Low-Amplitude Textures Explored with the Bare Finger: Roughness Judgments Follow an Inverted U-Shaped Function of Texture Period Modified by Texture Type

  • Knut DrewingEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9775)


Roughness is probably the most salient dimension pertaining to the perception of textures by touch and has been widely investigated. There is a controversy on how roughness relates to the texture’s spatial period and which factors influence this relation. Here, roughness during bare finger exploration of coarse textures is studied for different types of textures with elements of low height (0.3 mm). Participants were presented with square-wave gratings that were defined along one dimension and sine-wave gratings that were defined along one or two dimensions. Textures of each type varied in their spatial half period between 0.25 and 5.17 mm. Participants explored the textures by a lateral movement or a stationary finger contact. In all conditions judged roughness increased with spatial period up to a peak roughness and then decreased again. The exact function depended on the texture type, but hardly on exploration mode. We conclude that roughness is an inverted U-shaped function of texture period, if the textures are of low amplitude. The effects are explained by the interplay of two components contributing to the spatial code to roughness: variability in skin deformation due to the finger’s intrusion into the texture, which increases with the textures’ period up to a maximum (when the skin contacts the texture’s ground), and variability associated with the spatial frequency of the deformation, which decreases with spatial period.


Roughness Texture Perception Bare finger 



I thank Alexandra Lezkan and Anna Metzger for constructing the stimuli and Alena Zirbes for conducting the experiment. This research was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG; SFB/TRR135/1, A05).


  1. 1.
    Bergmann Tiest, W., Kappers, A.: Analysis of haptic perception of materials by multidimensional scaling and physical measurements of roughness and compressibility. Acta Psychol. 121, 1–20 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hollins, M., Faldowski, R., Rao, S., Young, F.: Perceptual dimensions of tactile surface texture: a multidimensional-scaling analysis. Percept. Psychophysics 54, 697–705 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    Lederman, S.J., Taylor, M.M.: Fingertip force, surface geometry, and the perception of roughness by active touch. Percept. Psychophysics 12, 401–408 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Taylor, M.M., Lederman, S.J.: Tactile roughness of grooved surfaces: a model and the effect of friction. Percept. Psychophysics 17, 23–36 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    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)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nefs, H.T., Kappers, A., Koenderink, J.J.: Frequency discrimination between and within line gratings by dynamic touch. Percept. Psychophysics 64, 969–980 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Hollins, M., Bensmaïa, S.J.: The coding of roughness. Can. J. Exp. Psychol. 61, 184–195 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hollins, M., Risner, S.R.: Evidence for the duplex theory of tactile texture perception. Percept. Psychophysics 62, 695–705 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Katz, D.: The World of Touch. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1989). Trans. & Ed. Krueger, L.E., Original work published 1925Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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. Psychophysics 65, 613–631 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gescheider, G.A., Bolanowski, S.J., Tyler, C.G., Brunette, K.E.: Perception of the tactile texture of raised-dot patterns: a multidimensional analysis. Somatosens. Mot. Res. 22, 127–140 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cascio, C.J., Sathian, K.: Temporal cues contribute to tactile perception of roughness. J. Neurosci. 21, 5289–5296 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith, A.M., Chapman, C.E., Deslandes, M., Langlais, J.S., Thibodeau, M.P.: Role of friction and tangential force variation in the subjective scaling of tactile roughness. Exp. Brain Res. 144, 211–223 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morley, J.W., Goodwin, A.W., Darian-Smith, I.: Tactile discrimination of gratings. Exp. Brain Res. 49, 291–299 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eck, J., Kaas, A.L., Mulders, J.L., Goebel, R.: Roughness perception of unfamiliar dot pattern textures. Acta Psychol. 143(1), 20–34 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bensmaia, S.: Texture from touch. Scholarpedia 4, 7956 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    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
  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)Google 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.
    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
  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)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Justus-Liebig-University GiessenGiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations