“Tezawari” and “Hadazawari” are two sensory test methods used for fabric texture evaluation in Japan. In this study, the effectiveness of the two sensory test methods in coolness and moistness discrimination was investigated. Three types of single jersey fabrics that were distinct from each other in thermal and moisture properties were chosen as the samples. The coolness and moistness differences between the three types of samples were evaluated by 20 university students with both “Tezawari” and “Hadazawari” test methods. The comparative analysis of “Tezawari” and “Hadazawari” test results revealed that the coolness differences between samples were even more detectable when discriminated with the “Hadazawari” test method; the between-sample differences in perceived moistness correlated very well with the between-sample differences in perceived coolness in both “Tezawari” and “Hadazawari” tests. In conclusion, compared with the “Tezawari” test method, the “Hadazawari” test method is more suitable for coolness and moistness discrimination.
SchacherLBensaidSJeguirimSEGSensory and physiological issues. In: VassiliadisS (ed.). Advances in modern woven fabrics technology, InTech, 2011, pp. 153–178.
2.
SpenceCGallaceA. Multisensory design: reaching out to touch the consumer. Psychol Market2011; 28: 267–308.
3.
KayseriGÖÖzdilNMengüçGSSensorial comfort of textile materials. In: JeonHY (ed.). Woven fabrics, InTech, 2012, pp. 235–266.
4.
RahmanO. The influence of visual and tactile inputs on denim jeans evaluation. Int J Des2012; 6: 11–25.
5.
Ciesielska WrobelILVan LangenhoveL. The hand of textiles – definitions, achievements, perspectives – a review. Text Res J2012; 82: 1457–1468.
6.
ValatkienėLStrazdienėE. Accuracy and reliability of fabric’s hand subjective evaluation. Mater Sci2006; 12: 253–257.
7.
YanakaM. Verification of the correlation between tactile sensation by skin and by fingers with cotton-blended polyester cloth: mentioning the comparison of sensory evaluation by fingers in Thailander and in Japanese [in Japanese]. J Jpn Res Assoc Text End-Uses2008; 49: 65–73.
8.
GibsonJJ. Observations on active touch. Physiol Rev1962; 69: 477–491.
9.
Symmons M, Richardson B and Wuillemin D. Active vs passive touch: the state of play and the future. World haptics 2007, Tsukuba: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp.567–568.
10.
HellerMAMyersDS. Active and passive tactual recognition of form. J Gen Psychol1983; 108: 225–229.
11.
Vitello MP, Fritschi M and Ernst MO. Active movement reduces the tactile discrimination performance. In: Peer A and Giachritsis CD (eds) Immersive multimodal inter1 active presence. Springer London, 2012, pp.7–34.
12.
SchwartzASPereyAJAzulayA. Further analysis of active and passive touch in pattern discrimination. Bull Psychonomic Soc1975; 6: 7–9.
13.
LedermanSJ. The perception of surface roughness by active and passive touch. Bull Psychonomic Soc1981; 18: 253–255.
14.
GranovskyYMatreDSokolikA. Thermoreceptive innervation of human glabrous and hairy skin: a contact heat evoked potential analysis. Pain2005; 115: 238–247.
15.
McGloneFOlaussonHBoyleJA. Touching and feeling: differences in pleasant touch processing between glabrous and hairy skin in humans. Eur J Neurosci2012; 35: 1782–1788.
16.
AckerleyRSaarKMcGloneF. Quantifying the sensory and emotional perception of touch: differences between glabrous and hairy skin. Front Behav Neurosci2014; 8: 1–12.
17.
OkamotoSNaganoHYamadaY. Psychophysical dimensions of tactile perception of textures. IEEE Trans Haptic2012; 6: 81–93.
18.
SchepersRJRingkampM. Thermoreceptors and thermosensitive afferents. Neurosci Biobehav Rev2009; 33: 205–212.
19.
JohnsonKO. The roles and functions of cutaneous mechanoreceptors. Curr Opin Neurobiol2001; 11: 455–461.
20.
WangZLiYKowkYL. Mathematical simulation of the perception of fabric thermal and moisture sensations. Text Res J2002; 72: 327–334.
21.
GreenBGLedermanSJStevensJC. The effect of skin temperature on the perception of roughness. Sens Processes1979; 3: 327–333.
22.
HoHNJonesLA. Contribution of thermal cues to material discrimination and localization. Percept Psychophys2006; 68: 118–128.
23.
ChenPLBarkerRLSmithGW. Handle of weft knit fabrics. Text Res J1992; 62: 200–211.
24.
InoueTNakayamaANiwaM. Relationship between the warm/cool feeling of fabric and the subjective evaluation of the quality of ladies’ knitted fabrics. Int J Cloth Sci Tech2010; 22: 7–15.
25.
Nagasawa S and Kawae S. Statistical methods for sensory evaluation that can be done in Excel: ranking method, paired comparison method, from multivariate analysis to conjoint analysis [in Japanese]. Tokyo: JUSE Press, 2008, pp.193–205.
26.
TanakaYSukigaraS. Evaluation of “Shittori” characteristic for fabrics. J Text Eng2008; 54: 75–81.
27.
LiYPlanteAMHolcombeBV. Fiber hygroscopicity and perceptions of dampness part II: physical mechanisms. Text Res J1995; 65: 316–324.
28.
HuJYHesLLiY. Fabric touch tester: integrated evaluation of thermal-mechanical sensory properties of polymeric materials. Polym Test2006; 25: 1081–1090.
GreenBGZaharchukR. Spatial variation in sensitivity as a factor in measurements of spatial summation of warmth and cold. Somatosens Mot Res2001; 18: 181–190.
31.
DefrinRPetriniLArendt-NielsenL. Spatial summation of thermal sensations depends on skin type and skin sensitivity. Exp Brain Res2009; 198: 29–36.
TamuraT. Study on regional differences in temperature and moisture sensation [in Japanese]. Jpn J Sens Eval2007; 11: 81–88.
34.
LeeUJTerukoT. Thermal spot over human body surface part I: regional difference in warm spot distribution [in Japanese]. J Human Living Environ1995; 2: 37–42.
35.
StevensJCChooKK. Temperature sensitivity of the body surface over the life span. Somatosens Mot Res1998; 15: 13–28.
36.
YangGHKwonDSJonesLA. Spatial acuity and summation on the hand: the role of thermal cues in material discrimination. Percept Psychophys2009; 71: 156–163.
37.
KenshaloDRScottHAJr. Temporal course of thermal adaptation. Science1966; 151: 1095–1096.
38.
LökenLSEvertMWessbergJ. Pleasantness of touch in human glabrous and hairy skin: order effects on affective ratings. Brain Res2011; 1417: 9–15.
39.
PlanteAMHolcombeBVStephensLG. Fiber hygroscopicity and perceptions of dampness part I: subjective trials. Text Res J1995; 65: 293–298.
40.
NiedermannRRossiRM. Objective and subjective evaluation of the human thermal sensation of wet fabrics. Text Res J2012; 82: 374–384.
41.
FilingeriDRedortierBHodderS. The role of decreasing contact temperatures and skin cooling in the perception of skin wetness. Neurosci Lett2013; 551: 65–69.
42.
FilingeriDRedortierBHodderS. Thermal and tactile interactions in the perception of local skin wetness at rest and during exercise in thermo-neutral and warm environments. Neuroscience2014; 258: 121–130.
