Effects of Modality, Surface-Type and Surface-Smoothness on the Discrimination of Texture

dc.contributor.advisorLynne Baker-Ward, Committee Memberen_US
dc.contributor.advisorSlater E. Newman, Committee Co-Chairen_US
dc.contributor.advisorDonald H. Mershon, Committee Co-Chairen_US
dc.contributor.authorMendat, Christina Costanzoen_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-02T18:00:06Z
dc.date.available2010-04-02T18:00:06Z
dc.date.issued2002-11-13en_US
dc.degree.disciplinePsychologyen_US
dc.degree.levelthesisen_US
dc.degree.nameMSen_US
dc.description.abstractThis study assessed the performance of participants in haptic and visual discrimination tasks involving the surfaces: abrasive paper and Japanese sharpening water stones. A recent study using abrasive paper surfaces showed that participants' visual discrimination of smooth stimuli was more accurate than the haptic discrimination of those same smooth stimuli (Bozoglu-Sinclair, 2001). These results differed from those of an earlier experiment, which examined visual and haptic performance in the discrimination of Japanese sharpening waterstones and found that participants in the haptic condition performed better than those in the visual condition with smooth stimuli (Heller, 1989, Experiment 2). In both previous experiments, the participants in the haptic and visual conditions performed equivalently with rough stimuli. The current study employed a 2 (modality) x 2 (smoothness) x 2 (surface) design using Heller's procedure. Data for both accuracy and inspection time were analyzed. Of interest was whether Heller's results for accuracy of performance would be obtained with a different type of surface (i.e., silicon carbide). As in the experiment by Bozoglu-Sinclair, data for inspection time were also analyzed to determine whether, as in that study, visual inspection time would be shorter than haptic inspection time for examination of both rough and smooth stimuli. In addition, optical profilometry was employed to obtain roughness values in microns for each stimulus. Results for accuracy differed from previous findings in that the haptic and visual conditions were equivalent for both rough and smooth stimuli. Inspection time results, however, showed that participants in the visual and rough conditions made judgments significantly faster than those in the haptic and smooth conditions respectively. Results from optical profilometry indicated that the manufacturer's scale of micron values led to different ranking of the stimuli for the silicon carbide condition and different roughness values for both silicon carbide and Japanese waterstones. Performance measures seemed to be more congruent with the optical profilometry values than with the original scale. These results highlight the desirability of using optical profilometry in evaluating stimulus materials.en_US
dc.identifier.otheretd-10282002-104344en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/1020
dc.rightsI hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached hereto a written permission statement from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis, dissertation, or project report, allowing distribution as specified below. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my advisory committee. I hereby grant to NC State University or its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible, under the conditions specified below, my thesis, dissertation, or project report in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis, dissertation or project report. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis, dissertation, or project report.en_US
dc.subjectoptical profilometryen_US
dc.subjecttouchen_US
dc.subjecttactileen_US
dc.subjecthapticen_US
dc.titleEffects of Modality, Surface-Type and Surface-Smoothness on the Discrimination of Textureen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
etd.pdf
Size:
1.42 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Collections