Body mapping of skin friction coefficient and tactile perception during the dynamic skin-textile interaction.

The clothing fabric and skin interact continuously across the many regions of users' bodies during wear, which can lead to both physical skin damage and discomfort. Therefore, this investigation aimed to explore the regional differences in skin friction, tactile perception, and sensitivity in both females and males during the skin-textile interaction. The static and dynamic friction coefficient and textile perception (texture, stickiness, pleasantness, and discomfort) were measured across the 36 selected testing body areas by using a friction measurement device. The results revealed there was a significant difference in skin friction, tactile perceptions, and sensitivity across the various body regions. The anterior neck had the highest skin friction in both females and males, and participants generally rated higher texture perception in their anterior aspects compared to posterior and lateral regions. There was no significant difference in skin friction, tactile perception ratings, and sensitivity between females and males. Practitioner summary: This study sought to examine regional variations in skin friction, tactile perception, and sensitivity during the skin-textile interaction. There was a significant difference in skin friction, tactile perceptions, and sensitivity across the various body regions and no significant sex effect on skin friction, tactile perception ratings, and sensitivity.

An examination of five theoretical foundations associated with localized thermosensory testing.

PURPOSE: To assess five theoretical foundations underlying thermosensory testing using local thermal stimuli. METHODS: Thermal sensation, discomfort and the confidence of thermal sensation scores were measured in 9 female and 8 male volunteers in response to 17 physical contact temperature stimuli, ranging between 18-42 °C. These were applied to their dorsal forearm and lateral torso, across two sessions. RESULTS: Thermal sensation to physical temperature relationships followed a positive linear and sigmoidal fit at both forearm (r2 = 0.91/r2 = 0.91, respectively) and lateral torso (r2 = 0.90/ r2 = 0.91, respectively). Thermal discomfort to physical temperature relationships followed second and third-order fits at both forearm (r2 = 0.33/r2 = 0.34, respectively) and lateral torso (r2 = 0.38/r2 = 0.39, respectively) test sites. There were no sex-related or regional site differences in thermal sensation and discomfort across a wide range of physical contact temperatures. The median confidence of an individual's thermal sensation rating was measured at 86%. CONCLUSION: The relation between thermal sensation and physical contact temperature was well described by both linear and sigmoidal models, i.e., the distance between the thermal sensation anchors is close to equal in terms of physical temperatures changes for the range studied. Participants rated similar thermal discomfort level in both cold and hot thermal stimuli for a given increase or decrease in physical contact temperature or thermal sensation. The confidence of thermal sensation rating did not depend on physical contact temperature.