This study examined the perceptual dimensions of visual material properties. Photographs of 50 objects were presented to the participants, and they reported a suitable onomatopoeia (mimetic word) for describing the material of the object in each photograph, based on visual appearance. The participants’ responses were collated into a contingency table of photographs × onomatopoeias. After removing some items from the table, correspondence analysis was applied to the contingency table, and a six-dimensional biplot was obtained. By rotating the axes to maximize sparseness of the coordinates for the items in the biplot, three meaningful perceptual dimensions were derived: wetness/stickiness, fluffiness/softness, and smoothness–roughness/gloss-dullness. Two additional possible dimensions were obtained: crumbliness and coldness. These dimensions, except gloss-dullness, were paid little attention to in vision science, though they were suggested as perceptual dimensions of tactile texture. This suggests that the perceptual dimensions that are considered to be primarily related to haptics are also important in visual material perception.
AndersonB. L. (2011) Visual perception of materials and surfaces. Current Biology21: R978–R983.
2.
BaumgartnerE.WiebelC. B.GegenfurtnerK. R. (2013) Visual and haptic representations of material properties. Multisensory Research26: 429–455.
3.
Bergmann TiestW. M.KappersA. M. (2006) Analysis of haptic perception of materials by multidimensional scaling and physical measurements of roughness and compressibility. Acta Psychologica121: 1–20.
4.
Bergmann TiestW. M.KappersA. M. (2007) Haptic and visual perception of roughness. Acta Psychologica124: 177–189.
5.
BrainardD. H.MaloneyL. T. (2004) Perception of color and material properties in complex scenes. Journal of Vision4: ii–iv.
6.
(1994) African ideophones. In: ChildsG. T. L.HintonJ.NicholsJ. J.Ohara (eds) Sound symbolism, Cambridge, London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 178–206.
7.
ClausenS. E. (1998) Applied correspondence analysis: An introduction, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
8.
EnfieldN. J. (2005) Areal linguistics and mainland southeast Asia. Annual Review of Anthropology34: 181–206.
FerwerdaJ. A.PellaciniF.GreenbergD. P. (2001) A psychophysically-based model of surface gloss perception. Proceedings of SPIE4299: 291–301.
11.
FlemingR. W.WiebelC.GegenfurtnerK. (2013) Perceptual qualities and material classes. Journal of Vision13: 9 1–20.
12.
GescheiderG. A.BolanowskiS. J.GreenfieldT. C.BrunetteK. E. (2005) Perception of the tactile texture of raised-dot patterns: A multidimensional analysis. Somatosensory & Motor Research22: 127–140.
13.
GuestS.DessirierJ. M.MehrabyanA.McGloneF.EssickG.GescheiderG.BlotK. (2011) The development and validation of sensory and emotional scales of touch perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics73: 531–550.
14.
GurnseyR.FleetD. J. (2001) Texture space. Vision Research41: 745–757.
15.
HamanoS. (1986) The sound-symbolic system of Japanese, Gainesville: University of Florida dissertation.
16.
HollinsM.FaldowskiR.RaoS.YoungF. (1993) Perceptual dimensions of tactile surface texture: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Perception & Psychophysics54: 697–705.
17.
HyvärinenA.KarhunenJ.OjaE. (2001) Independent component analysis, New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
18.
HyvärinenA.KarthikeshR. (2002) Imposing sparsity on the mixing matrix in independent component analysis. Neurocomputing49: 151–162.
19.
JennrichR. I. (2001) A simple general procedure for orthogonal rotation. Psychometrika66: 289–306.
20.
JennrichR. I. (2006) Rotation to simple loadings using component loss functions: The oblique case. Psychometrika71: 173–191.
21.
JuleszB. (1981) Textons, the elements of texture perception, and their interactions. Nature290: 91–97.
22.
JuleszB.GilbertE. N.SheppL. A.FrischH. L. (1973) Inability of humans to discriminate between visual textures that agree in second-order statistics – revisited. Perception2: 391–405.
23.
KadookaK. (2007) Nihongo onomatope-goi ni okeru keitaiteki-on'inteki taikeisei ni tsuite [On the morphological and phonological systematicity of the Japanese onomatopoeia lexicon], Tokyo, Japan: Kuroshio Shuppan(in Japanese).
24.
KitaS. (1997) Two-dimensional semantic analysis of Japanese mimetics. Linguistics35: 379–415.
25.
KöhlerW. (1929) Gestalt psychology, New York, NY: Liveright.
26.
LandyM. S.GrahamN. (2004) Visual perception of texture. The Visual Neurosciences2: 1106–1118.
LedermanS. J.ThorneG.JonesB. (1986) Perception of texture by vision and touch: Multidimensionality and intersensory integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance12: 169–180.
29.
LeeW.SatoM. (2001) Visual perception of texture of textiles. Color Research & Application26: 469–477.
30.
LiY.CichockiA.AmariS. (2004) Analysis of sparse representation and blind source separation. Neural Computation16: 1193–1234.
31.
LyneM. B.WhitemanA.DonderiD. C. (1984) Multidimensional scaling of tissue quality. Pulp & Paper Canada85: 43–50.
32.
McCawleyJ. D. (1968) The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese, The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
33.
MaloneyL. T.BrainardD. H. (2010) Color and material perception: Achievements and challenges. Journal of Vision10: 19 1–6.
34.
MulaikS. A. (2009) Foundations of factor analysis, (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
35.
NenadicO.GreenacreM. (2007) Correspondence analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package. Journal of Statistical Software20: 3.
36.
OkamotoS.NaganoH.YamadaY. (2013) Psychophysical dimensions of tactile perception of textures. IEEE Transactions on Haptics6: 81–93.
37.
OyamaT.HagaJ. (1963) Common factors between figural and phonetic symbolism. Psychologia6: 131–144.
38.
PicardD. (2006) Partial perceptual equivalence between vision and touch for texture information. Acta Psychologica121: 227–248.
39.
PicardD.DacremontC.ValentinD.GiboreauA. (2003) Perceptual dimensions of tactile textures. Acta Psychologica114: 165–184.
RaoA. R.LohseG. L. (1996) Towards a texture naming system: Identifying relevant dimensions of texture. Vision Research36: 1649–1669.
42.
SouffletI.CalonnierM.DacremontC. (2004) A comparison between industrial experts' and novices' haptic perceptual organization: A tool to identify descriptors of the handle of fabrics. Food Quality and Preference15: 689–699.
43.
StoneJ. V. (2004) Independent component analysis: A tutorial introduction, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44.
TamoriI.SchourupL. (1999) Onomatope: keitai-to imi [Onomatopoeia: Form and meaning], Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan(in Japanese).
45.
TamuraH.MoriS.YamawakiT. (1978) Textural features corresponding to visual perception. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics8: 460–473.
46.
WatanabeJ.KanoA.ShimizuY.SakamotoM. (2011) Classification method of tactile textures using onomatopoeias. Transactions of the Virtual Reality Society of Japan16: 367–370. (in Japanese with English summary).
47.
Watanabe, J., & Sakamoto, M. (2012). Comparison between onomatopoeias and adjectives for evaluating tactile sensations. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Soft Computing and Intelligent Systems and the 13th International Symposium on Advanced Intelligent Systems (SCIS-ISIS 2012) (pp 2346–2348). Kobe, Japan.
48.
YamaguchiN. (2015) Gitaigo giongo jiten [Dictionary of Japanese mimetic words], Tokyo: Koudansha(in Japanese).
49.
YoshidaM. (1968a) Dimensions of tactual impressions (1). Japanese Psychological Research10: 123–137.
50.
YoshidaM. (1968b) Dimensions of tactual impressions (2). Japanese Psychological Research10: 157–173.
51.
YoshiokaT.BensmaiaS. J.CraigJ. C.HsiaoS. S. (2007) Texture perception through direct and indirect touch: An analysis of perceptual space for tactile textures in two modes of exploration. Somatosensory & Motor Research24: 53–70.
