Factors underlying fabric perception

Abstract

Words and images behave in different ways. A picture of a miniskirt performs a different function than the naming of it. Barthes suggest that words make the image "intelligible: [that] it is not the object but the name that creates desire (Barthes 1990) … Orality implies community. Not only do we dress up; we talk about it' [1] Abstract. The above suggests 'oral texture' as a method of communication or 'ideal and emotive novelisation', a utopian standard of image and self-transformation, set by the fashion, textiles and lifestyle perception makers. It is a system that has been used to sell or seduce magazines (imagery and supporting text) to the reader (wearer) since the late 19 th Century and blurred into the realms of retail sales and marketing, especially on-line. Society understands and indulges in this method of aesthetic communication, and for women, it is meant to represent 'women's mass culture'. [Naomi Wolf] [1] This paper describes two fabric-touch experiments where the term 'oral texture' applies in the collection of adjectives and metaphors (fabric perceptions). The purpose of this study was to qualitatively record subjective responses to familiar fabrics, using a Repertory Grid (factor analysis) model [2] , to preliminary establish subjective and objective responses to fabrics, and through analysis, the factors underlying fabric perception and discrimination between fabric 'types'. 10 fabrics were selected. Each subject evaluated fabrics using their index finger in a forward and backward motion, with visual observation. The experiment was carried out in three phases. The first experiment was used as a Pilot Study. Data was assembled from 1 experienced textile/fashion professional/academic. The second round of data was assembled from 20 female subjects who are currently 1 st year fashion and textile design students. Through the experience of the pilot experiment, it was found that these qualitative responses were split into two categories, 1. Surface Texture and, 2. Emotional/Cognitive/Mood associations. After analysis, principal factors for each category evolved. These factors were then labelled. Results are summarised and discussed. Figure 1. Finger Pinch Using the "experiment" experience, the students were than asked to select their own fabric of choice and evaluate it in a similar manner (this was not limited to evaluation by index finger, as the experimenter was not present. After discussion it was found that the method of multiple finger pinch, as illustrated in Figure 1 was primarily used, it being the most natural method of touch next to 'touch-stroke' (see Figure 9) [3] . Qualitative data was collected, as before. They were then asked to visually respond in a "virtual" manner by creating a "mood board" using Adobe PhotoShop (a combination of selective imagery related to texture, colour and style, evoking emotion and memory). This work is also discussed and some examples are shown later on in the paper.

Full text

FACTORS UNDERLYING FABRIC PERCEPTION
Wendy Moody, Fashion & Textiles, School of Art, Liverpool John Moores University, 68 Hope Street, Liverpool,
L1 9EB
Email: laswmood@livjm.ac.uk
Roger Morgan, School of Engineering, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street,
Liverpool, L3 3AF
Email: r.morgan@livjm.ac.uk
Patricia Dillon, Design for Interior Textiles, University of Wolverhampton
Email: memdillon@aol.com
Chris Baber and Alan Wing, SyMon Centre, Department of Psychology, BBS Centre (Hills), The University of
Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT
Email: c.baber@bham.ac.uk, a.m.wing@bham.ac.uk
‘Words and images behave in different ways. A picture of a miniskirt performs a different function than the naming of it.
Barthes suggest that words make the image “intelligible: [that] it is not the object but the name that creates desire (Barthes
1990) … Orality implies community. Not only do we dress up; we talk about it’ [1]
Abstract. The above suggests ‘oral texture’ as a method of communication or ‘ideal and emotive novelisation’, a utopian standard of
image and self-transformation, set by the fashion, textiles and lifestyle perception makers. It is a system that has been used to sell or
seduce magazines (imagery and supporting text) to the reader (wearer) since the late 19th Century and blurred into the realms of retail
sales and marketing, especially on-line. Society understands and indulges in this method of aesthetic communication, and for women,
it is meant to represent ‘women’s mass culture’. [Naomi Wolf][1]
This paper describes two fabric-touch experiments where the term ‘oral texture’ applies in the collection of adjectives and metaphors
(fabric perceptions). The purpose of this study was to qualitatively record subjective responses to familiar fabrics, using a Repertory
Grid (factor analysis) model [2], to preliminary establish subjective and objective responses to fabrics, and through analysis, the factors
underlying fabric perception and discrimination between fabric ‘types’.
10 fabrics were selected. Each subject evaluated fabrics using their index finger in a forward and backward motion, with visual
observation. The experiment was carried out in three phases. The first experiment was used as a Pilot Study. Data was assembled
from 1 experienced textile/fashion professional/academic. The second round of data was assembled from 20 female subjects who are
currently 1st year fashion and textile design students. Through the experience of the pilot experiment, it was found that these
qualitative responses were split into two categories, 1. Surface Texture and, 2. Emotional/Cognitive/Mood associations. After
analysis, principal factors for each category evolved. These factors were then labelled. Results are summarised and discussed.
Figure 1. Finger Pinch
Using the “experiment” experience, the students were than asked to select their own fabric of
choice and evaluate it in a similar manner (this was not limited to evaluation by index finger, as
the experimenter was not present. After discussion it was found that the method of multiple
finger pinch, as illustrated in Figure 1 was primarily used, it being the most natural method of
touch next to ‘touch-stroke’ (see Figure 9) [3]. Qualitative data was collected, as before. They
were then asked to visually respond in a “virtual” manner by creating a “mood board” using
Adobe PhotoShop (a combination of selective imagery related to texture, colour and style,
evoking emotion and memory). This work is also discussed and some examples are shown later
on in the paper.
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
When a person runs their finger across the surface of a fabric, or when we travel out on a shopping trip for clothing
where we engage in a selection process that involves touching and trying on clothing, a complex multi-sensory,
emotional and cognitive experience takes place. A memory is stirred, an emotion, feeling and association is evoked
and a decision is made, an impression becomes embossed in the mind. When we shop for clothes for example, this
eruption of activity extends itself into a manifestation of building and development of the ‘self’. Decisions and
motivations are based on anticipated reality of preference, personality, emotion and moods, for audience or non-
audience participation.
In terms of fabric/texture, clothing/fashion perception and virtual technologies, little has been established that
sufficiently deals with this complex relationship. Within the realms of technology, it is easy to be misguided. Human
factors can become disguised or blurred into generalisation or unimportance when ideally, a complementary strategy; a
human-centred system is necessary that combines novel, therapeutic and logical variables. A system that involves
textiles and fashion, will rely heavily on emotion, motivation, creativity, abstract and illogical input (human). “People
excel at qualitative considerations, machines at quantitative ones. As a result, for people, decisions are flexible
because they follow qualitative as well as quantitative assessment, modified by special circumstances and context. For

the machine, decisions are consistent, based upon quantitative evaluation of numerically specified, context-free
variables. Which is to be preferred? Neither: we need both”. [4] If the machine can learn as we do, see as we do, feel
as we do then the bridge between people vs. machines can be broken and their role as ‘assistant’ be reconciled with.
The emphasis of this research is in the early development of a valuable tool that eventually retailers, designers and
consumers should all potentially benefit from.
1.2 Methods and Analysis
The repertory grid theory has been used successfully to study consumer behaviour. “Kelly (1955) proposed that people
act on the basis of specific hypotheses, or expectations, concerning the functioning of their environment, i.e. people are
assumed to be ‘scientists’, developing hypotheses concerning the best course of action to take in a given situation” [2].
This has been labelled a “mental model” [2], processes through which people evaluate their own surroundings and
products and who possess different levels of experience and expertise. The theory is based on the assumption that
people focus on positive and negative or reward and punishment aspects for any given experience. In terms of fabric
perception we will say the ‘opposites’, however in terms of subjective emotion we may also say positive or negative.
The theory was labelled “personal construct theory” [2]. A method of ‘triads’ is used to collect data. On this occasion
for example, the experimenter presented 10 different fabrics (product) where the individual had to select three fabrics at
a time, decide which two were the most similar and describe why they differed from the third. This was performed in
rotation until all possible combinations had been covered (10). For example if you have a fine silk, a velvet and a
leather it could be said that the silk and the velvet are the pair, both being incredibly smooth, soft, silky, reflective,
glossy and somewhat oily to touch. The leather, even though it is smooth is different, it feels moist, matty and spongy
to the touch. In terms of emotion/cognitive/other, the velvet and the silk could be seen as feminine, gentle, sensuous,
thoughts of beauty, weddings, and party dresses, majestic happiness, decadence, gothic styles and old dusty houses
spring to mind, whereas the leather could be deemed as masculine, sexual, feelings of power, fetishism, being tough,
strong, possessing animal instincts, cowboys, the night, it can be deemed somewhat threatening - leather clothing,
bohemia and wild rock chic’s attitudes, and a sense fearlessness when worn, see Figure 2, below [5].
Figure 2.
‘There’s no doubting that leather represents masculinity and that’s what our girls want
(regardless of their sex)’ (Robert Stoller, Observing the Erotic Imagination, 1985 [6]
‘Leather still emerges with a tough, give-‘em-hell attitude, which should satisfy the Thelma
and Louise in every woman…’ (Anna Wintour, Vogue, September 1991) [1]
Principal components analysis, a multivariate analysis technique, (originated by Pearson,
1901 and developed by Hotelling – 1933) [7] was used here. Given a set of observed
uncorrelated (unrelated) variables the data was reduced down to the underlying dimensions
based on total variation, providing fewer variables or correlated ‘principal components’ to
examine and be used as an objective data source.
1.3 Fabric and Clothing/Fashion Perceptions
One of Lederman’s reasons for why our knowledge of touch has not significantly
developed as rapidly as our visual sense is, “there is a general reluctance in our society to discuss touch-related
matters”. [8] Vision seemingly dominates our attention whereas touch can therefore be seen as a private and complex
emotional and cognitive experience, especially when anticipating, seeing and feeling the skin / body in touch with
fabric via clothing (image creation), a ‘second skin’. [9] Encased within our clothing, unconsciously or consciously our
individual arrays of texture, colour, design and style choices act as a metaphor for the self affecting our behaviour,
emotion and moods, levels of motivation, self esteem/confidence representing itself as a visual and tactile mirror of the
self, of our society and culture. [10]
Through history, for example in the early 19th Century England, the textures favoured at that time, ‘ indicated, for men,
both natural (Greek) man and virtue; for women, childish frailty’.
‘Wool: National pride, simplicity, modern revision of classicism, cult of nature; matte texture is tantamount to smooth
skin and natural virtue (Sir John Reynold's objection to Michelangelo's "play of light over rich texture" that inspired
sensuality); mallability allows it to be molded to a man's curves; moral strength.
Broadcloth (on women): Androgyny
Wood: Natural man, modern craftsmanship
Leather: National pride, shiny foot-fetish fodder, naturalism
Cotton: Colonial acquisition
Silk: Exotic / innocent (depending on how it is woven) for women; for men, outdated, Rocco, wrinkling, light-reflecting
focus on artifice rather than on nature

Muslim (white, for women): Waifish innocence; ditto bouncing hair [11]
However, ‘In her study on fetish clothing, Valerie Steele argues that since the nineteenth century there has been a slow
but definite turn to the so called masculine “hard” materials, especially leather and rubber. With the beginning of the
modern age, she concludes, the need for a certain materiality constantly grows, and apparently it has to fulfil a specific
desire for a contact, which can only be expressed in a tactile and haptic manner’. [6]
This desire has become somewhat unisex, especially in terms of the growth in wearing casual inspired clothing and in
the development of interactive, smart fabrics and wearable computers that are promised to enhance lifestyles for
convenience sake. The term ‘cyborg’ is fast becoming a reality.
However, the other perspective, ‘fashion’ based a constant change of trends, will always remain, ‘To transform yourself
into a Romany princess is divine – if it turns you up and puts you at your ease. But don’t get lost in someone else’s
dream: there is enough adventure in fashion to find your own’ (1970) Diana Vreeland, Editor in Chief of Vogue, 1963-
1970 [1]
1.4 Aims & Objectives
The aim is to develop a multi-modal virtual reality model that incorporates a tactile (haptic) dimension, and to satisfy
and soothe the physical perceptions, responses and emotions related to motivations for wearing and selecting clothes
(essentially aspects of ‘the self’). Existing and developing technology has the potential to offer solutions to this
problem.
There are variables associated with this hypothesis. These can be categorised as follows: fabric/texture perception and
motivation, style/design perception and motivation both tied to self/self-image (personality and emotional response). [12]
This study provides some insight into what motivates an individual in terms of fabric and texture and some of the social
implications involved.
This research could be used to refine texture simulation in haptic technology and for an objective or subjective non-
verbal communication system within a virtual environment
2. Methods
2.1 Pilot Experiment
Stimuli. 10 different fabrics (familiar), listed as follows, mounted flat on MDF wood measuring 3" x 3", taped down
at two sides:
Figure 3. Fabrics for Pilot Study
1. Fleece (100% Polyester)
2. Lycra (83% Polyamide, 17% Elastane)
3. Sheepskin
4. Silk (100% Silk)
5. Corduroy (100% Cotton)

6. Leather
7. Velvet (100% Viscose)
8. Irish Linen (100% Cotton)
9. Denim (100% cotton)
10. Lace (65% Polyamide, 35% Cotton
Subjects. 1 textile/fashion professional (academic/research). Figure 4. Index-
Finger-Stroke
Procedure. The subject was tested individually in three phases. The subject sat at a table, and
using her right arm extended forward with arm resting on table. For evaluation of the fabrics
presented, with visual observation, the subject was instructed to stroke using her index finger
making a fist with the other fingers (Figure 4.). As outlined briefly above, using the Repetory
Grid model, the 10 fabrics were presented to the subject. The subject was then asked to select
three fabrics at random (triads) and to continue to do this until at least 10 different combinations
had been covered. The subject had to decide which two fabrics out of the three were most alike
and provide adjectives (constructs) as to how they differed from the third fabric. Seeing the same
fabric in different combinations (contrasts) allows one to notice other perceptions in terms of
texture and emotion/moods that may not have been considered on initial evaluation of triad
combinations. The experiment took place in a university studio environment. Classic FM was
playing softly in the background to open up the emotions and relax the subject. This was turned
off at a later stage without any comment. Subject tended to close eyes to concentrate on ‘touching’ the fabrics and
experienced sleepy tendencies (winter time). As expected, colour tended to add to the emotional impact even though
the focus was on ‘touch’.
As outlined earlier, the constructs automatically split into two categories, which described 1. Fabric Surface, and 2.
Emotional/Cognitive/Mood associations. This phase took approximately 1 hour. After tabling data, in the second
phase, the subject was presented with the 10 fabrics again and asked to indicate, through the same touch and visual
method, agreement with an individual fabric and a construct entering a “1”, if the construct was not present, they
indicated this with a “0”. This took approximately 35 minutes depending on how many adjectives were originally
given by the individual.
A Principal Component Analysis using SPSS was run and the Construct Groupings (Factors) evolved. On a separate
day, for Phase 3 of the experiment, the subject was then asked to label each factor.
The purpose of the pilot experiment was to learn how subjects would describe stimuli when given no other guidelines
except a request for adjectives, consequently providing a model to follow for the main experiment.
Results. Results are summarised in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Pilot Study Factors
Fabric Surface
Factor Construct Groups Factor Label
1 Resistant, soft, very soft, warm, quite warm, animal, deep pile, hairy Downy
2 Changeable surface, high friction, uneven surface Irregular
3 Quite silky Velvety
4 Stretchy, non-rhythmic Flexible
5 Spongy, grainy Yielding
6 Bubbly, non-skin like Artificial
7 Silky, non-gritty Smooth
Emotional/Cognitive/Moods
1 Stimulating, very nice, caring, secure, luxurious, calming, content, sleepy Satisfied
2 Teddy bears, warm Loving
3 Comforting, babies, happy, non-painful, active Compassionate
4 Relaxed Tranquil
5 Sensual, disorganisation Blurred
For “Emotional/Cognitive/Mood” relationships, there remained 3 constructs – Cosy, Efficient and Childish. However
it is acceptable that Cosy and Childish is covered in Factor 2 and 3 and Efficient in Factor 1. The above data provides
acceptable subjective results.
The main experiment, below, provides objective rather than subjective results through group analysis.

