Influence of Product Interface Material Stiffness on Human Tactile Perception during a Grasping Task
Source abstract
Abstract
When considering product handle ergonomics, authors have focused on product handle sizes and shapes, while handle materials have been largely ignored. Authors have shown that handles coated with rubber foam were more comfortable than stiff handles. However, they did not provide detailed material properties, nor did they investigate different stiffnesses and their impact on tactile perception during grasping. Therefore, in this article, we investigated the influence of product interface material stiffness using a common wood sawing task with a saw handle made of hard plastic and 3D-printed deformable material with different stiffnesses. The results showed that user tactile perception can be improved significantly where the 3D-printed cellular density, and, hence material stiffness, has a significant influence on the resulting tactile perception. However, results have shown that the material stiffness must be determined appropriately to maintain the stability of the products in hands. The results also suggest that the product interface material had a greater influence on the reported overall comfort rating than the product handle shape in the sawing task.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Tactile and Sensory Interactions · Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders · Motor Control and Adaptation
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Laboratory for Intelligent CAD Systems, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maribor, Smetanova ulica 17, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia
Funding
Slovenian Research Agency
References (39)
Show source-provided references
1. Practicing universal design to actual hand tool design process10.1016/j.apergo.2014.12.008 ↗
2. Identifying factors of comfort in using hand tools10.1016/j.apergo.2004.04.001 ↗
3. Cumulative trauma disorders: A review10.3233/BMR-150266 ↗
4. Work-Related cumulative trauma disorders of the upper extremity10.1001/jama.1992.03480060084035 ↗
5. Work-Related upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders in the United States: 2006, 2009, and 2014 National Health Interview Survey10.3233/WOR-182770 ↗
6. Empirical assessment of handrail diameters10.1037/h0042873 ↗
7. Sensory Evaluation of Grip Using Cylindrical Objects
8. Variation of finger forces in maximal isometric grasp tests on a range of cylinder diameters10.1016/0141-5425(87)90079-3 ↗
9. Chen, Y. (1991). An Evaluation of Hand Pressure Distribution and Forearm Flexor Muscle Contribution for a Power Grasp on Cylindrical Handles. [Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Nebraska].
10. Optimum tool handle diameter for a cylinder grip10.1197/S0894-1130(03)00160-1 ↗
11. Effect of grip span on maximal grip force and fatigue of flexor digitorum superficialis10.1016/S0003-6870(98)00055-6 ↗
12. Optimization of product dimensions for discrete sizing applied to a tool handle10.1016/j.ergon.2011.08.005 ↗
13. An analysis of handle designs for reducing manual effort: The influence of grip diameter10.1016/0169-8141(92)90033-V ↗
14. Optimal cylindrical handle diameter for grip force tasks10.1016/j.ergon.2004.11.003 ↗
15. Tool-Handle design based on a digital human hand model10.1016/j.ergon.2013.05.002 ↗
16. Tactile perception of the roughness of 3D-printed textures10.1152/jn.00564.2017 ↗
17. Tactile perception of pleasantness in relation to perceived softness10.1038/s41598-020-68034-x ↗
18. Tactile perception for surgical status recognition in robot-assisted laminectomy10.1109/TIE.2021.3118387 ↗
19. Tactile perception based on injected vibration in soft sensor10.1109/LRA.2021.3075664 ↗
20. 4D-Printed untethered self-propelling soft robot with tactile perception: Rolling, racing, and exploring10.1016/j.matt.2021.08.014 ↗
21. Skin mechanical properties and modeling: A review10.1177/0954411918759801 ↗
22. A Study of Hand Grip Pressure Distribution and Emg of Finger Flexor Muscles under Dynamic Loads10.1080/00140139508925140 ↗
23. Characterisation of forces exerted by the entire hand during the power grip: Effect of the handle diameter10.1080/00140139.2011.652195 ↗
24. Pressure thresholds of the human foot: Measurement reliability and effects of stimulus characteristics10.1080/00140139.2011.552736 ↗
25. Association between objective and subjective measurements of comfort and discomfort in hand tools10.1016/j.apergo.2006.05.004 ↗
26. Contact pressure distribution at hand–handle interface: Role of hand forces and handle size10.1016/j.ergon.2004.09.005 ↗
27. Perception of surface pressure applied to the hand10.1080/001401399184947 ↗
28. Finite element evaluation of the effect of fingertip geometry on contact pressure during flat contact10.1002/cnm.2712 ↗
29. Analysis of the contact interactions between fingertips and objects with different surface curvatures10.1243/095441105X9327 ↗
30. Perceived value of the mass-customized product and mass customization experience for individual consumers10.1111/j.1937-5956.2010.01131.x ↗
31. Optimal product’s hand-handle interface parameter identification10.2507/IJSIMM14(3)3.285 ↗
32. Recommendations for tool-handle material choice based on finite element analysis10.1016/j.apergo.2013.07.014 ↗
33. Mass customization origins: Mass or custom manufacturing?
34. Ergonomics evaluation of a foam rubber grip for tool handles10.1016/0003-6870(91)90225-7 ↗
35. Cupar, A., Kaljun, J., Dolšak, B., and Harih, G. (2020). Design of 3D Printed Cellular Meta-materials for Improved Tool-Handle Ergonomics. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, AHFE 2020, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-51981-0_14 ↗
36. Investigation of Grip Force, Normal Force, Contact Area, Hand Size, and Handle Size for Cylindrical Handles10.1518/001872008X354192 ↗
37. Comparison of subjective comfort ratings between anatomically shaped and cylindrical handles10.1016/j.apergo.2013.11.011 ↗
38. 3D printed deformable product handle material for improved ergonomics10.1016/j.ergon.2020.103080 ↗
39. Comfort predictors for different kinds of hand tools: Differences and similarities10.1016/j.ergon.2006.09.019 ↗