Body mapping of skin friction coefficient and tactile perception during the dynamic skin-textile interaction

Figures & data

Table 1. The names and visual descriptions of test regions.

Figure 1. Texture, stickiness, pleasantness, discomfort, and the confidence of texture perception scales.

Five scales used for evaluating tactile perception. The texture scale has seven anchors ranging from very rough to very smooth. The stickiness scale has seven anchors ranging from very sticky to very slippery. Pleasantness has seven anchors ranging from very unpleasant to very pleasant. Discomfort has five anchors ranging from extremely uncomfortable to comfortable, and the confidence of texture perception has three anchors ranging from 0% confidence to 100% confidence. Distance between anchors is equal.

Figure 2. The females (n = 11) and males (n = 9) of superior static skin COF distribution across the 36 tested regions. All measurements were taken from the left-hand side of the body assuming symmetry (Claus et al. 1987; Meh and Denišlič 1994).

There are four images, representing female and male front and back upper bodies. Each image is divided into 36 parts to indicate test regions. Each test region includes a written superior skin friction coefficient value and is coloured depending on the skin friction coefficient level. A scale of skin friction coefficient shows high and low levels of superior skin coefficient of friction with different colours. The anterior neck of females and males has the highest skin friction coefficient.

Figure 3. The females (n = 11) and males (n = 9) of inferior static skin COF distribution across the 36-testing location. All measurements were taken from the left-hand side of the body assuming asymmetry (Claus et al. 1987; Meh and Denišlič 1994).

There are four upper body images representing female and male front and back upper bodies. Each image is divided into 36 parts to indicate test regions. Each test region includes a written inferior skin friction coefficient value and is coloured depending on the skin friction coefficient level. A scale of skin friction coefficient shows high and low levels of inferior skin coefficient of friction with different colours. The upper lateral chest of females and cubital fossa of males has the highest skin friction coefficient.

Figure 4. The females (n = 11) and males (n = 9) of texture perception distribution across the 36-testing location. All measurements were taken from the left-hand side of the body assuming asymmetry (Claus et al. 1987; Meh and Denišlič 1994).

There are four upper-body drawing images, representing the female and male front and back upper bodies. Female and male body images are divided into 36 parts showing test regions. Each test region includes a written texture perception rating value and is coloured depending on texture perception level. A scale of texture perception shows the high and low levels of roughness and smoothness with different colours. Higher texture perception is seen in their anterior aspects compared to posterior and lateral regions.

Figure 5. The females (n = 11) and males (n = 9) of stickiness perception distribution across the 36-testing location. All measurements were taken from the left-hand side of the body assuming asymmetry (Claus et al. 1987; Meh and Denišlič 1994).

There are four upper-body drawing images, representing the female and male front and back upper bodies. Female and male body images are divided into 36 parts showing test regions. Each test region includes a written stickiness perception rating value and is coloured depending on stickiness perception level. A scale of stickiness perception shows the high and low levels of stickiness and slippery with different colours. The anterior aspects mostly are coloured representing higher stickiness compared to posterior part.

Figure 6. The females (n = 11) and males (n = 9) of pleasantness perception distribution across the 36-testing location. All measurements were taken from the left-hand side of the body assuming asymmetry (Claus et al. 1987; Meh and Denišlič 1994).

There are four upper-body drawing images, representing the female and male front and back upper bodies. Female and male body images are divided into 36 parts showing test regions. Each test region includes a written pleasantness perception rating value and is coloured depending on pleasantness perception level. A scale of pleasantness perception shows the high and low levels of pleasantness with different colours. The anterior neck of female and the anterior forearm of male are coloured representing high level unpleasantness.

Figure 7. Individual data and box and whiskers with median connection line of the confidence of texture sensation ratings for forearm (above) and male (below).

Two graphs show the relationship between the body regions and the confident level of texture perception ratings of female and male participants. The confidence level is not dependent on body regions. The median level of certainty is 75% in females and 85% in males.

Figure 8. The body mapping of texture sensitivity to dynamic skin friction.

There are four upper body images representing female and male front and back upper bodies. Each image is divided into 36 parts to indicate test regions. Each test region includes a written texture sensitivity value and is coloured depending on sensitivity level. A scale of sensitivity shows the high and low levels of sensitivity with different colours. The anterior forearm of females and males are coloured representing high level texture sensitivity.

Figure 9. The body mapping of stickiness sensitivity to static skin friction.

There are four upper body images representing female and male front and back upper bodies. Each image is divided into 36 parts to indicate test regions. Each test region includes a written stickiness sensitivity value and is coloured depending on sensitivity level. A scale of sensitivity shows the high and low levels of sensitivity with different colours. The upper medial waist of females and lateral torso of males are coloured representing high level stickiness sensitivity.

Claus, D., M.J. Hilz, I. Hummer, and B. Neundörfer. 1987. “Methods of Measurement of Thermal Thresholds.” Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 76 (4): 288–296. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0404.1987.tb03583.x.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Meh, Duška, and Miro Denišlič. 1994. “Quantitative Assessment of Thermal and Pain Sensitivity.” Journal of the Neurological Sciences 127 (2): 164–169. doi:10.1016/0022-510X(94)90069-8.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar