JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE 84 Pa rticipants were massaged on the back of their left hand using the skincare creams. The amount of the cream that was applied was 0.2 g. A member of the team conducting the experiment who is a beauty specialist (M.S.) massaged the back of the hands of the par- ticipants using her right fi ngers and palm. She applied the cream on the skin and moved her hand in a circle slowly and softly. During the last part of the massage, she placed her hand directly on the skin and pressed lightly in a circular motion. The speed of move- ment was approximately 2.5 s per cycle. The massage procedure was the same for all blocks. During the reset block, the experiment team removed the cream from the back of participants’ hand using a warm wet towel. Fi nally, outside the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner, participants evaluated the texture of the two creams in regard to three aspects, which were “smoothness,” “softness,” and “spread well” after being massaged in the same manner as they had in the scanner. FM RI DATA ANALYSIS Sc anning was conducted using a 3.0-T MRI system (Achieva Quasar Dual Philips Medical Systems, Eindhoven, The Netherlands). Blood-oxygenation-level-dependent T2-weighted MR signals were measured with a gradient echo-planar imaging (EPI) sequence [repetition time (TR) = 2,500 ms, echo time (TE) = 35 ms, fl ip angle (FA) = 90°, fi eld of view (FOV) = 230 × 230 mm2, scan matrix = 128 × 128, total scan time = 635 seconds, dynamic scans = 245 volumes, slice thickness = 5 mm, and 24 slices per volume). Image processing was conducted using Statistical Parametric Mapping software (SPM12, Wellcome Depart- ment of Imaging Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom http://www.fi l.ion.ucl.ac.uk/ spm/software/spm12). T1-weighted anatomical images were acquired using the follow- ing parameters: 150 slices, thickness, 1.0 mm, TE = 2.0 ms, TR = 23 ms, FOV = 240 × 240 mm2, FA = 30°, and matrix size = 240 × 240. EPIs were spatially realigned, co-regis- tered (T1 to EPI), and normalized to the Montreal Neurological Institute template. Nor- malized images were smoothed using an 8-mm full-width half-maximum Gaussian kernel. The data were temporally convolved with a hemodynamic response function and high-pass fi ltered with a cutoff period of 128 s. We set the ROIs as the VS (10 4 -2) and DLPFC (33 15 45), which were used in our previous study (1). In addition, we set the somatosensory ROIs as the right SI (47 -39 46) and SII (52 -24 20) and the left SII (-58 -20 14) (4) (Figure 2). By using these fi ve ROIs, we performed simple regression analyses with the eigenvariate value for the VS as the dependent variable and that of each other ROI as the independent variable for each of the four contrasts (pre-Luxury versus baseline, pre-Basic versus baseline, post-Luxury versus baseline, and post-Basic versus baseline). Moreover, a Bonferroni correction was applied for these four regression analyses (each signifi cance level: p 0.05/4 = 0.0125). Further- more, we conducted stepwise multiple regression analyses with the eigenvariate value for the VS as the dependent variable and those of the other four ROIs as the independent variables (p 0.05) for each of the four contrasts. Then, we analyzed the residuals by per- forming a Shapiro–Wilk (S-W) test of normality (p 0.05) and calculated the Durbin– Watson (D-W) statistic for the null hypothesis of no autocorrelation. In addition, the activity of these fi ve ROIs was compared among the four contrasts by ANOVA (p 0.05), and the scores for the subjective evaluation of the texture (smoothness, softness, and spread well) were compared between creams A and B by a paired t-test (p 0.05).

LUXURY CUES OF CREAM HEIGHTEN THE REWARD VALUE 85 RESULTS In the fi rst session, with the conditions for cream A (before showing the product informa- tion), there was a signifi cant correlation between the VS and the right SII (p = 0.012 R2 = 0.279), whereas there were no signifi cant correlations between the VS and the other three regions. On the other hand, there were no signifi cant correlations in the fi rst session with the conditions for cream B. In the third session, with the conditions for cream A (after showing product information), there were signifi cant correlations between the VS and the right SI (p = 0.007), SII (p = 0.006), and DLPFC (p = 0.000), whereas there was no signifi cant correlation between the VS and the left SII region. As with the fi rst, there were no signifi cant correlations in the third session with the conditions for cream B (Fig- ure 3, Table I). In addit ion, in the fi rst session, the stepwise multiple regression analysis showed that the VS correlated positively with the right SII with the conditions for cream A (β = 0.582 t = 2.779 p 0.012 adjusted R2 = 0.279 D-W statistic = 1.700), whereas there was no signifi cant correlation with the conditions for cream B. In the third session, the VS showed a signifi cantly positive correlation with the DLPFC (β = 0.710 t = 4.509 p 0.000 adjusted R2 = 0.504 D-W statistic = 2.045) with the conditions for cream A, whereas there was no signifi cant correlation with the conditions for cream B. Moreover, to investigate how much the right SII contributed to the VS with the conditions for cream A in the third session, we conducted an additional stepwise multiple regression analysis with the eigenvariate value for the VS activity as the dependent variable and the other three ROIs, except the DLPFC, as the independent variables (p 0.05). As a result, the right SII was then positively correlated with the VS (β = 0.568 t = 3.083 p 0.006 adjusted R2 = 0.322 D-W statistic = 1.559). The ANOVA a nalysis of the activation of each region showed no signifi cant differences between the conditions and sessions (Figure 4), and the scores for the subjective scales showed signifi cant differences between creams A and B for all items (“smoothness”: t = 7.29 p 0.000 “softness”: t = 8.34 p 0.000 “spread well”: t = 7.74 p 0.000) (Figure 5). DISCUSSION Activity in the VS, which plays a critical role in the reward system, has been shown to correlate with the subjective pleasantness score in an fMRI study in which participants F igure 2. The locations of the ROIs. SI: primary somatosensory cortex, SII: secondary somatosensory cortex, DLPFC, VS.