Wear 523 (2023) 204877

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Wear
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wear

A study of the role of surface parameters on the relationship between

biotribology and cognitive perception involved in the design of
tactile graphics
Rachel H. Fast, Christian J. Schwartz *
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Tactual encoding of information is an essential aspect of communication in many aspects of life, but especially so
Skin tribology for persons with visual impairments. The most common encoding is the use of topological features on a static
Finger friction medium such as paper. While Braille is widely used and effective for text transcription, the effective use of tactile
Tactile graphics
graphics to communicate spatial or graphical information is less standardized. Tactile graphical techniques
Braille
typically employ collections of individual topological features or texture patterns to communicate spatial in­
formation (maps, plots, diagrams), with the goal of minimizing reader confusion among the elements. In this
study, the authors investigated the tribology and perception aspects of this complex issue in order to identify
fundamental surface parameters which play a dominant role. Using texture specification guidelines published by
the Braille Authority of North America (BANA), the investigators produced raised parallel-ridge textures on
thermally activated tactile paper. The texture parameters modified included the width of ridges, spacing between
ridges, and the inclination of the ridges to the pattern boundaries. Subjects reported their perception of tactile
similarity or difference between members of texture pairs that were presented under a blind. Measurements of
friction force were also collected for these textures to determine if friction mechanisms were most responsible for
perceptive ability, or if other surface attributes played a dominant role. The study found that modifying pattern
pitch improved perceptive ability to differentiate between adjacent mismatched texture patterns, but that ridge
width had a deleterious effect. The results suggested that perceptive ability was not strongly related to various
friction mechanisms proposed, but was closely correlated with changes in the number of pattern ridges in contact
with the fingertip during tactile graphic exploration.

1. Introduction
The use of tactile cues to communicate various forms of information
is ubiquitous. Examples can be found from passive cues, such as the
raised homing features on the ‘F’ and ‘J’ keys of a standard English
language QWERTY-style computer keyboard, all of the way to active
cues, such as the subtle vibration of a touchscreen device to indicate that
the unit has detected the push of a virtual button on the screen.
Furthermore, these cues span the realm of applications of convenience
or basic quality of life – as in the previous example – to those that entail
the fundamental ability of a user to interact with society, as is the case
for persons with visual impairments. While all humans employ the sense
of touch to process the constant barrage of sensory information, blind
and visually impaired individuals (BVI) have a comparatively stronger
reliance on tactile information for day-to-day life. For this population,
the most well-known tool for communicating traditionally visual in­
formation is braille, a set of raised dot patterns that represent alpha­
numeric characters. However, the many forms of non-textual
information that cannot be efficiently represented by the braille system
are often addressed by the use of tactile graphics, which typically
employ raised shapes, patterns and textures to represent visually spatial-
based information. Examples of tactile graphics include maps, diagrams,
and charts. One drawback of tactile graphics, as with braille, is that they
are relatively space inefficient, in that they often require far more media
surface area than their visual counterparts and are not simple copies of
the graphics they are based on. Graphics consisting of multiple spatial
regions with distinct boundaries, such geographic maps, typically
employ distinct textures instead of colors. From an information density

