Psychophysiological and psychological responses of touching plant behavior by tactile stimulation according to the foliage type

Seo-Hyun Kim; Sin-Ae Park

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316660

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 5, 2024
5 Mar 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316660.r001
16 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Zahra Lorigooini, Editor Dear Dr. Park, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== Upon reviewing the manuscript titled Psychophysiological and psychological responses of touching plant behavior by tactile stimulation according to the foliage type , I found the following points regarding language and content clarity: <h3>Language and Readability:</h3> Grammar and Syntax : The manuscript's language is clear, with generally good sentence structure and correct grammar. However, there are some areas where the sentence construction could be made smoother. For example, some sentences are lengthy and would benefit from being broken down into shorter, clearer segments. Word Choice and Repetition : The text sometimes repeats phrases like "tactile stimulation" excessively. Varying terminology could enhance the readability. Scientific Terminology : The technical terms are used appropriately, but there are instances where simpler explanations could make the manuscript more accessible to a broader audience. <h3>Suggestions for Improvement:</h3> Clarity in Method Descriptions : The section on the experimental protocol is detailed but could benefit from clearer transitions between the steps. Including a flow diagram might help clarify the procedure for readers. Results Section : The explanation of the statistical methods and results is clear but can be overwhelming due to the dense presentation of numbers. Using tables and figures more strategically could improve readability. Discussion Section : The discussion could be expanded to include more comparisons with existing literature, especially about the underlying mechanisms behind the physiological responses to different plant types. <h3>Native Language Review:</h3> Although the manuscript is well-written, a review by a native English speaker specializing in academic writing could further enhance the flow and reduce any lingering awkwardness in phrasing. In summary, the manuscript is understandable, but refining sentence structure, varying terminology, and polishing the flow could improve the overall presentation. A native English speaker might add value by enhancing readability and clarity. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 30 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Zahra Lorigooini Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This work was carried out with the support of the “Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (Project No.:RS-2021-RD009877)”, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “This work was carried out with the support of “Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (Project No.:RS-2021-RD009877)” Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea. We express our sincere gratitude to Mi-Sook Jeong and Seo-Yeon Park for their invaluable contribution as a research experimental assistant. Their support and dedication significantly enhanced the quality of our work.” We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “This work was carried out with the support of the “Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (Project No.:RS-2021-RD009877)”, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Authors submitted a study of tactile response on a human wellbeing by using different plant species divided to different subgroups that shall evoke different behavioural response. Despite the idea is interesting, the present form of the text lack scientific integration of the meaningful references linked to their results from the study. Introduction: The manuscript makes broad claims on relation of urbanization to stress claiming "high levels of urbanization and artificial environments exacerbate human stress levels". The text shall focus on measurements and results rather than to general foresight conclusions. The manuscript writes on theories like the attention restoration theory and psychological-evolutionary theory but does not integrate enough these theories into the rationale and methods used in the study. A discussion of how these theories specifically relate to tactile stimulation would strengthen the scientific background. The manuscript’s introduction and literature review sections lack seamless integration, where the flow of ideas does not always logically connect one to the next. It seems that all references are not precisely cited according to the findings of the cited studies. Some might be misleading (6, 8, …)? Also, the manuscript refers to the references in a way that suggests a closer relationship to the current research than is warranted or is used to support a broad statement without detailing how these benefits directly tie to the present results. Also, very general statements are somewhere connected to the neuroscientific or genetic background or mental health benefits, despite not supported by strong evidence from the results. Some references are used to support multiple claims without clear indication of how each reference specifically supports each claim, leading to potential confusion and perceived "mix-up" of references. In Result section at least the graphic/picture presentation in the brain areas will improve understanding the main findings. The research predominantly focuses on tactile sensation and does not evaluate multisensory approaches comprehensively, e.g., visual, auditory to better understand the impact of plant interactions on human well-being. Despite that, rewritten manuscript may eliminate this lacking results. Reviewer #2: Psychophysiological and psychological responses of touching plant behavior by tactile stimulation according to the foliage type This study measured and compared the psychophysiological and psychological responses to tactile stimuli through plant contact based on the foliage type. The experimental design is sound, and the methodology is clearly described, although a few areas could benefit from additional explanation or revision. Overall, the study's findings report evaluable results in Responses to touching plant behavior by tactile stimulation. Here are some suggestions for this study: 1. In the abstract, a section should be dedicated to Background. 2. There are some writing errors throughout the manuscript. Please revise all text. For example, in line 12 we aimed to measure... 3. In the Experimental protocol section, Add more information about plants used in this study. e.g. morphological characteristics of the leaves, whether the plants are fragrant or not, compounds, and whether they may have compounds absorbed by the skin through touch... 4. In Fig. 1, the figures of plants are not clear. Provide better quality images. 5. In the Experimental environment section, what conditions were controlled regarding the effect of the smell element on the test conditions? 6. Duncan's test should be mentioned in the subtitle of the table 3., not using one-way analysis of variance 7. Why is there no control group in this study? ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316660.r002
Revision 1
11 Nov 2024 Author Response Dear Editors and Reviewers, We would like to extend our sincere thanks for the constructive feedback provided on our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed each comment and revised address the concerns raised. Below, we provide responses to each point raised by the reviewers, as well as details on how we have revised the manuscript. Please note that all changes are highlighted using the tracked changes feature in the revised Word file, allowing reviewers to view our modifications directly. Reviewer 1 1. Comment: "Authors submitted a study of tactile response on human well-being by using different plant species divided into different subgroups that shall evoke different behavioral responses. Despite the idea is interesting, the present form of the text lacks scientific integration of the meaningful references linked to their results from the study." Response: Thank you for this feedback. We agree that incorporating relevant references to support our results will strengthen the scientific integration of our study. We have added more references in the Introdcution and Discussion sections to link our findings with the existing literature and have ensured that each reference accurately supports the findings discussed. 2. Comment: "Introduction: The manuscript makes broad claims on the relation of urbanization to stress claiming 'high levels of urbanization and artificial environments exacerbate human stress levels.' The text shall focus on measurements and results rather than general foresight conclusions." Response: We appreciate your input on maintaining focus on the specific study context. We have revised the introduction to limit broad statements about urbanization and stress and instead emphasize studies on stress-related measurements and direct relevance to tactile interactions with plants. 3. Comment: "The manuscript writes on theories like the attention restoration theory and psychological-evolutionary theory but does not integrate enough these theories into the rationale and methods used in the study. A discussion of how these theories specifically relate to tactile stimulation would strengthen the scientific background." Response: We have removed the references to the attention restoration and psychological-evolutionary theories, as they do not directly connect to the results of our study. Instead, we have added new literature that more effectively strengthens the introduction, providing a clearer foundation for the study’s rationale and methods by focusing specifically on tactile stimulation and its established role in supporting mental and physiological health. 4. Comment: "The manuscript’s introduction and literature review sections lack seamless integration, where the flow of ideas does not always logically connect one to the next." Response: We appreciate this observation and have reorganized portions of the introduction and literature review to create a more logical flow. We have made transitions between ideas more explicitly, ensuring each section builds on the previous one, leading seamlessly into the study’s rationale. 5. Comment: "It seems that all references are not precisely cited according to the findings of the cited studies. Some might be misleading (6, 8, …)? Also, the manuscript refers to the references in a way that suggests a closer relationship to the current research than is warranted." Response: We understand the importance of accurate citation and clear linkage of references to specific claims. We reviewed each reference to verify its relevance and have clarified how each cited work supports the points in our study. We also replaced or revised references where necessary to ensure accuracy and avoid any misleading implications. 6. Comment: "Also, very general statements are somewhere connected to the neuroscientific or genetic background or mental health benefits, despite not supported by strong evidence from the results." Response: Thank you for highlighting this. We have removed or modified overly general statements regarding neuroscience or mental health benefits that were not directly supported by our study's results and instead focused on findings that are directly relevant to the data collected. 7. Comment: "Some references are used to support multiple claims without clear indication of how each reference specifically supports each claim, leading to potential confusion and perceived 'mix-up' of references." Response: We reviewed the manuscript and clarified how each reference supports specific claims. Where a reference is used to support multiple claims, we have clarified each application separately to avoid any potential confusion and ensure each use of the reference is clear. 8. Comment: "In the Result section at least the graphic/picture presentation in the brain areas will improve understanding of the main findings." Response: We appreciate this suggestion to enhance clarity. In the Results section, we added diagrams showing brain areas relevant to the prefrontal cortex and indicated the focal regions for oxyhemoglobin concentration measurement. This visual aid will help readers understand the physiological context of the findings. 9. Comment: "The research predominantly focuses on tactile sensation and does not evaluate multisensory approaches comprehensively, e.g., visual, auditory to better understand the impact of plant interactions on human well-being." Response: We acknowledge that a multisensory approach could indeed offer a broader perspective on plant interactions. In the Discussion section, we have noted the limitations of focusing solely on tactile sensation and suggested that future studies could explore multisensory approaches to provide a more comprehensive assessment. Given the current lack of research specifically on plant tactile stimuli, we believe it is essential to focus on this aspect first before extending to multisensory measurements. The manuscript has been revised to emphasize this focused approach while acknowledging the limitation. Reviewer 2 1. Comment: "In the abstract, a section should be dedicated to Background." Response: We appreciate this suggestion and agree that adding a background section to the abstract would enhance context for readers. We have revised the abstract to include a brief background that outlines the study’s purpose and relevance to urban stress relief and nature-based therapies through tactile plant interactions. 2. Comment: "There are some writing errors throughout the manuscript. Please revise all text. For example, in line 12 we aimed to measure..." Response: We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript for grammar and syntax issues, paying particular attention to areas with awkward phrasing or errors, including the example provided. Revisions have been made to ensure clarity, readability, and grammatical correctness throughout the document. 3. Comment: "In the Experimental Protocol section, add more information about plants used in this study. E.g., morphological characteristics of the leaves, whether the plants are fragrant or not, compounds, and whether they may have compounds absorbed by the skin through touch." Response: Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We have added detailed descriptions of the plant species used in the study, including leaf morphology, fragrance characteristics, and potential compounds relevant to skin absorption. This additional information aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of each plant’s tactile properties and any factors that might affect the results. 4. Comment: "In Fig. 1, the figures of plants are not clear. Provide better quality images." Response: We apologize for the quality of the images in Figure 1. We have replaced these with higher-resolution images to ensure clarity and improved visual quality, which should help readers identify the tactile characteristics of each plant more easily. 5. Comment: "In the Experimental Environment section, what conditions were controlled regarding the effect of the smell element on the test conditions?" Response: To control olfactory stimuli, we implemented several measures to minimize the potential influence of scent during the experiment. An air purifier was used in the room, and the door was periodically opened to allow for air circulation. Additionally, we avoided using plants with strong natural fragrances, selecting non-fragrant varieties wherever possible. We have now detailed these conditions in the manuscript to clarify the methods used to control smell and focus exclusively on tactile stimuli. 6. Comment: "Duncan's test should be mentioned in the subtitle of Table 3, not using one-way analysis of variance." Response: We have revised the subtitle of Table 3 to specify that Duncan’s post-hoc test was used, addressing this suggestion. This clarification aligns with the statistical analysis performed and improves the accuracy of the table description. 7. Comment: "Why is there no control group in this study?" Response: The primary objective of this study was to assess the psychophysiological and psychological responses to different tactile experiences with plant foliage (soft, smooth, stiff, and rough). Given this objective, each plant type itself served as a distinct condition in a within-subjects design, where each participant experienced all conditions for direct comparison. Therefore, a separate control group was deemed unnecessary. Instead of comparing the presence or absence of tactile plant interaction (which would typically require a control group), we focused on comparing the different tactile textures directly. To ensure validity in the comparisons, we obtained baseline measurements of oxyhemoglobin (oxy-Hb) concentration in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and psychological states before each tactile experience. These baseline measurements allowed each participant to serve as their own control across conditions, ensuring that the responses could be accurately attributed to the tactile differences among the plant types. This approach allowed us to focus on relative differences between the plant types and assess how specific tactile textures influence psychophysiological and psychological responses without introducing an external control group. We have clarified this rationale in the manuscript to provide additional context. We hope these revisions and clarifications meet with your approval, and we are grateful for your time and effort in helping us enhance the quality of this study. Thank you again for your insightful and constructive feedback. Sincerely, Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316660.r003
16 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Zahra Lorigooini, Editor Psychophysiological and psychological responses of touching plant behavior by tactile stimulation according to the foliage type PONE-D-24-07959R1 Dear Dr. Park, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Zahra Lorigooini Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316660.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Zahra Lorigooini, Editor PONE-D-24-07959R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Park, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Zahra Lorigooini Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316660.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .