Advertisement

Human subjective response to aluminum coating surfaces

  • Marco Ajovalasit
  • Raffaella SurianoEmail author
  • Sara Ridolfi
  • Riccardo Ciapponi
  • Marinella Levi
  • Stefano Turri
Article
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

The research described in this study establishes whether measured physical material parameters could be used as a predictor of the human subjective response to the tactile and visual stimuli characteristics of aluminum coating surfaces. Twenty surfaces were used consisting of four uncoated aluminum substrates and four different type of coatings applied on each of the four uncoated substrates. Forty volunteers (20 female and 20 males) were asked to rate the surfaces using semantic differential scales. The results suggest that coatings obtained by matte polyurethane which contains a fine dispersion of silica microparticles have the capability to veil the effect of the manufacturing process of the aluminum substrates on both the felt slipperiness and felt roughness. The dynamic coefficient of friction was found to be a good predictor of the felt slipperiness with a negative power law exponent of 0.86 (R2 = 0.85), confirming that greater friction is associated with less felt slipperiness. The physical gloss was also found to be highly negatively correlated (R2 = 0.87) with the felt slipperiness of the tactile stimuli, suggesting that glossier surfaces could be mostly perceived as sticky. These results provide useful suggestions relating to the sensory perception and experience of materials, helpful for the industrial and product design in numerous application fields such as the automotive and electronics industries.

Keywords

Surface coatings Aluminum Sensory perception Touch perception Human-centered design 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Bando Regione Lombardia Fondazione Cariplo 2013 programme which funded the Project ID 42660345, entitled “Hybrid Aluminum Forging, HAF.”

References

  1. 1.
    Mirabedini, A, Mohseni, M, Ramezanzadeh, B, “A Comparative Study Between Experimentally Measured Mechanical Attributes and Users’ Perception of Soft Feel Coatings: Correlating Human Sense with Surface Characteristics of Polyurethane Based Coatings.” Prog. Org. Coat., 76 (10) 1369–1375 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giboreau, A, Navarro, S, Faye, P, Dumortier, J, “Sensory Evaluation of Automotive Fabrics: The Contribution of Categorization Tasks and Non Verbal Information to Set-Up a Descriptive Method of Tactile Properties.” Food Qual. Prefer., 12 (5) 311–322 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sonneveld, M, “Dreamy Hands: Exploring Tactile Aesthetics in Design.” In: McDonagh, D, Hekkert, P, Erp, JV, Gyi, D (eds.) Design and Emotion, the Experience of Everyday Things. Taylor & Francis, London, 2004Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fenech, OC and Borg, JC, “A Sensation Based Model of Product Elicited Emotions.” Proc. 5th Conference on Design & Emotion 2006, D&E’06, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2006Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rognoli, V, Levi, M, “Emotions in Design through Materials: An Expressive-Sensorial Atlas as a Project Tool for Design of Materials.” Proc. 4th International Conference on Design and Emotion, Ankara, Turkey, 2004Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wastiels, L, Wouters, I, “Architects’ Considerations While Selecting Materials.” Mater. Des., 34 (Supplement C) 584–593 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bergmann Tiest, WM, Kappers, AML, “Analysis of Haptic Perception of Materials by Multidimensional Scaling and Physical Measurements of Roughness and Compressibility.” Acta Psychol., 121 (1) 1–20 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wongsriruksa, S, Howes, P, Conreen, M, Miodownik, M, “The Use of Physical Property Data to Predict the Touch Perception of Materials.” Mater. Des., 42 (Supplement C) 238–244 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Melchiors, M, Sonntag, M, Kobusch, C, Jürgens, E, “Recent Developments in Aqueous Two-Component Polyurethane (2K-PUR) Coatings.” Prog. Org. Coat., 40 (1) 99–109 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fujisaki, W, Tokita, M, Kariya, K, “Perception of the Material Properties of Wood Based on Vision, Audition, and Touch.” Vis. Res., 109 185–200 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bergmann Tiest, WM, Kappers, AML, “Haptic and Visual Perception of Roughness.” Acta Psychol., 124 (2) 177–189 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baumgartner, E, Wiebel, CB, Gegenfurtner, KR, “Visual and Haptic Representations of Material Properties.” Multisens. Res., 26 (5) 429–455 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hollins, M, Bensmaïa, S, Karlof, K, Young, F, “Individual Differences in Perceptual Space for Tactile Textures: Evidence from Multidimensional Scaling.” Percept. Psychophys., 62 (8) 1534–1544 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bhushan, N, Rao, AR, Lohse, GL, “The Texture Lexicon: Understanding the Categorization of Visual Texture Terms and Their Relationship to Texture Images.” Cogn. Sci., 21 (2) 219–246 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Obein, G, Knoblauch, K, Viéot, F, “Difference Scaling of Gloss: Nonlinearity, Binocularity, and Constancy.” J. Vis., 4 (9) 711–720 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D’Zmura, M, Lennie, P, “Mechanisms of Color Constancy.” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, 3 (10) 1662–1672 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miodownik, MA, “Toward Designing New Sensoaesthetic Materials.” Pure Appl. Chem., 79 (10) 1635–1641 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stevens, SS, Psychophysics: Introduction to its Perceptual, Neural and Social Prospects. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1986Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stevens, SS, Harris, JR, “The Scaling of Subjective Roughness and Smoothness.” J. Exp. Psychol., 64 (5) 489–494 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ekman, G, Hosman, J, Lindstrom, B, “Roughness, Smoothness, and Preference: A Study of Quantitative Relations in Individual Subjects.” J. Exp. Psychol., 70 (1) 18–26 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xiao, B, Bi, W, Jia, X, Wei, H, Adelson, EH, “Can You See What You Feel? Color and Folding Properties Affect Visual–Tactile Material Discrimination of Fabrics.” J. Vis., 16 (3) 34, 1–15 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Suriano, R, Ciapponi, R, Griffini, G, Levi, M, Turri, S, “Fluorinated Zirconia-Based Sol–Gel Hybrid Coatings on Polycarbonate with High Durability and Improved Scratch Resistance.” Surf. Coat. Technol., 311 80–89 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cottenden, DJ, Cottenden, AM, “A Study of Friction Mechanisms Between a Surrogate Skin (Lorica soft) and Nonwoven Fabrics.” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 28 (Supplement C) 410–426 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chan, CM, Polymer Surface Modification and Characterization. Hanser Garden Publications, Munich, 1993Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gee, MG, Tomlins, P, Calver, A, Darling, RH, Rides, M, “A New Friction Measurement System for the Frictional Component of Touch.” Wear, 259 (7) 1437–1442 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Suriano, R, Credi, C, Levi, M, Turri, S, “AFM Nanoscale Indentation in Air of Polymeric and Hybrid Materials with Highly Different Stiffness.” Appl. Surf. Sci., 311 558–566 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kerrigan, IS, Adams, WJ, Graf, EW, “Does it Feel Shiny? Haptic Cues Affect Perceived Gloss.” J. Vis., 10 (7) 868 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    ISO 13091-1, “International Organization for Standardization, Mechanical VibrationVibrotactile Perception Thresholds for the Assessment of Nerve Dysfunction, Part 1: Methods of Measurement at the Fingertips”. Geneva, 2011Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gescheider, GA, Psychophysics. The Fundamentals. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, 1997Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hinton, PR, Statistics Explained. Routledge, London, 1999Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smith, AM, Scott, SH, “Subjective Scaling of Smooth Surface Friction.” J. Neurophysiol., 75 (5) 1957–1962 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lugscheider, E, Bobzin, K, “The Influence on Surface Free Energy of PVD-Coatings.” Surf. Coat. Technol., 142–144 (Supplement C) 755–760 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dzidek, B, Bochereau, S, Johnson, SA, Hayward, V, Adams, MJ, “Why Pens Have Rubbery Grips.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114 (41) 10864–10869 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Coatings Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DesignPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering “Giulio Natta”Politecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations