics of touch, impairing the ability to interpret and respond to tactile stimuli, which in turn hinders both social communication and cognitive development (Van Stralen et al., 2011). If these issues are not addressed in conservative societies, the aspiration to build a society grounded in critical thinking and social awareness will remain out of reach, exacerbating social inequalities and potentially contributing to an increase in incidents of harassment (Khattak et al., 2024). The need to confront this matter is important. Therefore, government entities, policymakers, academic institutions, and health organizations must pay attention to this concern. It is crucial to address the need for touch and emotional connectivity to cultivate a more unified and supportive society. Neglecting these essential needs could perpetuate cycles of disadvantage and imbalance, undermining societal welfare and stability (Maslow, 1943).
Educational institutions may address touch deprivation through a range of interventions. Incorporating structured physical activities such as sports, dance, and theater into the curriculum will provide students with essential tactile experiences, which are crucial for mitigating the adverse effects of touch deprivation (Palacios, 2024). Sports like soccer, basketball, or cricket and group dances (swing, ballet, cha-cha-cha, rumba, salsa, etc.), specifically folk dances encourage teamwork and physical interaction. Community schools in Brazil introduced samba into its curriculum (Raphael, 1990), and in the UK theater-based intervention helped children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (Beadle-Brown et al., 2018), improve their cognitive communication skills. Yoga is introduced in Indian schools, resulting in enhanced focus among students, and also decreased anxiety (Verma et al., 2014). By embedding these activities into the school environment, educational institutions can counteract touch deprivation, promote healthy development, and create a supportive, interactive learning atmosphere. The sensory stimulation derived from these activities can enhance touch semantics, enriching students' understanding and use of tactile language in everyday interactions. In this regard, educators and trainers need to be culturally aware when addressing touch deprivation. In multicultural settings, educational programs should include training on the diverse cultural norms related to touch and develop strategies that are inclusive of various cultural practices. This helps ensure that interventions and support systems are culturally sensitive and effective in meeting the needs of individuals from different backgrounds (Gallace and Spence, 2010; Anderson and Fenichel, 1989: Lopez et al., 2024; Lee and Choi, 2023).
Finally, involving parents and the broader community in supporting tactile experiences can enhance the effectiveness of these interventions beyond the school setting. Offering workshops and informational sessions for parents on how to create sensory experiences at home not only with their female adolescents but in general with their children can help address touch deprivations, especially in patriarchal societies. Additionally, establishing community partnerships to provide supplementary resources can further support these efforts. Such initiatives are essential for improving adolescents' cognitive and emotional wellbeing and ensuring that the benefits of tactile experiences are extended into their daily lives (Salthouse, 2019).
Conclusion
Deprivation of touch is not merely a minor disturbance or distraction of an individual's routine life; rather it can create a ripple of consequences that can impact individual's future goals, relationships, and overall life trajectory. In eastern society, it is significantly impacting female adolescents by limiting their ability of free decision-making of their life matters. This deprivation leaves them cognitively and emotionally vulnerable resulting in low self-esteem, which in turn hinders them from asserting their boundaries and life choices. Insufficient touch experiences reduce their confidence to express intimate needs and weakens their resilience toward societal pressures like forced marriages, domestic violence, or denial of educational rights. To break the cycle of touch deprivation, now it is essential to empower young females through culturally appropriate interventions, thereby unleashing their full potential and fostering a bright future.
Statements
Author contributions
AS: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SK: Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
Ainsworth M. S. (1979). Infant–mother attachment. Am. Psychol.34:932. 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.932
2
Ali T. S. Krantz G. Gul R. Asad N. Johansson E. Mogren I. (2011). Gender roles and their influence on life prospects for women in urban Karachi, Pakistan: a qualitative study. Glob. Health Action4:7448. 10.3402/gha.v4i0.7448
3
Anderson P. P. Fenichel E. S. (1989). Serving Culturally Diverse Families of Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities. ERIC: Washington DC.
4
Beadle-Brown J. Wilkinson D. Richardson L. Shaughnessy N. Trimingham M. Leigh J. et al . (2018). Imagining autism: feasibility of a drama-based intervention on the social, communicative and imaginative behaviour of children with autism. Autism22, 915–927. 10.1177/1362361317710797
5
Bloom M. R. Grant M. W. (2005). Strengthening Canada: The Socio-Economic Benefits of Sport Participation in Canada.Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada.
