The Emotional Impact of Surface and Prototyping Properties in Product Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emotional experience of products can have enormous impact on the overall experience: happy users are more accepting and open-minded. Being able to improve users' moods through product interaction has clear benefits and is currently the focus of designers all over the world. The purpose of this study is to help establish generalizable and useful relationship(s) between design parameters specific to the sense of touch and the emotional response to tactile experiences. Participants (N=16) explored blocks of varying roughness, hardness, fidelity (a real or virtual object), and affordance (whether or not the object lends itself to being tactually explored). In terms of surface properties, increases in texture roughness elicits more negative emotional responses (p≤0.013) while changes in hardness showed no effect. In terms of prototyping factors of fidelity and affordance, surprisingly a decrease in stimuli fidelity elicited more favourable emotional responses (p≤0.052) and lower affordance conditions generated faster response times (p≤0.032). In addition, males gave emotional responses in less time than females (p≤0.03). These results are discussed in terms of cognitive processing as well as product prototyping, packaging and displaying.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".