2.2 Group Study
Stimuli. 10 different fabrics (familiar), listed as follows, mounted flat on MDF wood measuring 2" x 3", taped down at
two sides:
Figure 5. Fabrics for Group Study
1. Denim (100% Cotton)
2. Fleece (100% Polyester)
3. Corduroy (100% Cotton)
4. Lycra (83% Polyamide, 17% Elastane)
5. Velvet (100% Viscose/Silk)
6. Satin Silk (100% Silk)
7. Irish Linen (100% Cotton)
8. Tweed (100% Wool)
9. Lace (65% Polyamide, 35% Cotton)
10. Leather
Subjects. 20 female 1st Year Fashion & Textile students aged 19-23, including two mature students aged between 30-
40.
Procedure. The procedure was set out as in the Pilot experiment above; the environment was a university studio
setting. For Phase 3 (labelling of factors), 4 of the students and the experimenter (5) sat down in a brainstorming
session to provide labels for the ‘Fabric Surface’ factors that evolved. The experimenter gave labels for the
Emotion/Cognitive/Mood responses.
Results. Five main factors were extracted, accounting for 87.2% of the variance. Items were allocated to factors if
their correlation exceeded 0.75 for Factors 1 and 2 and 0.5 for 3-5.
Results are summarised in Table’s 2-6, below.
Table 2. Group Study Factors
Fabric Surface
Factor Construct Groups Factor Label
1
(34.5%)
+Coarse, +friction, +sandpaper, +thick Rough
-Silky, -very soft, Downy
+/- Animal
2
(26.7%)
+Stiff, +very smooth, +waterproof, +furry Coated Seabed
-Breathable, -clean Fresh
+/- Protective
3
(13.2%)
+Natural, +tingly, +spongy, +textured Mossy
4
(6.8%)
+Gaps, +rough, +not smooth Coarse

5
(6.0%)
+Close weave, +slippery Silky
Emotional/Cognitive/Moods
Factor Construct Groups Factor Label
1
(19.52%)
+By a fire, +country walks, +feminine, +hats, +warm, +winter Sedate Warmth
2
(12.92%)
+1980’s, +modern Contemporary
-Ancient, -nostalgic Eternal Melancholy
+/- Faded Familiarity
3
(10.48%)
+Comfort, -bikers, -masculine, -trousers Male
4
(8.24%)
+Cycling shorts, +dance clothing, +leotards, +swimming Energised
5
(6.67%)
+Rich, -summer shirts Opulent Poise
[+ = positive correlation, - = negative correlation]
For “Fabric Surface”, Factors 1 and 2 cover the most variance. Fabrics were therefore plotted as Factor 1 against
Factor 2 as follows. This offers a somewhat contemporary and stringent approach in correlating Fabric Surface
responses, but an unsettling approach in terms of emotion/cognitive/mood responses:
Table 3. Factor’s 1 & 2 Allocation
Fabric Surface
Factor 1: Animal Factor 2: Protective
Denim Fleece
Corduroy Lycra
Velvet Irish Linen
Silk Leather*
Tweed
Lace
Emotion/Cognitive/Moods
Factor 1: Sedate Warmth Factor 2: Faded Familiarity
Fleece Denim
Corduroy Lycra
Silk Velvet
Tweed Irish Linen
Leather Lace
* Leather could also come under Factor 1, but ultimately belongs in Factor 2.
Using all 5 factors, results are summarised as follows:
Table 4. Five-Factor Allocation
Fabric Surface Factors Fabric Type
Animal Corduroy, Leather
Protective Fleece
Mossy Tweed, Denim
Coarse Lace
Silky Lycra, Velvet, Satin Silk, Irish Linen
Emotion/Cognitive/Mood Factors Fabric Type
Sedate Warmth Fleece, Tweed
Faded Familiarity Satin Silk, Lace,
Male Corduroy, Leather
Energised Lycra, Denim
Opulent Poise Velvet, Irish Linen
Finally, if we merge both sets of factors together, we have the following summary:
Table 5. Combined Factors
Emotion/Cognitive/Mood Fabric Surface
Sedate Warmth Protective
Faded Familiarity Coarse
Male Animal
Energised Mossy
Opulent Poise Silky

Fabric Combined Factors
Denim Energised – Mossy
Lycra Energised – Mossy
Fleece Sedate Warmth – Protective
Corduroy Sedate Warmth – Protective
Leather Male – Animal
Velvet Opulent Poise – Silky
Satin Silk Opulent Poise – Silky
Irish Linen Opulent Poise – Silky
Tweed Faded Familiarity – Coarse
Lace Faded Familiarity – Coarse
This study evaluated fabric responses and suggests that the characteristic “feel” of a given fabric depends on a
particular combination of variables involving both a fabric surface and its emotion/cognitive/mood associations. If we
label them separately for example categorising a fabric under a fabric surface factor only, the fabric type can differ in
the emotional response. In consideration of the variables that make up a factor, by combining the factors a solution can
be reached in terms of discriminative fabric perceptions.
If we then rework them in terms of words associated with the ‘wearing’ of these textures, i.e. the emotional self:
Table 6. Fabric vs. Factor vs. Self
Fabric Combined Factors Emotion/Self
Denim Energised – Mossy Happy, young, confident, impulsive
Lycra Energised – Mossy Happy, young, impulsive, nervous
Fleece Sedate Warmth – Protective Happy, content, satisfied, reserved,
Corduroy Sedate Warmth – Protective Happy, content, reflective
Leather Male – Animal Fear, Anger, Surprise, passionate, impulsive, strength
Velvet Opulent Poise – Silky Happy, loving, sensual, sleek, sophisticated, extravagant,
reflective, spiritual
Satin Silk Opulent Poise – Silky Happy, loving, sensual, reflective, sleek, sophisticated, open
Irish Linen Opulent Poise – Silky Happy, sensitive, reflective, spiritual, moralistic
Tweed Faded Familiarity – Coarse Content, reserved, isolated, moralistic, eccentric
Lace Faded Familiarity – Coarse Sad, sensitive/sentimental, uneasy, shy, insecure, confused,
isolated, nervous
In the visual response given by students, outlined below in two examples, the relationship between fabric and the self,
as above, is evident.
3. Visual Response
Mood Board Exercise. Based on the above experience, students were given a brief to select their own choice of
fabric to work from and create a visual response to. The mood boards were to selectively reflect some of their responses
to the physical evaluation of the fabric they selected. (These research/ideas boards are used by designers to develop
design philosophies.) On completion they were then asked to label their boards with a word or words that encapsulate a
visual conclusion. It should be noted that a majority of the students were previously unfamiliar with using or working
with computers prior to this module. They were given 2 weeks (6 hour total module time) to complete it. It shows a
variable response to different fabric qualities and on the basis of individual choice, choices they made based on
curiosity or that they may relate to. It proved a positive experience in terms of introducing virtual technologies to a
group that work in a particularly tactile or hands-on manner. Two examples are given below:
Figure 6. Childhood Summers Figure 7. Slithery Lizzie
Soft, light, cool, breathable, childhood, summer, fun,
nostalgic, sweets, pretty, feminine, light, home-made,
homely, mothers, chintz, comfortable clothes, 1950’s,
kitsch, afternoon tea, games, ‘my old dresses’.
Cold, tightly woven, smooth, small grooves, slithery, wet
and slippy, skin shiny, leather boots, frogs, lizards,
crocodiles, sleek, sexy, punk, prostitute.

In the first story, ‘Childhood Summers’, the colour (pink and white), fabric type (100% Cotton) and weight (light) of
the fabric, builds a visual story and a representation of a friendly character and whimsical environment. She looks
delighted and in her light-hearted garden of innocence, domesticated and moralistic nostalgia. In the story of ‘Slithery
Lizzie’ the slippery coated rigid fabric and texture has been used to create a possibly hostile character of the night that
is as manipulative and corrupt, evil or just as strong, sassy, and free as a wild crocodile or snake. Yet she is also timid,
mischievous and cute as a small frog.
An example of this seasons (summer) visual and oral texture messaging is as follows: ‘Who can resist clothes that look like
they’ve been stolen from your little sister’s wardrobe? … What grown-up girl doesn’t yearn to don dreamy dressing-
up-box clothes that their great-grandmothers might once have worn …. What did you do in the war mummy? something
more whimsical for those ‘let’s pretend’ moments … Right now, fashion is a real giggle’. See Figure 8, below [13]
Figure 8. ‘What did you do in the war mummy? … A real giggle (1980’s kid)’

