Visual discrimination of hygiene tissue softness in the absence of haptic feedback
Source abstract
Abstract
Our perception of the softness of materials is dominated by the subjective interpretation of haptic stimuli — touch. Although softness is defined by the way a material deforms when force is applied, other sensorial inputs, such as vision and hearing, can be used to complement haptic feedback or when the material cannot be touched. Surface and bulk softness elements of hygiene tissue, such as surface roughness, embossing pattern, and bulk can be assessed visually. Softness is reported as the number one desired quality of hygiene tissue. So, it is of paramount importance to understand the criteria a consumer uses to judge softness visually. Consumers must rely on these other non-tactile senses at point-of-purchase or in e-commerce because they cannot interact with a product to judge the softness. This study proposes that a consumer can accurately gauge softness by sight alone, and that factors such as color tone, embossing, and image quality all affect the perception of softness. Stiffness and mechanical properties of the sheet cannot be observed by eye and can contribute to errors in visual judgement. We conducted an experiment using a complete pair ratio (round-robin) type comparison to evaluate the perceived softness of altered images of hygiene tissue with unaltered images. Images of hygiene tissue were altered to represent different lighting conditions or product color and digital image degradation. Our results suggest that yellow hygiene tissue is perceived as less soft than blue, and un-embossed tissue as less soft that embossed tissue. Reducing the image resolution to 10% of the original did not negatively affect the perception of softness.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Multisensory perception and integration · Color perception and design · Tactile and Sensory Interactions
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (27)
Show source-provided references
1. Bennett, J., and Blamey, R., The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham, England, 2001.10.4337/9781781956601 ↗
2. Di Luna, M., Multisensory Softness, Springer, London, England, 2014, p. xi.10.1007/978-1-4471-6533-0 ↗
3. Weißenbach, A., “Benchmark of pulps combined with softness measurements,” Heinzel Group, Vienna, Austria, 2010.
4. Raunio, J. and Ritala, R., Meas. Sci. Technol. 24(12): (2013).10.1088/0957-0233/24/12/125206 ↗
5. Stitt, J. and Richardson, H., Tissue World Mag. 60(5): 62(2014).
6. Kuo, L. and Cheng, Y., TAPPI J. 83(12): 61(2000).
7. Tiest, W.M.B. and Kappers, A.M.L., Acta Psychol. 121: 1(2006).10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.04.005 ↗
8. Hollmark, H., Tappi J. 66(2): 97(1983).
9. Peck, J. and Terry, C.L., J. Marketing 67(2): 35(2003).10.1509/jmkg.67.2.35.18612 ↗
10. U.S. Census Bureau, “Monthly & annual retail trade - annual retail trade survey historical data,” U.S. Census Bureau, Suitland, MD, USA. Available [Online] https://www.census.gov/retail/arts/his-toric_releases.html <08Aug2017>.10.1177/0047287572010003127 ↗
11. Cellini, C., Kaim, L., and Drewing, K., Iperception 4(8): 516(2013).10.1068/i0598 ↗
12. Ernst, M.O. and Banks, M.S., Nature 415(6870): 429(2002).10.1038/415429a ↗
13. Tiest, W.M.B. and Kappers, A.M.L., Acta Psychol. 124(2): 177(2007).10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.03.002 ↗
14. Norman, J.F., Norman, H.F., Clayton, A.M., et al., Perception Psychophysics 66(2): 342(2002).10.3758/BF03194883 ↗
15. Riedl, R. and Léger, P.M., Fundamentals of NeuroIS, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2016.10.1007/978-3-662-45091-8 ↗
16. Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C., J. Consumer Res. 9(2): 132(1982).10.1086/208906 ↗
17. Peck J. and Childers, T.L., J. Consumer Res. 30(3): 430(2003).10.1086/378619 ↗
18. Sénécal, S., Léger, P-M., Fredette, M., et al., “Touch screen as input device: does it influence memory retrieval?”, 2013 ICIS Conf., AIS, 2013.
19. Johansson, R.S., J. Physiol. 281(2): 101(1978).10.1113/jphysiol.1978.sp012411 ↗
20. Spreen, O. and Strauss, E., A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms, and Commentary, Oxford University Press, New York, 1991, p. 334.
21. Saaty, T.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process, 2nd edn., RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1990.
22. David, H.A., No. 12, Griffin’s Statistical Monographs & Courses, 2nd edn., Charles Griffin & Company, London, 1969.
23. Torgerson, W.S., Theory and Methods of Scaling, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1958.
24. Budescu, D.V., Zwick, R., and Rappoport, A., Applied Psychol. Meas. 10(1):69(1986).10.1177/014662168601000106 ↗
25. Valdez, P. and Mehrabian, A., J. Exp. Psychol. 123(4): 394(1994).10.1037/0096-3445.123.4.394 ↗
26. Kaya, N. and Epps, H.H., College Student Journal 38(3): 396(2004).
27. Kubota, T., Wada, T., and Matsuda, M., Transactions of the Society of Instrument and Control Engineers 35(8): 989(1999).10.9746/sicetr1965.35.989 ↗