Advertisement

Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 143–152 | Cite as

Scenario-based touching: on the influence of top-down processes on tactile and visual appreciation

  • Martina Jakesch
  • Martina Zachhuber
  • Helmut Leder
  • Mark Spingler
  • Claus-Christian Carbon
Original Paper

Abstract

The aim was to propose a testing procedure that allows measuring ecological valid judgments as a tool for selecting e.g. surface materials in the design process. Precise measures are essential for evaluation processes for example in design research and applied studies. Contextual effects in form of top-down processes often lead to biases in measures such as quality or liking judgments. We examined contextual effects of such factors by varying specific instructions, which were based on everyday life scenarios. We also investigated the stability and ecological validity of evaluations with the focus on a multisensory approach involving vision plus touch, touch-only and vision-only conditions. Participants evaluated the materials, for preference in experiment 1, and for perceived material properties (thermal conductivity, hardness and roughness) in experiment 2—either with or without specific instructions. Results showed higher consistency in the vision plus touch condition than in the unimodal conditions. Moreover, preferences and perceived material properties strongly varied according to the presence and the content of instruction (scenarios). These results demonstrate the strong impact of top-down processes on tactile as well as visual judgments.

Keywords

Design evaluation Haptics Tactile perception Visual appreciation Multisensory perception Sensotact reference frame 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a URP (University Research Program) Award to CCC and HL by the Henry Ford Foundation, Dearborn, USA (Award Number 20059015). We would like to thank the participants for taking part in the study, and the Ford Forschungszentrum Aachen (FFA) for providing the Sensotact V2 and V3 reference frames. We would also like to thank our student co-workers for their support in testing and three anonymous reviewers and the editors, Petra Badke-Schaub and Yoram Reich, for their valuable hints for extending and improving the manuscript.

References

  1. Adelson EH (1993) Perceptual organization and the judgment of brightness. Science 262(5142):2042–2044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alais D, Burr D (2004) The ventriloquist effect results from near-optimal bimodal integration. Curr Biol 14(3):257–262Google Scholar
  3. Battarbee K, Koskinen I (2008) Co-experience: product experience as social interaction. In: Schifferstein HNJ, Hekkert P (eds) Product experience. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 461–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belke B, Leder H, Augustin MD (2006) Mastering style–effects of explicit style-related information, art knowledge and affective state on appreciation of abstract paintings. Psychol Sci 48(2):115–134Google Scholar
  5. Bell-Krotoski JA, Fess EE, Figarola JH, Hiltz D (1995) Threshold detection and Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments. J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand Ther 8(2):155–162Google Scholar
  6. Brewer MB, Hewstone M (2004) Social cognition. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Carbon C-C (2010) The cycle of preference: long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychol 134(2):233–244CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Carbon C-C, Leder H (2005) The repeated evaluation technique (RET). A method to capture dynamic effects of innovativeness and attractiveness. Appl Cogn Psychol 19(5):587–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carbon C-C, Michael L, Leder H (2008) Design evaluation by combination of repeated evaluation technique and measurement of electrodermal activity. Res Eng Design 19(2–3):143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coughlan P, Mashman R (1999) Once is not enough: repeated exposure to and aesthetic evaluation of an automobile design prototype. Des Stud 20(6):553–563Google Scholar
  11. Creusen MEH, Schoormans JPL (2005) The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. J Prod Innov Manage 22(1):63–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crilly N, Moultrie J, Clarkson PJ (2004) Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Des Stud 25(6):547–577Google Scholar
  13. Desmet PMA, Hekkert P (2007) Framework of product experience. Int J Design 1(1):57–66Google Scholar
  14. Du Z, Yu W (2007) A comprehensive handle evaluation system for fabrics: I. Measurement and characterization of mass and bending properties. Meas Sci Technol 18:3547–3553Google Scholar
  15. Ernst MO, Banks MS, Bulthoff HH (2000) Touch can change visual slant perception. Nat Neurosci 3(1):69–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Faerber SJ, Leder H, Gerger G, Carbon C-C (2010) Priming semantic concepts affects the dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychol 135(2):191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gepshtein S, Banks MS (2003) Viewing geometry determines how vision and haptics combine in size perception. Curr Biol 13(6):483–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hekkert P, Schifferstein HNJ (2008) Introducing product experience. In: Schifferstein HNJ, Hekkert P (eds) Product experience. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 3–8Google Scholar
  19. Hekkert P, Snelders D, van Wieringen PCW (2003) ‘Most advanced, yet acceptable’: typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. Br J Psychol 94:111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heufler G (2004) Design basics. From ideas to products. Niggli Verlag AG, Sulgen/ZürichGoogle Scholar
  21. Holt R, Barnes C (2010) Towards an integrated approach to “Design for X”: an agenda for decision-based DFX research. Res Eng Design 21(2):123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jansson-Boyd C, Marlow N (2007) Not only in the eye of the beholder: tactile information can affect aesthetic evaluation. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts 1(3):170–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahrimanovic M, Tiest WMB, Kappers AML (2009) Context effects in haptic perception of roughness. Exp Brain Res 194(2):287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krishna A, Morrin M (2008) Does touch affect taste? The perceptual transfer of product container haptic cues. J Consum Res 34(6):807–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kunst-Wilson WR, Zajonc RB (1980) Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science 207:557–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leder H, Carbon CC, Ripsas A (2006) Entitling art: influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychol 121(2):176–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loewy R (1953) Never leave well enough alone. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Ludden GDS, Schifferstein HNJ, Hekkert P (2007) Effects of visual–auditory incongruity on product expression and surprise. Int J Design 1(3):29–39Google Scholar
  29. Ludden GDS, Schifferstein HNJ, Hekkert P (2009) Visual–tactual incongruities in products as sources of surprise. Emp Stud Arts 27(1):61–87Google Scholar
  30. Mooy SC, Robben HSJ (2002) Managing consumers’ product evaluations through direct product experience. J Prod Brand Manage 11(6/7):432–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oldfield RC (1971) Assessment and analysis of handedness–Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia 9(1):97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oruç I, Maloney LT, Landy MS (2003) Weighted linear cue combination with possibly correlated error. Vis Res 43(23):2451–2468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote KH (2007) Engineering design. A systematic approach. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Ritterfeld U (2002) Social heuristics in interior design preferences. J Environ Psychol 22:369–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Russell PA (2003) Effort after meaning and the hedonic value of paintings. Br J Psychol 94:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schifferstein HNJ (2006) The perceived importance of sensory modalities in product usage: A study of self-reports. Acta Psychol 121(1):41–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schifferstein HNJ, Spence C (2008) Multisensory product experience. In: Schifferstein HNJ, Hekkert P (eds) product experience. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 133–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schönhammer R (2001) Haptische Wahrnehmung und Design [Haptic perception and Design]. In: Grunwald M, Beyer L (eds) Der bewegte Sinn. Grundlagen und Anwendungen zur haptischen Wahrnehmung. [The active sense. Basics and applications of haptic perception.]. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 151–160Google Scholar
  39. Weinstein S (1993) Fifty years of somatosensory research: from the Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments to the Weinstein Enhanced Sensory Test. J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand Ther 6(1):11–22Google Scholar
  40. Zajonc RB (1968) Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J Pers Soc Psychol 9(2):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zajonc RB, VanKreveld D, Tavris C, Shaver P (1972) Exposure, satiation, and stimulus discriminability. J Pers Soc Psychol 21(3):270–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martina Jakesch
    • 1
  • Martina Zachhuber
    • 1
  • Helmut Leder
    • 1
  • Mark Spingler
    • 2
  • Claus-Christian Carbon
    • 3
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of PsychologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Ford Forschungszentrum AachenAachenGermany
  3. 3.Department of General Psychology and MethodologyUniversity of BambergBambergGermany

Personalised recommendations