Individual differences in perceptual space for tactile textures: Evidence from multidimensional scaling

Ratio scaling was used to obtain from 5 subjects estimates of the subjective dissimilarity between the members of all possible pairs of 17 tactile surfaces. The stimuli were a diverse array of everyday surfaces, such as corduroy, sandpaper, and synthetic fur. The results were analyzed using the multidimensional scaling (MDS) program ALSCAL. There was substantial, but not complete, agreement across subjects in the spatial arrangement of perceived textures. Scree plots and multivariate analysis suggested that, for some subjects, a two-dimensional space was the optimal MDS solution, whereas for other subjects, a three-dimensional space was indicated. Subsequent to their dissimilarity scaling, subjects rated each stimulus on each of five adjective scales. Consistent with earlier research, two of these (rough/smooth andsoft/hard) were robustly related to the space for all subjects. A third scale,sticky/slippery, was more variably related to the dissimilarity data: regressed into three-dimensional MDS space, it was angled steeply into the third dimension only for subjects whose scree plots favored a nonplanar solution. We conclude that thesticky/slippery dimension is perceptually weighted less than therough/smooth andsoft/hard dimensions, materially contributing to the structure of perceptual space only in some individuals.

[1]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  The scaling of subjective roughness and smoothness. , 1962, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  M. M. Taylor,et al.  Fingertip force, surface geometry, and the perception of roughness by active touch , 1972 .

[3]  W. R. Garner The Processing of Information and Structure , 1974 .

[4]  M. M. Taylor,et al.  Tactile roughness of grooved surfaces: A model and the effect of friction , 1975 .

[5]  J. Stevens Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences , 1986 .

[6]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  D. Katz The World of Touch , 1989 .

[8]  Susan J. Lederman,et al.  Haptic integration of object properties: texture, hardness, and planar contour. , 1989 .

[9]  S. Lederman,et al.  Haptic integration of planar size with hardness, texture, and planar contour. , 1990, Canadian journal of psychology.

[10]  C. Connor,et al.  Tactile roughness: neural codes that account for psychophysical magnitude estimates , 1990, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[11]  M. Srinivasan,et al.  Tactile detection of slip: surface microgeometry and peripheral neural codes. , 1990, Journal of neurophysiology.

[12]  R. Shepard Integrality versus separability of stimulus dimensions: From an early convergence of evidence to a p , 1991 .

[13]  K. Johnson,et al.  Neural coding of tactile texture: comparison of spatial and temporal mechanisms for roughness perception , 1992, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[14]  Mark Holliins,et al.  Perceptual dimensions of tactile surface texture: A multidimensional scaling analysis , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Constraints on Haptic Integration of Spatially Shared Object Dimensions , 1993, Perception.

[16]  C. Reed,et al.  Perceptual Dependence for Shape and Texture during Haptic Processing , 1994, Perception.

[17]  S. Brooks,et al.  Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences , 1993 .

[18]  Mandayam A. Srinivasan,et al.  Tactual discrimination of softness: abilities and mechanisms , 1996 .