Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Haptic and visual perception of roughness.

Wouter M Bergmann Tiest1, Astrid M L Kappers

  • 1Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands. W.M.BergmannTiest@phys.uu.nl

Acta Psychologica
|May 11, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Normal force in natural active touch correlates with fingertip stiffness.

Scientific reports·2026
Same author

Vibrotactile spatial acuity on the back.

Perception·2024
Same author

Hands-Free Haptic Navigation Devices for Actual Walking.

IEEE transactions on haptics·2024
Same author

Influence of Back Length on Vibrotactile Acuity in Vertical Direction.

IEEE transactions on haptics·2024
Same author

Hand-Held Haptic Navigation Devices for Actual Walking.

IEEE transactions on haptics·2022
Same author

The Oblique Effect in the Perception of the Direction Between Two Points of Vibration on the Back.

IEEE transactions on haptics·2021
Same journal

MRI correlates of emotion recognition in vascular dementia: An empty systematic review.

Acta psychologica·2026
Same journal

The core symptoms of elementary school students' fear of negative evaluation and its network relationship with self-confidence and family atmosphere.

Acta psychologica·2026
Same journal

Examining the moderating role of psychological hardiness in the relation between job demands and teachers' emotional exhaustion.

Acta psychologica·2026
Same journal

Counter-Empathy Scale: Adapting and developing psychometric properties in Northeast India.

Acta psychologica·2026
Same journal

When AI creates: Creative self-efficacy as a mediator in design professionals' adoption of AI image generators.

Acta psychologica·2026
Same journal

Effects of multimodal feedback on L2 English learners' lexical stress error correction: The role of learning style and feedback preference.

Acta psychologica·2026
See all related articles

Perceived roughness, whether visual or haptic, correlates with physical roughness measures, though neither perfectly matches physical properties. Individual perception varies, impacting correlations with different spatial frequencies.

Area of Science:

  • Materials Science
  • Psychophysics
  • Surface Metrology

Background:

  • Understanding the relationship between physical surface properties and human perception is crucial for material design and interaction.
  • Existing research often focuses on single sensory modalities or limited material sets.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the correlation between physical roughness and perceived roughness across visual and haptic modalities.
  • To compare the effectiveness of visual versus haptic perception in assessing material roughness.
  • To explore individual differences in roughness perception criteria.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized 96 diverse everyday material samples (wood, textiles, ceramics, etc.).
  • Characterized samples using multiple physical roughness measures derived from roughness profiles, including spectral densities and industrial standards (Ra, Rq, Rz).

Related Experiment Videos

  • Collected perceived roughness rankings from 12 naive subjects under separate visual and haptic conditions.

    • Main Results:

    • Both visual and haptic perception showed moderate correlation with physical roughness measures, with haptic perception sometimes exhibiting slightly better correspondence.
    • Individual subjects utilized different criteria, correlating better with high or low spatial frequency roughness measures.
    • A significant divergence was observed between objectively measured physical roughness and subjectively perceived roughness.

    Conclusions:

    • Perceived roughness is not identical to physical roughness, highlighting the complexity of sensory interpretation.
    • Both visual and haptic senses offer comparable, yet imperfect, assessments of material roughness.
    • Individual differences in perceptual strategies necessitate further investigation into multimodal surface interaction.