4. Handle
In terms of the ergonomic criteria for a suitable haptic device, four handle methods shown below show fabric properties
evaluated by handle type. As suggested earlier, the multiple finger pinch and the touch-stroke are the most relevant. [3]
However, using just the index finger has also proved acceptable.
Figure 9. Handle Techniques
1. Touch-Stroke 2. Rotating Cupped 3. Multiple Finger 4. Two Handed Rotation
Table 7. Handle Techniques
Handle Technique Properties Evaluated
1 Touch-stroke
Surface quality (texture), temperature
2 Rotating Cupped
Action
Stiffness, weight, temperature, comfort,
overall texture, creasing
3 Multiple Finger Pinch: Rotating
between the Fingers action with
one hand
(thumb and1 or 2 fingers)
Texture, stiffness, temperature, fabric
structure, both sides of a fabric, friction,
stretch (force-feedback)
4 Two Handed Rotation Action Stretch, sheerness
5. Conclusions
This research introduces the delightful aspects of fabric perception through an examination of visual, touch and
emotional/cognitive/mood impact. The evaluation of this multi-modal, cognitive and emotional experience, examined
together, offers a reality model in the development of a vocabulary, ‘oral and aesthetic texture’, that could be
implemented in the development of control variables for interactive communication within a virtual environment.
Combined with previous work where evaluation was based on existing sensory evaluation techniques, [14] [15] both
scalable and detailed analysis of fabric surface and its properties coupled with humane assessment of fabric perceptions
can be established that can be used to refine haptic technology for the fashion and textiles and clothing arena.
‘The hypothesis is developed that brains are designed around reward and punishment-evaluation systems, because this
is the way that genes can build a complex system that will produce appropriate but flexible behaviour to increase
fitness … The reason that both emotion and motivation are treated [considered together] is that both involve rewards
and punishments as the fundamental solution of the brain for interfacing sensory systems to action-selection and
execution systems. [16] The amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortex are areas in the brain associated with emotion and
motivation, stimulated by for example sensory stimuli and cognitive processing of language, memory and association.
Functions of emotion are involved in the following responses: autonomic, behavioural, motivational, communication,
social bonding, cognitive evaluation – events and memories, and in the storage of memories. [16] These responses are
associated with clothing as with most stimuli, however, with the wearing and selection of clothing, a closer
understanding to the relationship of the self can be examined.
The next phase of this research that will therefore involve evaluating and measuring psychological and neural responses
to clothing and fashion, i.e. fabric in context. It is anticipated that the research, as well as providing the necessary data
for translation in a virtual sense, could also provide insight into medical disorders associated with these systems in the
brain.
6. References
1. Borelli, Laird O’Shea, ‘Dressing Up and Talking about It: Fashion Writing in Vogue from 1968 to 1993’, Fashion
Theory, Volume 1, Issue 3, 1997
2. Baber, Chris, ‘Repertory Grid Theory and its Application to Product Evaluation’, Usability Evaluation in
Industry, Jordan, Patrick W; Thomas, Bruce; Weerdmeester, Bernard A; McClelland, Ian L, Taylor & Francis
Publishers, 1996

3. Dillon, Pat; Moody, Wendy; Bartlett, Rebecca; Scully, Patricia; Morgan, Roger & James Christopher, Sensing the
Fabric: The Development of a Multi-Modal Device to investigate the Potential for Virtual Sensory Feedback
Aligned to Textile Image’, (IFFTI 3rdAnnual Conference, Fashion Directions: Visioning the Future, London
College of Fashion, November, 2000).
4. Norman, D. A., The Invisible Computer, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997
5. WWW.WGSN-EDU.COM/TRENDS, April 2001
6. Steele, Valerie, Fetish: Fashion, Sex & Power, Oxford University Press, 1996
7. Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Factor Analysis & Related Techniques, International Handbooks Of Quantitative
Applications In The Social Sciences, Volume 5, SAGE Publications, Toppan Publishing, London, 1994
8. Katz, David, World of Touch, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989
9. Hollander A, Seeing Through Clothes, Viking Press, New York 1979
10. “Ambivalence, and its relation to fashion and the body”, Anne Boultwood and Robert Jerrard, Fashion Theory,
Volume 4, Issue 3, 2000,
11. WWW/DILE/EDI/~SEDGWIC/TEXTURES/HABIT.HTM
12. Barnard, Malcolm, Fashion as Communication, Routledge, 1996,
13. Elle, Emap Elan Network Ltd, UK, May, 2001
14. Dillon, Pat; Moody, Wendy; Bartlett, Rebecca; Scully, Patricia; Morgan, Roger; James, Christopher, ‘Sensing the
Fabric: To simulate sensation through sensory evaluation and in response to standard acceptable properties of
specific materials when viewed as a digital image’, Haptic Human-Computer Interaction Workshop Conference
Proceedings, Springer, LNCS Volume, Spring 2001
15. Civille, G; Dus, C, ‘Development of Terminology to Describe the Handfeel Properties of Paper and Fabrics’,
Sensory spectrum Inc., Chatham New Jersey, 22 February 1990
16. Rolls, E, ‘Precis of the Brain and Emotion’, Behavioural Brain Science, April, 2000
7. Acknowledgements
With special thanks to the students who participated in this study and to Aimee Livesley and Andrea Cain for their
permission to use their ‘mood boards’ and to all those who have offered their support and encouragement.