Judged Roughness as a Function of Groove Frequency and Groove Width in 3D-Printed Gratings

  • Knut DrewingEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10893)


For different types of textures judged roughness has been shown to be an inverted U-shaped function of inter-element spacing when texture amplitude is low [1, 2]. This may be due to an interplay of two “components” that contribute to the skin’s spatial deformation, and thus to a spatial-intensive code to roughness [1, 3, 4]: (1) deformation increases with the depth of the finger’s intrusion between elements, which increases with inter-element spacing until the finger contacts the ground; and (2) skin deformation decreases with a decreasing number of inter-element gaps being simultaneously under the skin, i.e. with the texture’s spatial frequency (which is negatively correlated with inter-element spacing). The present study systematically tested these ideas. We presented participants different series of 3D-printed rectangular grating stimuli, in which the width of the grating’s grooves varied and the spatial frequency of grooves was constant, or vice versa. Participants touched the stimuli without lateral movement and judged roughness using magnitude estimation. As predicted and previously observed, judged roughness increased with groove width and groove frequency. However, the predicted increase with groove frequency, was only found for frequencies below about 0.5 mm−1. For larger frequencies, roughness decreased with increasing frequency. The decrease is at odds with findings from earlier studies that used aluminum rather than plastic gratings [5]. The results corroborate the assumption that the area of skin deformation plays a crucial role for roughness, but at the same time, point to the influence of subtle differences between materials that should be investigated in the future.


Roughness Texture Perception Bare finger 



I thank Lorilei Alley for native speaker-advice, Alexandra Lezkan, Anna Metzger and Claire Weyel for help with constructing the stimuli and Bela Ring for conducting the experiment. This research was supported by German Research Foundation (DFG; CRC/TRR135, A05).


  1. 1.
    Drewing, K.: Low-amplitude textures explored with the bare finger: roughness judgments follow an inverted U-shaped function of texture period modified by texture type. In: Bello, F., Kajimoto, H., Visell, Y. (eds.) Haptics: Perception, Devices, Control, and Applications, pp. 206–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sutu, A., Meftah, E., Chapman, C.E.: Physical determinants of the shape of the psychophysical curve relating tactile roughness to raised-dot spacing: implications for neuronal coding of roughness. J. Neurophysiol. 109, 1403–1415 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Taylor, M.M., Lederman, S.J.: Tactile roughness of grooved surfaces: a model and the effect of friction. Percept. Psychophys. 17, 23–36 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnson, K.O., Hsiao, S.S.: Evaluation of the relative role of slowly and rapidly adapting fibres in roughness perception. Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 72, 488–497 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lederman, S.J., Taylor, M.M.: Fingertip force, surface geometry, and the perception of roughness by active touch. Percept. Psychophys. 12, 401–408 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Okamoto, S., Nagano, H., Yamada, Y.: Psychophysical dimensions of tactile perception of textures. IEEE Trans. Haptic Percept. 6, 81–93 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drewing, K., Weyel, C., Celebi, H., Kaya, D.: Feeling and feelings: affective and sensory dimensions of touched materials and their connection. In: Proceedings World Haptics Conference 2017, pp. 25–30 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hollins, M., Faldowski, R., Rao, S., Young, F.: Perceptual dimensions of tactile surface texture: a multidimensional-scaling analysis. Percept. Psychophys. 54, 697–705 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Katz, D.: The world of touch. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1989). (L. E. Krueger, Trans. & Ed.). [Original work published 1925]Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hollins, M., Bensmaïa, S.J.: The coding of roughness. Can. J. Exp. Psychol. 61, 184–195 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hollins, M., Risner, S.R.: Evidence for the duplex theory of tactile texture perception. Percept. Psychophys. 62, 695–705 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weber, A.I., Saal, H.P., Lieber, J.D., Cheng, J.W., Manfredi, L.R., Dammann, J.F., Bensmaia, S.J.: Spatial and temporal codes mediate the tactile perception of textures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 18279–18284 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blake, D.T., Johnson, K.O., Hsiao, S.S.: Monkey cutaneous SAI and RA responses to raised and depressed scanned patterns: Effects of width, height, orientation, and a raised surround. J. Neurophysiol. 78, 2503–2517 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yoshioka, T., Gibb, B., Dorsch, A.K., Hsiao, S.S., Johnson, K.O.: Neural coding mechanisms underlying perceived roughness of finely textured surfaces. J. Neurosci. 21(17), 6905–6916 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lawrence, M.A., Kitada, R., Klatzky, R.L., Lederman, S.J.: Haptic roughness perception of linear gratings via bare finger or rigid probe. Perception 36, 547–557 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meftah, E., Belingard, L., Chapman, C.E.: Relative effects of the spatial and temporal characteristics of scanned surfaces on human perception of tactile roughness using passive touch. Exp. Brain Res. 132, 351–361 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lederman, S.J.: Tactile roughness of grooved surfaces: the touching process and effects of macro- and microsurface structure. Percept. Psychophys. 16, 385–395 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eck, J., Kaas, A.L., Mulders, J.L., Goebel, R.: Roughness perception of unfamiliar dot pattern textures. Acta Physiol. (Oxf) 143(1), 20–34 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chapman, C.E., Tremblay, F., Jiang, W., Belingard, L., Meftah, E.: Central neural mechanisms contributing to the perception of tactile roughness. Behav. Brain Res. 135, 225–233 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dépeault, A., Meftah, E.M., Chapman, C.E.: Tactile perception of roughness: raised-dot spacing, density and disposition. Exp. Brain Res. 197, 235–244 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Klatzky, R.L., Lederman, S.J., Hamilton, C., Grindley, M., Swendsen, R.H.: Feeling textures through a probe: effects of probe and surface geometry and exploratory factors. Percept. Psychophys. 65, 613–631 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gescheider, G.A., Bolanowski, S.J., Greenfield, C.G., Brunette, K.E.: Perception of the tactile texture of raised-dot patterns: a multidimensional analysis. Somatosens. Motor Res. 22, 127–140 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Connor, C.E., Hsiao, S.S., Phillips, J.R., Johnson, K.O.: Tactile roughness: neural codes that account for psychophysical magnitude estimates. J. Neurosci. 10, 3823–3836 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Merabet, L., Thut, G., Murray, B., Andrews, J., Hsiao, S., Pascual-Leone, A.: Feeling by sight or seeing by touch? Neuron 42(1), 173–179 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cascio, C.J., Sathian, K.: Temporal cues contribute to tactile perception of roughness. J. Neurosci. 21, 5289–5296 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stevens, S.S.: On the psychophysical law. Psychol. Rev. 64, 153–181 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Greenhouse, S.W., Geisser, S.: On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika 24, 95–112 (1959)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Giessen UniversityGießenGermany

Personalised recommendations