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cris1@iastate.edu (C.J. Schwartz).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2023.204877
Received 21 October 2022; Received in revised form 3 February 2023; Accepted 6 February 2023
Available online 31 March 2023
0043-1648/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
R.H. Fast and C.J. Schwartz
standpoint, this runs into the challenge of choosing textures and patterns
that are easily discernible for the reader, yet provide a broad enough
discernible texture pallet to represent a reasonably rich graphic. As an
empirically developed guide for professionals preparing tactile graphics,
the Braille Authority of North America (BANA) has published a guide of
best practices in selecting textures for tactile graphics. In their guide,
BANA have categorized distinct groups of tactual pattern families for use
in tactile graphics, including arrays of raised dots, ridges and other
geometric elements. The guidelines indicate that textures from different
groups can generally be printed adjacent to each other and provide
reasonable discernability for the reader, while textures from within a
single group are not recommended to be used adjacently [1]. These
guidelines have been developed empirically; however, thus far there has
been little fundamental research to determine the relevant texture
pattern paraments that govern discernability. Understanding how fac­
tors such as surface geometry, spacing of elements, and the interactions
between the material and fingers of the readers would help to maximize
the potential information that can be contained in a tactile graphic.
Once an individual’s skin comes into contact with a surface, their
sense of touch provides them with a wealth of information. In the case of
tactile graphics, this information is ascertained through active explor­
atory procedures of the fingertips [2], often called dynamic touch. The
relative motion of sliding one’s fingers produces a measurable frictional
force that researchers have used to establish a relationship between the
forces experienced by neural tactile receptors and qualitative properties
such as roughness, stickiness, and comfort [3–5] in the perception of
particular surface types. In addition to shear forces generated through
friction, the fingertip also experiences loading in the normal direction.
In some studies, variation of normal load has little effect on perception
[6], suggesting that there is more going on than the simple relationship
between normal force and friction. While studies have shown that the
coefficient of friction of fabrics can affect the perception [7,8], its
applicability to tactile graphics is not yet clear. Some studies have
suggested that tactile perception is also impacted by other parameters
such as finger penetration depth, affect the qualitative perception of the
texture [9–11]. For example, a study by Lederman showed that as the
space between metal grooves increased, they were judged as less rough
[13]. However, thus far there has been precious little work done to
elucidate the role of tribology in tactile graphic usability.
Relatively few studies have focused on the relationship between
friction mechanisms and tactile discrimination using the patterns or
print media commonly used in tactile graphics. The latter component,
the medium that the graphics are printed on, likely has a profound
impact not only on friction but also on tactile perception. A common
medium used for tactile graphics produced in educational settings is a
polymer-infused thermally activated paper (commonly referred to as
‘swell touch’ paper) which produces raised features that correspond to
the dark areas printed on the medium. Tactile perception experiments
done with swell touch paper showed that the length of the transition
area between different textures had little effect on the discrimination
thresholds of the participants [14]. In a more recent study by Renga­
nathan et al., using swell touch paper and texture patterns specified by
BANA, sighted participants could clearly distinguish between dot pat­
terns and ridge patterns, but had difficulty discerning between textures
within the same pattern family [12]. Thus the role of friction and surface
parameters in tactile perception is still very much an open question in
the realm of tactile graphics usability.
This investigation focused directly on determining the role that
friction plays in the ability to perceive differently patterned regions in
tactile graphics, or to get conclusive evidence that friction plays a minor
role in comparison to other surface interactions. The authors used a
thorough human subject perception study of sighted individuals,
coupled with established tribological methods to explore potential
mechanistic explanations for perceptive ability. The investigative
approach employed was to propose a sequence of hypotheses based on
potential friction mechanisms, and then using the actual measured
2
Wear 523 (2023) 204877
friction data to support or refute each hypothesis before moving to the
next. In this way, the partially confounded factors of friction and other
surface interactions could be separated as possible explanations for the
perception results.
2. Methods and materials
2.1. Tactile discrimination assessment
2.1.1. Stimulus
The BANA guidelines for tactile graphics divide textures (also
referred to alternatively as patterns in this paper) into general categories
based on tactile similarity. These guidelines recommend that adjacent
regions of a tactile graphic should employ patterns from different cat­
egories to avoid confusion for the reader. The patterns within each
category typically employ a repeated individual geometric element –
such as a circular dot, ridge, triangle – varied by factors such as size,
width, and orientation of the elements to comprise the larger pattern.
Building on the results of a previous study [12], this study focused on
patterns of parallel ridges, defined by the width of the individual raised
ridge elements and by the pattern pitch from one ridge to the next.
Texture patterns were developed using two levels of each of these fac­
tors: ridge-to-ridge pitch settings of 2.8 and 5.6 mm, respectively; and
ridge width values of 0.7 and 1.4 mm, respectively. This produced four
distinct reference texture patterns as described in Fig. 1 and Table 1. The
particular baseline values of pitch and width were chosen to replicate
some of the textures used in the previous study, in order to integrate the
previous findings into the dataset for the current study.
The tactile samples were printed on polymer microcapsule-infused
paper-based medium referred to as swell touch paper (Swell Touch
Paper, American Thermoform Corporation). This is a widely used me­
dium for the production of tactile graphics. Swell touch paper works
such that each sheet is initially printed as a gray-scale image using a
laser printer. Following this, the sheet is run through a thermal pro­
cessing unit and any areas that have been printed in black ink form a
raised area once exposed to heat. As in the previous study, samples were
then attached to adhesive magnetic tape to prevent distortion of the
paper from being touched and from moving across the table.
Each texture sample used in the perception study consisted of pairs of
the above reference textures. The texture pair were printed within a
rectangular-bounded area of 110 × 100 mm with each half comprising
one of the four reference patterns. This resulted in a total of 16 unique
texture combination combinations. The unique pairwise combinations
are referred to by a unique identifier (letters ‘A’ through ‘P’). Four
combinations from Renganathan and Schwartz [12], labeled ‘Q’ through
‘T’, were included in the current perception study, as described above.
The textures in these samples were parallel-ridge patterns identical to
reference patterns 1 and 2, respectively, but with the angle of ridges
oriented at 45◦ to the left-right axis of the samples rather than perpen­
dicularly oriented as in the other reference patterns. A complete listing
of the reference textures used in the study is shown in Table 2.
2.1.2. Experimental procedure
As the study involved human participants, this study was approved
by the Institutional Review Board of Iowa State university. Thirteen
sighted subjects participated in the study, all of which were over 18
Fig. 1. Comparative illustration of the reference patterns 1, 2, 3, and 4.
R.H. Fast and C.J. Schwartz Wear 523 (2023) 204877

