1994
DOI: 10.1016/0022-4375(94)90004-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Psychophysical assessment of the perceived slipperiness of floor tile surfaces in a laboratory setting

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
18
0

Year Published

1994
1994
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
1
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, it seems that learning took place while walking over the contaminated floor surfaces and as a result all participants, including the elderly, discriminated dangerous slippery situations more closely to the DCOF of floor surfaces. These results are in agreement with a previous study [15] indicating that tactile cues are more sensitive to physical measurements of dynamic COF and visual cues to slipperiness are inferior to tactile sensation. Thus, in unfamiliar conditions, people may rely on the primary but inferior visual information about a surface's traction until they actually walk on it.…”
Section: Slip Initiationsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Furthermore, it seems that learning took place while walking over the contaminated floor surfaces and as a result all participants, including the elderly, discriminated dangerous slippery situations more closely to the DCOF of floor surfaces. These results are in agreement with a previous study [15] indicating that tactile cues are more sensitive to physical measurements of dynamic COF and visual cues to slipperiness are inferior to tactile sensation. Thus, in unfamiliar conditions, people may rely on the primary but inferior visual information about a surface's traction until they actually walk on it.…”
Section: Slip Initiationsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…These approaches have explored initial events from slip onset to foot slide, as well as subsequent events from loss of balance until falling. The output estimates have comprised, among others, perceived sense of slip and slip distance evaluations, slipperiness ratings, heel velocity measurements, heel and trunk acceleration and postural instability measurements, and falling frequency estimations , Leamon and Son 1989, Myung et al 1993, Cohen and Cohen 1994a, b, Hirvonen et al 1994, Chiou et al 2000. Other approaches have focused on kinematics (spatial movement of the body) and kinetics (ground reaction forces, utilized and required friction) of slipping and falling (Strandberg and Lanshammar 1981, Morach 1993, Redfern and Rhoades 1996, Hanson et al 1999, Brady et al 2000, You et al 2001 or electromyographic (EMG) activity of compensatory muscle responses during simulated slipping (Tang et al 1998).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even under controlled laboratory conditions, shine is more difficult to study than other sources of visual information for surface perception. Shine perception is affected by multiple subject variables (prior knowledge about the viewing surfaces, awareness of lighting conditions, differential weighting of intensity, clarity, distinctness of the reflected image, and the like), multiple environmental variables (surface color, texture, and illumination conditions), and variations in the observer/environment interface (viewing distance, viewing angle, and observer movement; see Braun & Braun, 1995; Cohen & Cohen, 1994a, 1994bNishida & Shinya, 1998;Pfund, 1930;Sève, 1993). From a functional standpoint, shine may fail to provide a helpful cue for friction because differentiation of gloss levels occurs too late in the walking sequence for prospective control.…”
Section: Why Is Shine Not a Reliable Visual Cue For Low-friction Condmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast to the large literature on the biomechanics of slipping, to date, only a handful of studies have investigated walkers' visual judgments of friction conditions. The sparse collection of findings suggests that walkers are prone to errors about the likelihood of slipping, even when judging familiar surfaces and contaminants (Cohen & Cohen, 1994a, 1994bLockhart, Woldstad, Smith, & Ramsey, 2002). For example, after watching experimenters slosh water over several familiar ground coverings, participants' visual judgments about the effects of the contaminant were not always consistent with their tactile judgments (Cohen & Cohen, 1994a).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%