TOUCH RESEARCH IN PRIMATES

Monkey infants who were denied contact
- a “secure base” -
ceased to explore their environments.
LANDMARK STUDIES

Now in its fourth decade, animal research on touch has extensively documented the benefits of early tactile contact-and the consequences of touch deprivation.

Evidence of the consequences of touch deprivation in humans first prompted scientific study in this area. Researchers had long noted a depression-like response by infants to the absence of parental contact. Following World War II, Spitz coined the term “anaclitic depression” to describe the clinical response of human infants to prolonged maternal separation.1

In the 1950s, in studies that came to signify the advent of modern touch research, investigators discovered that monkey infants reared in individual cages (for reasons of hygiene and disease prevention) developed poorly. From the 1950s into the 1960s, Harlow conducted his now classic experiments.

The most memorable of these surprised the psychology world with the finding that infant rhesus monkeys preferred surrogate mother objects providing contact comfort (frames covered with a terry cloth surface) to those providing nourishment (bare wire frames featuring a nipple and milk supply). These studies established that it was touch-and not food-that promoted attachment-like behavior.2

VALUE OF THE PRIMATE RESEARCH MODEL

Nonhuman primates can offer touch researchers tremendous insights into human development, especially in areas that are difficult to study with humans. Of all animals, apes and monkeys are the most closely related to humans behaviorally, anatomically and physiologically. Some primates, such as rhesus monkeys, share over 90 percent of their genes with those of humans.

Nonhuman primates are appropriate for research especially in terms of study design, and for several reasons. (1) They can be selectively bred and reared under controlled conditions-e.g., bred for particular genetic lines, and reared in a variety of social and physical environments. (2) Primates can be observed and tested physiologically on a daily basis. (3) Rhesus monkeys and other primates offer researchers invaluable opportunities to study the longitudinal effects of touch and touch deprivation over the course of generations. These animals age from birth to maturity (onset of puberty) in three or four years, instead of 15 to 20 years, as is the case with humans.3

Harlow’s milestone studies showed that touch was more important to monkey infants than anything else they could receive from their mothers or mother surrogates- including food.

BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS OF TOUCH DEPRIVATION
Harlow found that even short-term physical separation of monkey infants from their attachment object resulted in immediate and dramatic behavioral disruption and intense physiologic arousal.4 He also observed that the mother or mother surrogate represented the “secure base” that infants need before they can explore their environments-and that rhesus monkeys who were denied maternal contact of any kind ceased to explore. Perhaps even more significantly, further studies showed than touch is more critical than any other form of contact in mother-infant bonding. Even when laboratory conditions enabled the infants to see, hear and smell their mothers, they still failed to explore. Only the sense of touch created the “secure base” necessary for normal development.5,6

Early studies also hinted at the effects of touch deprivation beyond infancy. As adolescents and adults, rhesus monkeys reared in tactile isolation actively avoided most social contact. They also tended to be hyperaggressive in their infrequent social interactions, habitually exhibiting behaviors similar to the “anger” and “depression” that monkey infants normally demonstrate during a weaning period. In addition, although rhesus monkeys reared singly in cages had normal physiological capabilities for reproduction, they developed gross abnormalities in sexual behavior.7,8

More recent research has revealed that aberrant behaviors stemming from early touch deprivation are sustained, repeated and reinforced over the long term, from generation to generation. Female rhesus monkeys with a history of depressive response to separations in infancy and childhood are at high risk for neglecting or abusing their first-born offspring in the absence of social support. Furthermore, in a number of primate species, longitudinal studies of cross-generational phenomena show that the best predictor of the amount of time a young mother will spend with her newborn infant is the amount of time she herself spent in contact with her mother when she was an infant.9,10

Recent studies also indicate that primate responses to touch deprivation may be highly heritable and that behavioral reactions to a lack of touch may be at least partly genetic. Some primate individuals, when contact-deprived, are passive and withdrawn, do not eat adequately and exhibit other behaviors that provide an animal model for human depression.2 In other words, for a significant segment of the population with predisposition, or vulnerability, to these social abnormalities, contact deprivation can be devastating.

“THERAPEUTIC” TOUCH IN PRIMATE STUDIES

Deficits in early touch caotact lead to behavioral and physiological problems that are both short- and long-term.

Studies show that tactile contact can reverse the effects of tactile isolation.
Data show that returning touch contact to touch-deprived monkey infants can, in some cases, largely reverse their behavioral problems. The benefits of such “therapeutic” touch appear to correlate directly with its nature and duration.