Table 1 ‘different’); as well as a model is based on the probability of the

Reference texture dimensions. participant correctly identifying the adjacent textures as same or
Reference Pattern Pitch (mm) Width (mm) different.
1 2.8 1.4
2 2.8 0.7 2.2. Friction measurement
3 5.6 1.4
4 5.6 0.7 Selected texture pair sample were chosen for measurement of
fingertip sliding friction. Based on the results of the tactile perception
study, force measurements were taken on combinations ‘A’, ‘E’, and ‘M’.
years old. Of the participants, 7 were male and 6 were female, and 11
This sequence of samples allowed for a non-confounded examination of
were right-handed and 2 were left-handed. Participants were asked to
the effects of changing pattern pitch as well as width. The shear and
wash their hands before starting the study so that dirt and debris were
normal forces were measured with a three-axis piezoelectric dyna­
not a factor on their tactile perception. Participants were seated in front
mometer (Kistler, model 9254) and the output voltage was amplified by
of an opaque screen with a curtained opening in which they would reach
a three-channel amplifier (Kistler, model 5010). The data was recorded
through to touch the texture samples on the opposite side of the blind,
using data acquisition software (LabVIEW, National Instruments) which
thus they had no visual cues regarding the size or configuration of the
acquired the force data at 1000 Hz. Force data was processed using
texture combination. Fig. 2a shows the setup from the researcher’s side
signal analysis algorithms in a commercial software package (MATLAB
of the blind.
2021b, MathWorks).
Participants were instructed to use the index finger of their dominant
Friction was measured by sliding the index fingertip at a moderate
hand to freely explore each texture sample for up to 30 s, and that the
velocity from left to right across each texture sample. Sliding velocity
sample consisted of a pair of adjacent texture patterns. Participants were
and normal force were not explicitly controlled, but were rehearsed
not told that the boundary between patterns was at the midpoint, so as to
numerous times by the experimenter before data was recorded. This was
reduce the possibility they would base their answer on the perception of
facilitated by using the force data display to provide immediate feedback
distance. By the end of the allowed exploration period, participants were
on applied force and velocity until multiple swipes showed consistent
to tell the researcher if the adjacent textures felt the ‘same’ or ‘different’
performance. The subject (one of the authors) ran the index finger of
as part of a forced choice test. Each of the 20 texture combinations (‘A’
their dominant hand from left to right across the sample along the di­
through ‘T’) was presented three times to every participant, in a random
rection of the y-axis in quick succession in the setup shown in Fig. 2b.
order, for a total of 60 responses per participant. After every ten re­
Force data representing ambient conditions without loading was ac­
sponses, participants were allowed to rest for approximately 1 min to
quired for the purposes of characterizing background noise, and for the
minimize possible desensitization and/or tactile fatigue. The ambient
determination of filtering requirements. The data vector of a swipe was
temperature of the testing environment averaged 21 ◦ C and an average
passed through a lowpass filter with a cut off frequency of 60 Hz and
relative humidity of 25%.
then analyzed for dominant frequencies using a Fast Fourier Transform
The results of the forced choice test were analyzed (RStudio) using a
algorithm in the signal processing software.
standard linear modelling approach to build predictive models. Two
perspectives were analyzed: a model based on the probability of the
participant’s response to a particular texture combination (‘same’ or

