
We still don't know how tickling works. More serious research is needed, say scientists
Humans have attempted to understand why we are so sensitive to tickling for over 2,000 years since the time of Socrates, but exactly how the brain processes such stimuli has remained a mystery.
'Socrates, Aristotle, Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, and Darwin theorised about tickling, but after two millennia of intense philosophical interest, experimentation remains scarce,' the researchers from Radboud University in the Netherlands said their new study published in the journal Science Advances.
Tickling, or gargalesis as it is scientifically known, involves a complex interplay of physical, social, neurological and developmental aspects rooted in evolution, the researchers argue.
People with autism spectrum disorder, for example, have been found to perceive touches as more ticklish than others.
Investigating this difference further could reveal clues to brain development in people with autism, the scientists say, but tickling in general remains 'relatively under-researched'.
Earlier studies have shown that apes such as bonobos and gorillas, as well as rats, respond to ticklish touches, indicating that the process has an evolutionary significance.
But understanding how tickling emerged has been made more difficult by the fact that the process is not clearly defined within the scientific community, says neuroscientist Konstantina Kilteni, lead author of the new study.
For instance, there is a difference between when one tickles another person on the armpits with hands compared to tickling their back lightly with a feather.
While scientists know more about the second feather-based stimulation, the first sensation is understudied, they say.
Tickling is also one of the earliest triggers for laughter in human development, but it is unclear whether we laugh because we enjoy it.
'No theory satisfactorily explains why touch on some body areas feels more ticklish than on others or why some people are highly sensitive while others remain unresponsive,' the researchers wrote.
To answer these questions better in a standardised setting, scientists have now set up a 'tickling lab' that contains a chair with a plate with two holes in it.
In this set up, participants put their feet through the holes, and a mechanical stick tickles the soles of their feet.
This ensures consistency: that every tickle experiment is carried out the same way.
As participants experience tickling, neuroscientists record what happens in their brain, and also check other physical reactions like heart rate, sweating, breathing, or laughter and screaming.
'By incorporating this method of tickling into a proper experiment, we can take tickling research seriously. Not only will we be able to truly understand tickling, but also our brains,' scientists say.
'To conclude, the field will greatly benefit from a qualitative breakthrough, which can be achieved through research standardisation,' they wrote.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


TTG
40 minutes ago
- TTG
Alaska Airlines to make UK debut next spring with London-Seattle flights
To continue reading this article you must log in. If you've never set a password you may need to register for free here and get unlimited access. For assistance contact support@


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
GPs warned using AI to record patient notes can lead to dangerous inaccuracies
GPs have been warned to look out for 'inaccurate or fabricated' information when using AI to write their medical notes. Family doctors are increasingly using tools that listen to their consultations with patients and automatically add summaries to their records. But the Royal College of GPs has warned AI can misinterpret the nuance of conversations, with potential dangerous consequences. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) also says there is a 'risk of hallucination which users should be aware of, and manufacturers should actively seek to minimise and mitigate the potential harms of their occurrence'. The safety watchdog is now urging GPs to report issues with AI scribes through its Yellow Card Scheme, which is typically used to report adverse reactions to medicines. This should include 'suspected inaccuracies', trade publication GP Online reports. The British Medical Association's GP Committee said earlier this year that 'the adoption of passive scribes in general practice has gathered significant pace', with practices using standalone systems or tools rolled out with other common software. Dr Phil Whitaker, a UK GP who recently moved to Canada, wrote in the New Statesman that an AI tool he used was 'not to be trusted'. He said it misinterpreted conversations with patients who asked him about his move from the UK - and recorded notes suggesting patients had recently moved to Canada instead. He added: 'I've caught it recording findings of examinations I haven't performed and detailing advice I haven't given. 'The company that makes it advises users to check its output carefully. 'For me, the time spent reading and editing outweighs any productivity gains.' And an article published by Fortune last month outlined a case in which 'a patient in London was mistakenly invited to a diabetic screening after an AI-generated medical record falsely claimed he had diabetes and suspected heart disease'. However, despite this growing use of AI and the recognition of potential problems, the MHRA said a search of its database revealed 'no adverse incident reports related to the use of AI scribes'. The government's 10-Year Health Plan says it intends to 'accelerate the adoption and spread of AI technology, such as AI scribes, by streamlining AI regulation'. A new national procurement platform will be set up next year to support GP practices and NHS trusts to adopt new technology safely. Professor Kamila Hawthorne, chair of the RCGP, said: 'AI has enormous potential for transforming the future of our health and patient care. Fewer than one in three Britons are comfortable with the prospect of using new AI features in the NHS App to diagnose their issues, a poll reveals. Health secretary Wes Streeting announced plans to revamp the app as part of Labour's 10-Year Health Plan so every patient could have a 'doctor in their pocket'. But a new survey found 44 per of the public are 'uncomfortable' with trusting the diagnosis and management of their conditions to artificial intelligence, with this figure rising to 60 per cent among pensioners. Only 31 per cent of the 2,030 respondents to the Savanta poll, for the Liberal Democrats, said they are 'comfortable' with the idea. Helen Morgan, the Liberal Democrat's health spokesperson, praised Labour for tackling bureaucracy but added: 'Making the NHS more efficient is of course welcome but it cannot come at the cost of leaving people behind as they try to grapple with digitised services rather than a real life doctor. 'Ministers need to allay these fears by offering support to those who are not digitally literate and older people to ensure that these sweeping changes benefit everyone.' Speaking at the Plan's launch last month, Mr Streeting said: 'The NHS App will become a doctor in your pocket, bringing our health service into the 21st century.' It will use patients' medical records and artificial intelligence to provide instant answers to users' questions and direct them to the best place for care. Dennis Reed, director of Silver Voices, which campaigns for elderly Britons, said at the time 'Elderly people will be sceptical about whether the plan will be delivered and concerned that greater reliance on the app could exclude them from accessing timely care. 'For some, the doctor in their pocket will be padlocked.' 'However, its use is not without risks and so its implementation in general practice must be closely regulated to guarantee patient safety and the security of their data. 'GPs are always open to introducing new technologies that can improve the experience of patients and help cut the administrative burden, and an increasing number of GP practices are now using AI scribing tools to improve the quality and efficiency of their consultations. 'While these tools can offer real benefits, particularly at a time of significant GP workforce pressures, there are some important concerns - particularly around data security of sensitive patient records, data controllership and the risk of inaccuracies. 'We are aware that AI scribes can produce inaccurate or fabricated details, and that they can also misinterpret the nuance of conversations. 'It is important that clinicians review AI-generated documentation for accuracy before adding it to the patient record.' The MHRA said: 'The MHRA is aware of this potential issue in AI enabled tools generally and this includes AI scribe tools. 'We recommend that GPs and healthcare professionals only use tools which are registered medical devices which have been determined to meet the required standards of performance and safety. 'Recently published MHRA guidance clarifies how these technologies qualify as medical devices and while this is specific to digital mental health, the principles apply across digital health applications. 'While not published by the MHRA, NHS England guidance encourages the use only of registered medical devices when used in a clinical context. 'We strongly encourage that all suspected adverse incidents, including suspected inaccuracies are reported to the MHRA via the yellow card scheme.' The watchdog said the yellow card scheme website had been updated to include 'a standalone page for software and AI as medical device'. Earlier this year, the BMA advised practices to pause use of AI scribes until they had carried out data protection and safety checks and sought assurances that the products meet NHS standards.


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Study reveals what most people think of as a high amount of sexual partners
Britons think 20 or more sexual partners is a lot a new YouGov survey has revealed. The stats come as part of a wider poll looking at modern society's sexual histories and habits and it has revealed the UK as being a surprisingly chaste nation. The average Briton claims to have only had sex with four people in their lifetime. Researchers at YouGov asked the respondents what they considered to be a 'small and large lifetime numbers of sexual partners'. Sharing the findings on X, they revealed that the majority of people see 20 or more sexual partners as a 'large' amount. Similarly, 15 or more people was seen as large by 41 per cent. People who had slept with 0-4 or 5 people were seen as having a 'small' number by the majority of those polled, and 6 to fourteen sexual partners were seen as having neither a 'small' or 'large' number. The researchers added that, unsurprisingly, people's idea of large or small is skewed by their own sexual history. The study explained: 'Whether Britons regard a number of sexual partners as large or small depends on how many people they themselves have slept with. 'At an overall level, the attitudes of men and women are effectively the same across the range. 'However, the generations do take differing views, with young people being the quickest to start saying that a number of sexual partners is "high". 'This is not necessarily surprising – the older someone is, the more chances to have sexual encounters they have had, and it is probably fair to assume that respondents are basing their answers on the tally of a person about the same age as them.' For instance, 44 per cent of people who have had one sexual partner in their life sees 10 or more partners as a 'large' number, with 27 per cent of people with four sexual partners saying the same. Meanwhile, eight per cent of people who have slept with ten to 14 people, and three per cent of people with 25 or more partners deem ten partners to be a 'large' number. Interestingly, the study found that young men and old women were notably more likely than their counterparts to consider a given number to represent a 'large number' of lifetime sexual partners. In June, a study found that women who have sex at least once a week are the 'happiest' in their relationship. While Bonnie Blue is famous for having sex with 1,000 men in a day, the average Briton has only slept with 4 people in their life So what do Britons consider to be small and large lifetime numbers of sexual partners? 0-4 people - majority see as small 5 people - 48% small / 40%… — YouGov (@YouGov) August 4, 2025 Scientists found 85 per cent of women who had sex once a week described themselves as 'sexually satisfied', according to a study of nearly 500 heterosexual women. In contrast, only 66 per cent of wives and girlfriends who had sex once a month reported the same level of relationship bliss. And the figure fell to 17 per cent among those women who had intercourse less than this. Author of the new study Alexandra Janssen, a researcher at the University Of Manchester, said the findings show the importance of regular intimate relations. She told the Daily Mail: 'While the study shows an association between frequency of sex and sexual relationship satisfaction, this is only a correlation. 'We don't know whether women are happier because they are having more sex, if they are having more sex because they are happier, or if they are happier and having more sex because of other factors-perhaps they don't have kids. 'Also, the fact that women who have less sex are also less satisfied in their relationship isn't particularly surprising.'