6
Burgoon J. K. Manusov V. Guerrero L. K. (2021). Nonverbal Communication. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
7
Cascio C. J. Moore D. McGlone F. (2019). Social touch and human development. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci.35, 5–11. 10.1016/j.dcn.2018.04.009
8
Croy I. Geide H. Paulus M. Weidner K. Olausson H. (2016). Affective touch awareness in mental health and disease relates to autistic traits–An explorative neurophysiological investigation. Psychiatry Res.245, 491–496. 10.1016/j.psychres.2016.09.011
9
Davies R. J. Ikeno O. (2011). Japanese Mind: Understanding Contemporary Japanese Culture.Rutland: Tuttle Publishing.
10
Davis I. Rovers M. Petrella C. (2017). Touch deprivation and counselling as healing touch. Touch in the helping professions. Res. Pract. Ethics2017, 13–31. 10.2307/j.ctv5vdcvd.5
11
Diamond A. (2013). Executive functions. Annu. Rev. Psychol.64, 135–168. 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
12
Dunbar R. I. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evol. Anthropol.: Issues News Rev.6, 178–190.
13
Engelen J. A. Bouwmeester S. de Bruin A. B. Zwaan R. A. (2011). Perceptual simulation in developing language comprehension. J. Exp. Child Psychol.110, 659–675. 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.06.009
14
Field T. (2001). Touch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15
Fields D. (2011). Emotional refuge? Dynamics of place and belonging among formerly homeless individuals with mental illness. Emot. Space Soc.4, 258–26710.1016/j.emospa.2010.09.002
16
Frawley W. (2013). Linguistic Semantics. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
17
Gallace A. Spence C. (2010). The science of interpersonal touch: an overview. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.34, 246–259. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.10.004
18
Grandi L. C. Bruni S. (2024). COVID-19 and human touch, two sides of the same coin: an opinion article about touch deprivation and future directions. BioMed4, 366–371. 10.3390/biomed4040029
19
Guest S. Dessirier J. M. Mehrabyan A. McGlone F. Essick G. Gescheider G. et al . (2011). The development and validation of sensory and emotional scales of touch perception. Attent. Percept. Psychophys.73, 531–550. 10.3758/s13414-010-0037-y
20
Hargreaves A. Dillon R. Anderson-Schmidt H. Corvin A. Fitzmaurice B. Castorina M. et al . (2015). Computerised working-memory focused cognitive remediation therapy for psychosis—A preliminary study. Schizophr. Res.169, 135–140. 10.1016/j.schres.2015.09.004
21
Harlow H. F. Zimmermann R. R. (1958). The development of affectional responses in infant monkeys. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc.102, 501–509.
22
Henley N. Patrick D. (1977). Body Politics: Power, Sex, and Nonverbal Communication. New York: Simon and Schuster.
23
Hertenstein M. J. Keltner D. App B. Bulleit B. A. Jaskolka A. R. (2006). Touch communicates distinct emotions. Emotion6:528. 10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.528
24
Jablonski N. G. (2021). Social and affective touch in primates and its role in the evolution of social cohesion. Neuroscience464, 117–125. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.11.024
25
Khattak S. N. Sohail A. Arooj N. (2024). Role of touch in cognitive communication among females: a case study. J. Appl. Soc. Sci.18, 96–119. 10.1177/19367244231209249
26
Kulkarni A. Kaushik J. S. Gupta P. Sharma H. Agrawal R. K. (2010). Massage and touch therapy in neonates: the current evidence. Indian Pediatr.47, 771–776. 10.1007/s13312-010-0114-2
27
Laar R. Zhang J. Yu T. Qi H. Ashraf M. A. (2019). Constraints to women's participation in sports: a study of the participation of Pakistani female students in physical activities. Int. J. Sport Policy Polit.11, 385–397. 10.1080/19406940.2018.1481875
28
Lee H. K. Choi D. (2023). Can I touch the clothes on the screen? The mental simulation for touch in online fashion shopping. J. Fash. Market. Managem.27, 418–435. 10.1108/JFMM-09-2021-0238
29
Lopez J. A. Romero L. O. Kaung W. L. Maddox J. W. Vásquez V. Lee A. (2024). Caldendrin is a repressor of PIEZO2 channels and touch sensation in mice. J. Neurosci.44:e1402232023. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1402-23.2023
30
Lyons J. (1995). Grammar and MeaningCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 221–247.
31
Madella P. Wharton T. Romero-Trillo J. (2023). Non-Verbal Communication and Context: Multi-Modality in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32
Maslow A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. Google Schol.2, 21–28. 10.1037/h0054346
33
McGlone F. Walker S. Ackerley R. (2016). “Affective touch and human grooming behaviours: feeling good and looking good,” in Affective Touch and the Neurophysiology of CT Afferents (Cham: Springer Science + Business Media), 265–282.