Table 2
Unique pairwise texture combinations used in the perception study. ‘left’ and ‘right’ refer to the two respective regions of the texture sample. In combinations with
pairs of different patterns, the comparison column indicates which parameter is modified in moving from the left to right across the pair. The ridges in combinations ‘Q’
through ‘T’ were obliquely oriented at 45◦ to that of the other combinations.
Combination Patterns (left, right) Comparison (left to right) Combination Patterns (left, right) Comparison (left to right)

A 1,1 same K 2,3 pitch↑, width↑

B 2,2 same L 3,2 pitch↓, width↓
C 3,3 same M 1,2 width↓
D 4,4 same N 2,1 width↑
E 1,3 pitch↑ O 3,4 width↓
F 3,1 pitch↓ P 4,3 width↑
G 1,4 pitch↑, width↓ Q 1,1 (45◦ ) same
H 4,1 pitch↓, width↑ R 2,2 (45◦ ) same
I 2,4 pitch↑ S 1,2 (45◦ ) width↓
J 4,2 pitch↓ T 2,1 (45◦ ) width↑

Fig. 2. a) View of the forced choice experimental setup from behind the blind. Samples were placed so the letters faced away from the researcher and towards the
participant. b) View of the top of the friction-frequency experiment. The X-axis points down, parallel with the ridges, the Y-axis points towards the left and the Z-axis
points towards the ground, perpendicular to the XY plane.

3
R.H. Fast and C.J. Schwartz
3. Results & discussion
As stated previously, the goals of this investigation were to deter­
mine which tribological behaviors, namely friction mechanisms, play a
significant role in the tactual ability to differentiate between common
texture patterns in tactile graphics, or to definitively eliminate friction
as a dominant player. The perception study results are initially presented
here, followed by a section-by-section discussion of various hypotheses
that were proposed to explain the results. In sequential order, the data
are used to provide support, or highlight a lack of evidential support, for
each hypothesis with the goal of eliminating them until the most plau­
sible explanation remains.
3.1. Forced choice perception study
3.1.1. Perception of sameness or difference
Fig. 3 reports the mean values, over each test subject, of the pro­
portion of instances when a pair’s two texture patterns were perceived
as being different from each other. As these are measures of perception,
they do not directly reflect the true state of the pair being the same
pattern (value of zero in the plot) or different patterns (value of unity).
In fact, the magnitude of the difference of the mean value from either
zero or unity, gives an indication of the level of uncertainty in the
perceptive experience.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that the differences in
perception were a strong function of the texture combination (as ex­
pected), and that there was not a statistically significant impact of in­
dividual test subject, or higher-level interactions between combination
and test subject. Linear modeling supported these conclusions in that
nearly all of the unique texture combinations had non-zero model co­
efficients (with p-values below 0.05), while confidence intervals for the
model coefficients for test subject tended to span zero. As an indirect
indicator of the validity of the data in the current investigation, the
observed perception frequencies for combinations Q through T are
comparable to those reported previously [12]. This suggests that find­
ings from the previous study are reproducible, and these findings also
serve as a benchmark for the current results.
As seen in the figure, the 16 textures (not including Q through T
which are oriented at 45◦ ) fall into three primary groups: those which
were almost always perceived different, those that were nearly always
perceived as the same, and those where the response was close to
Fig. 3. Mean frequency (expressed as a proportion of total instances) of each
texture combination being perceived as different. Error bars indicate standard
error of the mean (n = 39 measures per combination). Values near zero indicate
pairs that were usually perceived as the same, versus values near unity which
indicate pairs that were usually perceived as different from each other.
4
Wear 523 (2023) 204877
random chance (indicated by a mean frequency of 0.5). This provides
some insight into what factors correlated to successfully detecting
different texture patterns in a pair. Among the combinations in the first
group (E through L) displaying a very high probability of successful
differentiation, either the pitch was solely changed between members of
the pair, or both pitch and width were changed. At 97% chance or higher
of being seen as different, these were the combinations that presented
the least confusion. The second group, (A through D) were combinations
where both members of the pair were identical. Interestingly, combi­
nation B was perceived as an identical pattern pair with slightly more
confidence than the other three combinations in this group. Of the four
combinations, B exhibited both the low setting of pitch and width. The
final group of texture pairs (M through P), produced the greatest level of
perceptive uncertainty. In each of these textures, only the width of the
ridges was different between the members of the pair. Surprisingly this
suggests that the adjustments in ridge width (doubled, in this study) can
actually be detrimental to proper discrimination between texture pat­
terns if not accompanied by a concurrent change in pattern pitch.
The above trends become more prevalent when the combinations are
grouped by the sequence of pattern modifications from the original
reference texture (1 through 4), to a single parameter change (either in
width or pitch), and finally to a combination where both parameters
were modified. This can be referred to as a trajectory group of modifi­
cation. This produces four distance trajectories of perceptive capabil­
ities. For example, Fig. 4 illustrates the progression of perceptive
differentiation starting from a combination of identical patterns and
then progressing, step-wise, to a combination with a pair that is mis­
matched in both pitch and width. The most enlightening observation
from this analysis is found by comparing the difference in start and finish
detection frequencies, with the amount of change in detection when just
a single factor is modified. In the case shown in the figure, the frequency
of perceiving the (identical) texture pair as different starts at approxi­
mately 27% (combination A), and attained 100% when both the width
and pitch were mismatched between the two members of the pair (G).
However, the crucial observation is that changing pitch alone (E) yields
an approximately 97% frequency of perceiving a difference in the pair.
Thus the change of pitch accounts for nearly all of the improvement in
perceptive ability when compared to changing both parameters. On the
other hand, changing only width between members of the pair (com­
bination M) yields a fairly middling improvement in perceptive ability of
approximately 51%, and even then results in successful discrimination
between texture patterns no better than random chance. Taken together,
this provides robust evidence that between the two pattern parameters
investigated here, it is the pattern pitch that is most responsible for
providing sufficient tactile cues for perceptive differentiation between
mismatched patterns, while varying the ridge width provided far less
benefit. Looking at the other three trajectory groups, it was even
observed that changing width alone negatively impacted successful
perceptive differentiation between members of a mismatched pair.
Because of the very definite results observed in the trajectory group
illustrated in the figure, combinations A, E, and M were used in the
tribological investigation into the impact of both pitch and ridge width
modification.
3.1.2. Correct perception of sameness or difference
Though it does not encompass additional information over the pre­
sentation of the results in Fig. 3, it was deemed useful to examine the
results from the perspective of the rate of success in correctly identifying
a particular texture pair as being the same or different. Fig. 5 plots the
perception results in this manner. As can be observed, the current plot is
merely the result of subtracting the rate of difference detection fre­
quency from unity for the combinations of identical texture patterns,
while leaving the mismatched combinations unmodified. This visuali­
zation of the results is useful because it very directly indicates which