Suomi et al. reared animals in mother-only and peer-only conditions. Both environments provided infants with more tactile stimulation than they would get in complete isolation, but more limited contact than they would normally have with parents, family and peers. Not surprisingly, the negative behavioral effects observed were less severe than those stemming from complete isolation-but were nevertheless present.

However, when the researchers allowed these deprived animals several months of tactile contact with other monkeys, the abnormal behaviors diminished considerably. This reinstituted contact was administered by several types of monkey “therapists”: mothers, younger peers, and even foster-grandparent monkey couples.11

PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF TOUCH DEPRIVATION

Researchers have identified, at least in part, a physiological basis for the behavioral effects of touch-deprived animal infants. Stress hormones, in particular, appear to play a key role.

Schanberg and Field found that even short-term interruption of mother-pup interaction in rats markedly affected several biochemical processes in the developing pup: a reduction in ornithine decarboxylase (ODC) activity, a sensitive index of cell growth and differentiation; a reduction in growth hormone release (in all body organs, including the heart and liver and throughout the brain, including the cerebrum, cerebellum and brain stem); an increase in corticosterone secretion; and suppressed tissue ODC responsivity to administered growth hormone.12

In animals, contact through touch is important for proper growth, adaptivity to stress, and the acquisition of parenting skills.
Other studies have supported the physiological underpinnings of tactile isolation. Higley et al., for instance, reported that rhesus monkeys reared by peers rather than their mothers showed abnormal stress-hormone responses to a variety of stressors.13

Conversely, “therapeutic” tactile stimulation can favorably reverse the detrimental biochemical effects of touch deprivation. In the studies by Schanberg and his colleagues, a dampened paintbrush was used to mimic rat mothers’ heavy licking patterns in frequency and pressure. The physiological results were promising: growth hormone rose, ODC rose, and corticosterone dropped.14 Meaney et al. found that the “environmental stimulation” of handling young rats-removing them briefly and then reuniting them with their mothers-affected the pups’ neurochemical development markedly. And as adults, rats that researchers had handled as infants exhibited not only less fear in novel environments, but also a less pronounced increase in adrenal glucocorticoids in response to a variety of stressors, and greater memory.15

Monkey infants deprived of maternal touch often exhibit abnormal, self-stimulating behaviors, such as thumb sucking and rocking.

THE IMMUNOLOGICAL IMPACT OF TOUCH
In another facet of touch research in animals, investigators have discovered both direct and indirect effects of skin stimulation on immunologic functioning. Skin, of course, often serves as an immunoresponsive organ16; thus the immunological consequences of touch and touch deprivation, though not yet widely recognized, are not surprising.

Laudenslager et al. found that monkey infants separated from their mothers demonstrated less antibody production in response to an initial injection of an antigen.17 Coe et al. reported that monkeys raised away from their mothers for the first few months of life had a variety of immunological deficits that persisted long after the behavioral problems caused by the separation were reversed.18

Investigators have measured a direct, positive relationship between the amount of contact and grooming an infant monkey receives during its first six months of life and its ability to produce antibody titer (IgG and 1gM) in response to an antibody challenge (tetanus) at a little over one year of age.19

Trying to identify a mechanism for the “immunology of touch,” some investigators point to modulations of arousal and associated CNS-hormonal activity. Touch deprivation may cause stress-induced activation of the pituitary-adrenal system, which, in turn, leads to increased plasma cortisol and adrenocorticotropic hormone. Likewise, researchers suggest, regular and “natural” stimulation of the skin may moderate these pituitary-adrenal responses in a positive and healthful way.20

Longitudinal studies of rhesus monkeys indicate that mother-infant bonding practices are repeated and reinforced from generation to generation.
Touch deprivation has an impact on physiological functions, such as stress-hormone response and immunological responsiveness.
Whatever the mechanisms are for these responses to tactile stimulation and deprivation, the scientific data have led animal researchers to declare “the therapeutic power of touch.” At the same time, these experts acknowledge that good “contact relationship” between parent and child is the best source of preventive medicine.

Since the Lord God is the Alpha and Omega of every eternal sequence, you should trust God to correctly deal with the eternal sequence of Hell. Islamic terrorists enter Hell because they are insane with pride. We can only fight them; we can’t cure them like God.

Tho’ as a person who has been properly, professionally, and responsibly dx’d with pts, who has experienced the stigma of that dx from both fellow professionals and lay folks, who found effective treatment after the sad news (which at the time was correct) that pts was (thank god, time and research and learning march on!) an intractable condition, who has done the deep, painful, difficult work of recovery and is continuing to heal on a deeper level than I ever imagined possible, who was coaching those who were determined to recover and perhaps one day heal and advocating for recovery for those others dx’d with a smi before being dx’d myself, I am amazed once again about the rush to judgements by so many fine, well-educated, ought to know better folks.
I believe that as of today, Dr. Hasan is possibly a “paranoid schizophrenic terrorist with ptsd” if you listen to some of the mental health folks, the media, et al. And yet, what we know is that Dr. Hasan is a person who has been charged with the murders of 13 other people and the assault of another 43 with a deadly weapon. I believe I have stated the charges that were published correctly.

I stated in another blog that I never imagined homicide when I was in the midst of the pts pain. I should clarify by saying that, yes, I am aware that I, like all fellow humans, am capable of violence and even the taking of another’s life. The question was always, before, in the midst of, and after the official lable of post traumatic stress, knowing this, what is my responsibility? Shall I pass it on or not? I answered this question for myself when I was about 6 years old.

My Dad taught me how to use a gun when I was old enuf to demonstrate and speak to my understanding of the responsibility that presented/offered. I became excellent at skeet (out shot my old man!), and we hunted together. We also cleaned, cooked and ate at our table with great gratitude what Life had given us.
Time to wake up, my dear brothers and sisters!

She recently got a job close to home that she likes. She takes online classes part time and has a 3.8 GPA. On the surface, things look good. She’s beautiful and is very friendly and outgoing. If she got a scholarship or education loan, she wouldn’t have to worry about money. Our income is below poverty level so she qualifies. She won’t apply for a scholarship because she has a privacy phobia. It doesn’t make sense. College tuition and books are paid for but she needs money for room and board.

She often sabotages success. She recently stayed out all night and didn’t take her meds. She called and we warned her she had to take med on time. She ignored us and took them in the morning and then ended up fainting at work and was sent home. She is a new employee on probation and needs this job. It took months to find it. Because we brought up the seriousness of taking the meds on time, she got furious. She became verbally abusive and then said to kick her out or beat her up…horrible things.

We would like her to move out but we aren’t going to kick her out. She has no place to go and no friends. We’re depressed. We did everythig possible to help her and spared no expense getting services.

Doesn’t mean anything to her. We’re the scapegoats for mistake she makes. The moment she doesn’t like something we say, she attacks us viciously. I’m afraid my husband is going to have a stroke. My heart hurts whenever she starts on us.

Her therapist for the last three years was enabling her. We thought he was helping her but found out that he let her live with him for two weeks while his wife was out of town. His wife found out. Now they’re getting a divorce and he wants my daughter to move in with him. He’s 64. He’s been married for 40 years. This is all so bizarre. If we don’t let our daughter stay with us, she will do something stupid like stay with him for free room and board. We ask her to contribute money for food and expenses since she now has a job. She resents contributing one cent because she says she needs money in case we kick her out.

Our daughter had a horrendous beginning her first few years of life…locked up in an attic and her scalp burned with a cigarette. There was sexual abuse at age two. However, we aren’t the villains. We saved her.

Now we’re broke from getting services to help both our kids. We’ve also had job losses and lost most of our 401K. We’re facing bankruptcy. The money doesn’t matter as much as the drama and heartache we feel.

I’m 61 and haven’t been able to find steady work in two years. My husband had to move to a different town to get a job. We’ve been married 29 years so being apart so much is depressing, not to mention cost for extra housing.

He’s afraid for me to be alone with my daughter when she gets angry. I stay in my room with a locked door most of the time when she’s home.

We to make a difference in a child’s life. Now we know some kids can’t bond. We don’t look forward to the holidays. Our daughter sabotages every special event. She says holidays are phony traditions. Credit card companies are canceling us so this year we won’t be able to buy gifts anyway.

We love our daughter and don’t want her to spiral downward. She’s a great student and has so much potential. She’s very loving abd affectionate at times too. If she went away to college and could be with kids her own age, it might help. She’s talented and extremely intelligent. She needs a network of support. We do too. We have no one and she doesn’t either, except us.

Raising a child with a personality disorder is extremely difficult, especially when there is no family nearby. Some children need a village. We have no illusions that we weren’t the right parents for our child. We have little hope things will improve if we can’t find a miracle soon. We are burned out. We have no one to turn to for help. Any suggestions welcome.

I cannot help but wonder who you thought of killing, even for only five minutes? The massacre at Ft. Hood took only minutes to occur, minutes that atleast 13 families would give anything to reverse. Do you think that your admittance gives credance to the behavior of this terrorist? He obviosly was a sick man, tortured in many ways, but your comments come dangerously close to excuses. Please consider the lives, emotional, physical, spiritual and mental well being of the victims of this tragedy before you align yourself in too many ways with this criminal.