# The balance stabilising benefit of social touch: Influence of an individual’s age and the partner’s relative body characteristics

## TL;DR

This study explores how social touch helps balance, showing that benefits depend on individuals' and partners' sensorimotor skills and age-related factors.

## Contribution

The study identifies how individual and partner characteristics influence the balance stabilizing benefit of social touch.

## Key findings

- Without vision, balance improvement via social touch depends on balancing skill and partner's balancing skill difference.
- Vulnerable individuals benefit more from social touch when visual feedback is unavailable.
- Age-related motor developmental potential moderates the benefit of social touch when vision is present.

## Abstract

Interpersonal touch (IPT) is a successful strategy to support balance during a wide range of activities in daily life, including physical education and therapy. Despite common practice, however, the influence of individual characteristics – such as age, balancing skills, motor experience, sex and anthropometry – and differences between interaction partners on the balance stabilising benefit of social touch is unknown. In an opportunity sample of 72 pairs (age range 4–63 years), we assessed an individual’s postural sway and change due to IPT during single-legged stance under four sensory conditions: with or without vision in combination with IPT or without. Following hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward’s method) based on individual relative responses to IPT, individual and relative partner’s characteristics two participant subgroups were identified: one of less stable, more vulnerable individuals, and another of more stable, mature participants. We developed multiple linear regression models, including moderating variables, to identify predictors of IPT benefit under each condition. Without visual input, an individual’s benefit of IPT was determined by their balancing skill and the partner-related difference in balancing skill but not by any other factor or partner-related difference. Especially vulnerable individuals improved considerably with IPT when visual feedback was unavailable. When vision accompanied IPT, an individual’s age-related motor developmental potential also played a significant moderating role. These findings indicate that the extent to which IPT is benefitting mutual balance stabilisation does not depend on biomechanical factors. Instead, the IPT benefit emerges as a product of both partners’ sensorimotor capabilities and when visual feedback is available is also moderated by a person’s motor developmental potential. We discuss a theoretical framework that accounts for the observed dependencies of the effect of haptic social support on balance control.