texture combinations would be useful for ensuring high discrimination
for tactile graphics, versus combinations that are impractical due to
R.H. Fast and C.J. Schwartz
Fig. 4. Illustration of one of the four trajectory groups used for analysis of results. Evolution of perceptive ability from original pair of identical reference textures to a
single factor change (pitch or width), and culminating in the change of both factors. Annotations indicate the particular factor change in the step from one com­
bination to the next, and the numerical values below the combination illustrations reports the mean frequency of perceptive differentiation.
Fig. 5. Proportion of correct identification of sameness or difference between
members of the pair for each of the unique texture combinations used in this
study. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean (n = 39 measures per
combination).
much lower rates of correct identification. Essentially, the results show
that combinations M through P would not be advisable pattern pairings
in tactile graphics when attempting to tactually depict differing adjacent
regions. As discussed above, these four pairs are unique among all
combinations because they are the pair were ridge width was the sole
parameter that differentiated each member of the pair. This trend was
also observed in the two obliquely oriented patterns (S and T) that
exhibited a change in ridge with between members of the pair.
3.2. Friction-mediated mechanisms
The authors proposed alternative hypotheses to explain the results of
5
Wear 523 (2023) 204877
the perception study in terms of tribological behavior, in an effort to
either identify the most plausible friction mechanisms responsible or to
use the evidence to disqualify one or more specific hypotheses. These
were proposed and tested in the order that aligned with the intuitively
most probable friction correlations. Given the findings of the perception
study, the group of texture combinations A, E and G were used in the
friction measurement investigation. The rationale for each hypothesis
and evidentiary support are presented below.
3.2.1. Friction-induced vibrotactile mechanism
One commonly cited mechanism that may influence tactile percep­
tion is a vibrotactile phenomenon in which the neural receptors in the
skin detect a dominant perturbation frequency directly related to the
spatial frequency of a surface feature. This is closely related to the
observation that human subjects detect the acoustic experience of
sliding against a surface and use the auditory cue to help characterize
the surface. The current investigation employed reference patterns at
two different values of pattern pitch, and thus a hypothetical charac­
teristic frequency of fingertip encounter with individual pattern ridges
was calculated using the fingertip sliding speed measured during the
friction measurement portion of the study. The characteristic frequency
values calculated for the two pattern pitches used in this investigation
were 36 and 46 Hz, respectively. Because the samples consisted of pairs
of texture patterns, it is possible to have both frequencies present in a
single signal if the members of the pair have different pitches. Combi­
nations A and M have pairs with matching (low) pitch, so the higher
frequency was anticipated, while combination E contains members of
both pitches and thus both characteristic frequencies were anticipated.
Fig. 6 presents the shear and normal force data measured for texture
combinations A, E and M, respectively, in the frequency domain via a
fast Fourier Transform algorithm. Examining the figure shows no evi­
dence of a strong signal component at the predicted characteristic fre­
quencies for combinations A and M. While there appeared to be some
signal strength in the vicinity of the expected frequencies for combina­
tion E, the very low amplitude coupled with the lack of any observable
signature for the former combinations, suggests that a vibrotactile
R.H. Fast and C.J. Schwartz
Fig. 6. Frequency domain representation of friction and normal force for texture combinations A, E, and M, with amplitude plotted on a logarithmic scale. A low-pass
filter with a cutoff frequency of 60 Hz was applied to address background noise.
mechanism is very unlikely to be of primary importance in modulating
the perceptive ability to differentiate between mismatched texture
patterns. Therefore, the investigators discarded the vibrotactile hy­
pothesis for these textures and moved to the next potential explanation.
3.2.2. Pattern-induced changes in mean friction force
The next hypothesis proposed to explain the perception data
involved the magnitude of the measured shear force during fingertip
sliding. It was surmised that the raised topology of the printed textures
would produce a characteristic shear force as a function of both adhesive
and hysteretic friction mechanisms. All textures were printed on the
same swell touch substrate, thus normalizing the adhesive friction
component. Changes in relative friction between texture patterns, if
large enough, could potentially provide tactile cues used in the
perception study. Furthermore, if significant differences were observed
in friction measured during sliding against the individual members of a
pair, then the role of pattern pitch and ridge width could then be
examined from a contact mechanics perspective.
Fig. 7 presents the time-history shear force measured during fingertip
swipes across texture combinations A, E and M, respectively. The
applied normal force was reasonably constant and fell primarily within a
range of 1.5–2 N. The timescale of the horizontal axis corresponds to the
Fig. 7. Time-history plot of friction and normal force of textures A, E, and M after a lowpass filter with a cutoff frequency of 60 Hz.
6
Wear 523 (2023) 204877
time taken for the fingertip to complete one complete swipe across the
texture combination sample, with the boundary between the two
members of the pair occurring at approximately 300 ms from the leading
edge of the sample. What is immediately apparent in the data is that
there is little variation in the measured friction force across the entire
texture sample, and very little evidence of a measurable change in the
values of friction regardless of which member of the texture pair is being
contacted. Furthermore, while examination of the data clearly shows a
complex collection of various frequency components, a frequency
analysis did not reveal any components that had the strength or con­
sistency to be labeled as characteristic frequency components. This is
somewhat surprising given that the mismatched pairs (E and M) consist
of different ridge widths and/or pattern pitch for each member of the
pair. In fact, there is a lack of a clear signature in the data to indicate the
physical transition from one member of the pair to the next. As in the
case of the vibrotactile hypothesis discussed above, the hypothesis that
perception is heavily influenced by texture-induced modulation of the
friction force, is not supported by the data. More directly, the variations
in the patterns used in this study did not produce significant change in
the friction force measured.
R.H. Fast and C.J. Schwartz Wear 523 (2023) 204877

3.2.3. Pattern-induced changes in the variance of friction force Table 3

After ruling out the previous two explanations for the changes in Predicted number of proximal edges for patterns 1, 2, and 3 expressed as a
perception of the various texture combinations, there remained one relative ratio with respect to reference pattern 1.
hypothesis based on a friction mechanism. The investigators postulated Reference Pattern Pitch (mm) Groove (mm) Ratio of Proximal Edges
that even without significant changes to the mean value of friction 1 2.8 1.4 1
across different combinations, there may be a possibility that the pat­ 2 2.8 2.1 1
terns elicit a change in the variances of friction force of one member of a 3 5.6 4.2 0.67
pair when compared to the variance of the other member of a (mis­
matched) pair. There is some intuitive plausibility to this concept
because of the discrete nature of the individual ridged elements in the Table 4
texture patterns. It was surmised that modifying the ridge width or Change in encountered number of proximal edges for texture combinations A, E,
pattern pitch could theoretically cause more or less variation in the and M.
friction force amplitude even without changing the overall mean. Fig. 7 Combination Patterns (left, Parameter Proximal Edges (left,
serves as the most useful illustration to assess this hypothesis. As with right) Changed right)
the observation of the overall mean friction force amplitude, there was A 1,1 none No change
little visual evidence suggesting that the variance of the signals changed M 1,2 width No change
significantly from one textures combination to the next, nor from E 1,3 pitch 33% fewer
pattern to pattern within the same texture combination. Means testing of
the variance values calculated for each pattern segment in combinations
in E as being different from each other, yet showed a great deal of un­
A, E and M yielded no statistically significant differences. Therefore,
certainty (51%) in the perception of the texture pair in combination M.
there was insufficient evidence to support this last remaining friction-
Furthermore, this helps to explain the lack of perception benefit of
based hypothesis and it was rejected to allow for focus on yet another
changing ridge width in this study.
alternative.

3.3. Topology-mediated mechanism 4. Conclusions

Having not seen strong evidential support for the three previous
hypotheses dependent on friction-induced phenomena, the authors
concluded that the perceptive ability to differentiate between identical
and/or different texture patterns must be influenced by an alternative
surface attribute. The final hypothesis explored in this study was that the
number of ridge edges simultaneously in contact with the fingertip at a
given time was significant factor in perception. The rationale for this
proposal relied on the intuitive understanding that during sliding,
localized subregions of fingertip contact will alternatively penetrate the
voids between pattern ridges, impact the leading edge of a certain
number of ridges, and deform as the skin is driven up, over and beyond
the lateral extent of each ridge. This is a far more complex scenario for
perception than that of a purely friction-based mechanism; however,
some quantitative aspects of this phenomenon can be determined using
previously developed models. The number of proximal edges (the face of
each pattern ridge that is closest to the centerline of the fingertip during
sliding) was calculated using a modified Hertzian contact model
developed by Wilde et al. [15]. This model incorporates the standard
Hertzian parameters (surface radii, contact pressure and elastic modulus
of the bodies), but integrates pattern-specific attributes including the
distance between the pattern elements (ridges) and the width of the
elements themselves. Given that this investigation involved patterns
where all attributes were fixed other than pattern pitch and width, the
total number of proximal edges in contact were calculated and expressed
as a ratio relative to a single reference texture (pattern 1). The relative
ratio of predicted number of edges for the three reference patterns in
question (found on texture combinations A, E and M) are presented in
Tables 3 and 4.
Examining the tables, it is clear that modification of pitch is the only
parameter that has an observable impact on the number of ridge edges
encountered by the sliding fingertip. This makes intuitive sense because
pattern pitch is a fundamental measure of the spacing between the
ridges themselves. A higher pitch thus directly leads to greater spacing
between the leading edges of each ridge. In the case of the texture
combinations, there is a predicted reduction in the number of ridge
edges encountered of one third when the test subjects explored combi­
nation E. On the other hand, the model predicts no change in ridge edges
encountered with the other two combinations studied here (A and M).
This correlates very well with the results of the perception study in that
nearly all subjects (97%) were correctly able to identify the texture pair
This study investigated the role of pitch and width in governing the
ability of sighted human test subjects to correctly identify pairs of
adjacent ridged textures as similar or different. A second aim was to
ascertain the role and importance of friction mechanisms on this
perceptive ability. The focus application for this work is the use of these
texture patterns in tactile graphics printed on swell touch paper for BVI
instructional materials. The investigation yielded the following
conclusions:
1. The ability of sighted human subjects to correctly differentiate be­
tween mismatched adjacent patterns was improved by using
different pitches for each pattern.
2. In contrast, the use of different ridge widths, without modifying
pitch, had either a null or negative impact on the perceptive ability of
subjects to correctly differentiate between mismatched patterns.
3. There was an absence of supporting evidence that friction-induced
phenomena were responsible for the perceptive ability of the test
subjects. Hypotheses based on vibrotactile mechanisms, pattern-
induced changes in the mean friction, and pattern-induced changes
in the variance of friction, were all rejected.
4. There was evidential support for the hypothesis that perceptive
ability was most greatly impacted by the number of ridge edges in
contact with the fingertip, and that the ability to differentiate be­
tween mismatched patterns was improved when adjacent patterns
exposed the fingertip to different numbers of simultaneous ridge
edges in contact. This supported the findings regarding the roles of
pattern pitch and ridge width.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Braille Authority of North America, Guidelines and standards for tactile graphics.
https://www.brailleauthority.org/tg/.
[2] Susan J. Lederman, Roberta L. Klatzy, Hand movements: a window into haptic
object recognition, Cognit. Psychol. 19 (1987) 342–368.

7
R.H. Fast and C.J. Schwartz
[3] Emilie Bertaux, Rene Michel Rossi, Xianyi Zeng, Vincent Ventenat, Textile,
Physiological, and Sensorial Parameters in Sock Comfort, Textil. Res. J.. 80 (n.d.).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0040517510369409.
[4] Sheng Zhang, Finger pad friction and tactile perception of laser treated, stamped
and cold rolled micro-structured stainless steel sheet surfaces, Friction 5 (2017)
207–218, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-017-0147-9.
[5] X. Liu, Quantifying touch–feel perception: tribological aspects, Meas. Sci. Technol.
19 (2008), https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/19/8/084007.
[6] Skedung Lisa, Tactile perception: finger friction, surface roughness and perceived
coarseness, Tribol. Int. 44 (2011) 505–512, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
triboint.2010.04.010.
[7] P. Kenins, Influence of fiber type and moisture on measured fabric-to-skin friction,
Textil. Res. J. 64 (1994), https://doi.org/10.1177/004051759406401204.
[8] S. Derler, U. Shrade, Tribology of human skin and mechanical skin equivalents in
contact with textiles, Wear 263 (2007) 1112–1116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wear.2006.11.031.
Wear 523 (2023) 204877
[9] M. Hollins, R. Risner, Evidence for the duplex theory of tactile texture perception,
Percept. Psychophys. 62 (2000) 695–705.
[10] S. Bensmaia, M. Hollins, Pacinian representations of fine surface texture, Percept.
Psychophys. 67 (2005) 842–854.
[11] Charles E. Connor, Kenneth O. Johnson, Neural coding of tactile texture:
comparison of spatial and temporal mechanisms for roughness perception,
J. Neurosci. 12 (1992) 3414–3426, https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.12-09-
03414.1992.
[12] P. Renganathan, C. Schwartz, Investigation of Human Perception of Tactile
Graphics and its Dependence on Fundamental Friction Mechanisms, 2021, p. 476.
[13] S. Lederman, Tactile Roughness of Grooved Surfaces: the Touching Process and
Effects of Macro- and Microsurface Structure, Perception and Psychophysics, 1974.
[14] H. Nefs, A. Kappers, J. Koenderink, Frequency discrimination between and within
line gratings by dynamic touch, Percept. Psychophys. 64 (2002) 969–980.
[15] T. Wilde, C. Schwartz, A parametric contact model to describe the interlocking of
soft bodies with ridged surface textures used in haptic applications, Int. J. Solid
Struct. 178–179 (2019) 120–126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2019.06.026.