34
Montagu A. (1971). Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
35
Morrison I. Löken L. S. Minde J. Wessberg J. Perini I. Nennesmo I. et al . (2011). Reduced C-afferent fibre density affects perceived pleasantness and empathy for touch. Brain134, 1116–1126. 10.1093/brain/awr011
36
Nadeau S. E. (2020). Neural population dynamics and cognitive function. Front. Hum. Neurosci.14:50. 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00050
37
Nelson I. I. I. C. A. Zeanah C. H. Fox N. A. Marshall P. J. Smyke A. T. et al . (2007). Cognitive recovery in socially deprived young children: the Bucharest Early Intervention Project. Science318, 1937–1940. 10.1126/science.1143921
38
Nuszbaum M. Voss A. Klauer K. C. (2014). Assessing individual differences in the need for interpersonal touch and need for touch. Soc. Psychol. 45, 31–40. 10.1027/1864-9335/a000157
39
Olausson H. Lamarre Y. Backlund H. Morin C. Wallin B. G. Starck G. et al . (2002). Unmyelinated tactile afferents signal touch and project to insular cortex. Nat. Neurosci.5, 900–904. 10.1038/nn896
40
Oster H. (1978). “Facial expression and affect development,” in The Development of Affect (Boston, MA: Springer US), 43–75.
41
Palacios M. (2024). Cross-Sensory Perception and Deprivation (Thesis). Genova: University of Genova.
42
Pulvermüller F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.6, 576–582. 10.1038/nrn1706
43
Raphael A. (1990). From popular culture to microenterprise: the history of Brazilian samba schools. Latin Am. Music Rev.11, 73–83. 10.2307/780359
44
Rolls E. T. (2010). The affective and cognitive processing of touch, oral texture, and temperature in the brain. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.34, 237–245. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.03.010
45
Saeed J. (2015). “Semantics: the meaning of words and sentences,” in The Routledge Handbook of Linguistics (Oxfordshire: Routledge), 153–168.
46
Salthouse T. A. (2019). Trajectories of normal cognitive aging. Psychol. Aging34:17. 10.1037/pag0000288
47
Spitz R. A. (1945). Hospitalism: an inquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood. Psychoanalyt. Study Child1, 53–74. 10.1080/00797308.1945.11823126
48
Stevens L. Bregulla M. Scheele D. (2024). Out of touch? How trauma shapes the experience of social touch–neural and endocrine pathways. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.2024:105595. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105595
49
Suvilehto J. T. Cekaite A. Morrison I. (2023). The why, who, and how of social touch. Nat. Rev. Psychol.2, 606–621. 10.1038/s44159-023-00217-5
50
Uvnas-Moberg K. (1998). Oxytocin may mediate the benefits of positive social interaction and emotions. Psychoneuroendocrinology23, 819–835. 10.1016/S0306-4530(98)00056-0
51
Valentijn S. A. Van Boxtel M. P. Van Hooren S. A. Bosma H. Beckers H. J. Ponds R. W. et al . (2005). Change in sensory functioning predicts change in cognitive functioning: Results from a 6-year follow-up in the Maastricht Aging Study. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc.53, 374–380. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53152.x
52
Van Stralen H. E. Van Zandvoort M. J. E. Dijkerman H. C. (2011). The role of self-touch in somatosensory and body representation disorders after stroke. Philosoph. Trans. Royal Soc. B: Biol. Scie.366, 3142–3152. 10.1098/rstb.2011.0163
53
Verma A. Shete S. U. Singhthak U. G. (2014). The effect of yoga practices on cognitive development in rural residential school children in India. Memory6, 6–24. 10.NJLM/2014/8281:2015
54
Wellsby M. Pexman P. M. (2014). Developing embodied cognition: Insights from children's concepts and language processing. Front. Psychol.5:506. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00506
55
Williams L. E. Bargh J. A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science322, 606–607. 10.1126/science.1162548
Summary
Keywords
body, touch deprivation, semantic processing, cognition, female adolescents
Citation
Sohail A and Khattak SN (2025) Touch deprivation in female adolescents: implications for semantic processing and cognition. Front. Psychol. 15:1504060. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1504060
Received
30 September 2024
Accepted
30 December 2024
Published
15 January 2025
Volume
15 - 2024
Edited by
Małgorzata Stȩpień-Nycz, Jagiellonian University, Poland
Reviewed by
Laura Clara Grandi, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Sohail and Khattak.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Amjad Sohail amjad.sohail@numspak.edu.pk
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.