Unpleasant Touch: Behavioural Investigations Into How Negative Affective Touch Shapes Our Actions and Interactions With Object and Materials, 2023-2026

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the aipentium editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为大语言模型、生成式AI、ChatGPT相关技术、计算机视觉、深度学习等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

The data collected as part of this grant examines the effects of unpleasant-to-touch materials on actions and behaviours with various paradigms. The grant consists of four individual but interrelated projects that are presented separately below: 1. From Discomfort to Danger: Exploring how affective obstacle properties influence avoidance in stepping (published: Chee, Z. J., Giesel, M., & Hesse, C. (2025). From discomfort to danger: Exploring how affective obstacle properties influence avoidance in stepping. Perception, 54(12), 907-930). In this project, we investigated in two experiments how visual uncertainty and perceived unpleasantness and danger affects obstacle avoidance strategies in stepping. In Experiment 1 (N=20), we found that lead minimum foot clearance (MFC) was initially higher under monocular vision but decreased to binocular levels over trials. While obstacle unpleasantness did not systematically affect MFC or crossing step length, perceived unpleasantness ratings correlated weakly with crossing step length. However, because dangerousness and painfulness ratings were not collected, it remained unclear whether unpleasantness directly influenced avoidance behaviour or served as a proxy for perceived risk. To address this, Experiment 2 (N=22) introduced obstacles covered with metal stud spikes or smooth surfaces, with additional ratings of dangerousness and painfulness. Results showed that MFC was higher for spiky than smooth obstacles. Crucially in this experiment, ratings of perceived dangerousness, not unpleasantness, correlated positively with crossing step length, after controlling for other perceptual ratings. These findings suggest that perceptual affective properties modulate avoidance parameters. However, the nature of those modulations is stimulus specific and highly depends on task demands. All associated data files and explanations can be found on OSF: https://osf.io/mpk93/ 2. The effects of images of unpleasant-to-touch materials on approach-avoidance biases (data analysis ongoing) In this project, we investigated in two experiments whether and how images of unpleasant-to-touch materials affect approach-avoidance biases. In Experiment 1 (N=36), participants completed a variation of an approach-avoidance task (AAT) on a touchscreen, where they were asked to move their finger across the touchscreen surface towards images of objects and surfaces that varied in their unpleasantness to touch. They then performed a dragging action mimicking approach (pulling towards them) or avoidance (pushing away from them) responses by moving the image across the screen into a target area. In Experiment 2, participants (N=46) completed a line bisecting experiment where two images that varied in unpleasantness or dangerousness to touch flanked each side of a line and participants had to point with their finger on a touchscreen to indicate the midpoint of the line. All associated data files and explanations can be found on OSF: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YDUSC 3. The unpleasantness and material properties of everyday objects and materials across haptic, verbal, and visual presentation modalities (under review and in preparation for publication) In this project, we investigated in four experiments the unpleasantness and material property ratings of 79 everyday objects and materials. In Experiment 1 (N=620), participants from the UK, Germany, France, and Türkiye rated the unpleasantness to touch of 79 material names online. In Experiment 2 (N=60), participants rated the same materials presented as images on touch unpleasantness and material properties (i.e., 23 adjectives) in the labs at the University of Giessen (Germany) and University of Aberdeen (UK). In Experiment 3 (N=60), participants rated the same materials presented physically (i.e., haptic exploration) on touch unpleasantness and material properties (i.e., 23 adjectives) in the labs at the University of Giessen (Germany) and University of Aberdeen (UK). In Experiment 4, we asked two large language models (LLMs): ChatGPT and Gemini to rate the same set of material names and images on touch unpleasantness. Furthermore, we ran two follow-up experiments (Experiment 1B and Experiment 4B) as we did not ask for material property ratings in Experiments 1 and 4 originally. In Experiment 1B, another group of participants (N=107) from Germany and the UK rated the same material names from Experiment 1 on touch unpleasantness and their material properties online (i.e., 23 adjectives). Similarly, LLMs were asked to rate both touch unpleasantness and material properties (i.e., 23 adjectives) of the same material names and images in Experiment 4B. The data files and documentation for the unpleasantness ratings are available in two locations: • Experiments 1, 2, and 4: OSF (Open Science Framework) https://osf.io/bcwzd/overview?view_only=1646c4d861f14730a73dff7f80a9b044 • Experiment 3: Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18375577 The data files and documentation for the adjective ratings from Experiments 1B, 2, and 4B can be found on ReShare, in the folder titled “EverydayMaterials_AdjectiveRatings.zip” 4. The effects of touch unpleasantness on contact force in vision-only, haptic-only, and visuo-haptic conditions (data analysis ongoing) In this project, we investigated in two experiments the influence of touch unpleasantness on contact force when exploring materials with different properties. In Experiment 1 (N=24), participants explored sandpapers of different grit values secured on a force sensor under haptic-only and visuo-haptic conditions. After each trial of exploration, they rated the stimulus on the perceived unpleasantness, roughness, and dangerousness. In the vision-only condition, participants rated each stimulus without touching them on the same rating scales. In Experiment 2 (N=16), a different group of participants went through the same procedures, but this time with a different set of stimuli (i.e., abrasive sponges of different grits). Participants also rated the stimuli on the perceived softness in addition to the three rating scales used in Experiment 1. All associated data files and explanations are available on ReShare in the folder entitled “ForceSensor_Exps.zip”

Links and sources

Comments