Japanese Psychological Research

1968, Vol.10, No.4, 157-173

DIMENSIONS OF TACTUAL IMPRESSIONS (2)

MASAAKI YOSHIDA

Japan Women's University

As a control experiment to (III) Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) of distance

matrix constructed indirectly from haptic differential profiles, the following data
were analyzed by MDS model of Torgerson. (C) Direct estimation of similarities
(DES)-touch with vision, (D) DES—vision only, (E) DES—concept only, and
(F) indirect scaling of similarity front semantic differential profiles, among 25
samples of various material.
Results; All MDS yielded very similar configuration of vectors. Metals and stones
cluster at the one pole, while fibers and papers at the opposite pole. Results of
(III) and (F) are similar, while the other three give slightly different configurations
from the above two.

Recently Yoshida (1968b) reported a
haptic differential and multi-dimensional
scaling of surface touch. The distance
matrix was constructed indirectly from the
same data as that of haptic differential.
However, multi-dimensional scaling de-
scribed in section (IV)1 is not necessarily
the only way of multi-dimensional scaling
of sense of touch. Even if we deal only
with these samples, we can devise as many
method of constructing distance matrices as
we wish. First, for example, we can con-
ceive differences or similarities of actual
touch judged directly, or we can think of
differences or similarities of concepts or
verbal labels (not seeing or touching di-
rectly these samples) etc. These are the
other methods of securing original data.
The second, in constructing " distance"
from these original data, we can make
some reasonable assumptions relating de-
gree of dis-similarities with distances. For
example, instead of calculating "sum of
absolute values of difference " on each rat-
ing scale, we have equal right to calculate
"square root of sum of squares of differ-
ences ". This may be regarded as an
Euclidean space model, and easily be ex-
tended to Minkowski metric model of any
1 To the (I)-(IV) or (A)(B) listed in this paper,
see Yoshida (1968b).
higher degree (see Shepard, 1962 or Krus-
kal, 1964). On the other hand, all these
methods can be categorized as a distance
model developed by Torgerson, since all of
them are based on Young & Householder's
theorem to approximate a matrix with a
matrix of lower rank. This leads us to the
third point, namely, the methods of multi-
dimensional scaling developed by Shepard,
Kruskal, or Ekman may be applicable in
our treatment of the phenomena of touch.
Shepard's and Kruskal's methods can be
grouped together as a nonmetric method,
while the method developed by Ekman
(1963) is a metric one. However, in
Ekman's method the quantity constructed
directly from the samples are not the
" distance " among these stimuli
, but a
quantity corresponding to inner product of
vectors. Hence the name " direct meth-
od " of multi-dimensional scaling is used.
In Indow's method, " distance " or more
exactly the absolute distance (not the
relative distance easily constructed from
any method) among these samples are
directly estimated. (The proof that in his
method the absolute distance can be
achieved directly from the pair compari-
son-like judgment on ratio scale, is given
in Indow & Kanazaw a, 1960; Indow &
Uchizono, 1960)
Therefore, it will be more desirable to
158 M.
construct the distance matrix by some
other methods, and compare the results
each other. Here, the methods of direct
estimation of similarity was applied to
actual touch, vision only, and concepts
only, and one indirect method, namely the
semantic differential itself of Osgood, were
attempted. When contrasted with these
four, procedure described in section (III)
may be characterized as an indirect method
of constructing distance from actual touch,
after the general method of Torgerson-
Indow. For convenience, we shall desig-
nate these methods as follows.
(C) Direct estimation of tactual similarity
YOSHIDA
TABLE
Factor loadings
among these samples. (actual touch)
(D) Direct estimation of tactual similarity
by visual cue only among these samples
(seeing only).
(E) Direct estimation of tactual similarity
among" concepts" of these samples
(No sample presented, subjects judged
in imagination).
(F) Indirect method of scaling tactual
similarity from the semantic differential
profiles of the" concepts" of these
samples (No sample presented, subjects
judged in imagination or association with
past experience).
 Dimensions of Tactual Impressions (2)
of samples
(V) Direct estimation of similarities among
samples by touch, vision,and concepts,and an
indirectscaling.
Procedures
(C) Subjects are presented a recording
sheet of a 25 x 25 matrix, and the twenty
five samples.
Instruction to the subjects are as follows;
Here are twenty-five samples. You are
asked to rate the similarity of these
samples pair by pair. The sample coded
at the top of the recording sheet is the
standard, and the samples at the left of
159
the sheet are the comparison stimuli .
Although this experiment is apparently
very similar to the method of paired
comparisons, you should not express the
preference of the one to the other, but
judge the similarity of the two stimuli
according to 5 point rating scale, score
zero being the most similar and score
five being the most dissimilar . When
twenty-four judgment with the first sam-
ple as a standard are over, you should
change to the second column, and pro-
ceed in a similar manner until the last
column is over in one session. This af-
fords us two independent scores for each
160
pair.
The correlation coefficient between the
two judgment (number of elements being
25(25-1)/2=300) gives us a measure of
reliability of similarity judgment. Unless
the value of the correlation is higher than
a certain criterion, their data will not be
included in the subsequent analysis. Next
we average the scores of these"reliable
subjects", and regard it as a rational start
of multi-dimensional scaling. Therefore,
in our method, method of equal appearing
intervals is used to construct the"distance
matrix", and the correction with additive
constant was skipped, to save the prohibi-
tive amount of labor of calculation in-
volved. If we can secure directly the ratio
scale of similarity in the experimental
situation, this calibration for additive con-
stant is not necessary. But, how can we get
to such a ratio scale of similarity? One
FIG. 1. Multi-dimensional scaling,
(actual touch).
M. YOSHIDA
possibility is achieved when we train the
subject very strictly, but training to what
extent? The author provides tentative
answer to this problem, although it is not
so legitimate, that is, to use only very
restricted range of number scale. If we
use very wide range of number scale, psy-
chological scale of number per se might be
curvilinear with the mathematical system
of the number itself. As is often pointed
out, numerals may be used as a label to
designate the relative order of psychological
magnitude. Of course, the number one
is the first, the number two is the second,
and so on, and these relative order should
hold monotonously, i.e., there will be no
such inversion where the number (i +1) is
prior in some respect to i. But monotonici-
ty does not guarantee that the relationship
is linear equal interval scale, so we should
construct such linear interval scale, prefer-
(C) direct estimation of similarities
 Dimensions of Tactual
rably with a rational origin via some
method. Thurstonian school attempted to
meet this, through the assumption of" law
of comparative judgment" or the" law of
categorical judgment". In present case,
we have skipped even this procedure,
because our previous experience show that
the scales constructed by direct methods
(in other words, deterministic model) is
almost identical with that constructed by
indirect method (confusion model), pro-
vided they are applied to the same data.
Although equality of unit is a strict premise
to any interval scale, practically most of
our rating scales can be regarded as an
equal interval scale when the range of
score is 5, 7, or 9, even if we don't correct
the original data through some of the
Thurstonian laws. Subjects were 8 female
students, and the median reliability was
0.60, range being 0.31-0.77.
(D) Subjects were presented samples
and a recording sheet, which is essentially
FIG. 2. Multi-dimensional scaling, (D) direct estimation of similarities
(vision only).
Impressions (2) 161
the same as that of experiment (C). The
principal difference in instruction is as
follows: Here, subjects were not allowed to
touch the samples, but can see the size,
shape, and texture of them, and yet judge
the " tactual " similarity through the past
experience, and not the similarity of visual
impression per se. This is based on an
assumption, that so-called tactual impres-
sions are in fact tactual perception with
visual impression, so we can judge to some
extent, the tactual impression only through
their past association with visual impres-
sion. Furthermore, as will be expected in
experiment (E) below, if we present only
the verbal labels to the subjects, they will
ordinarily think that the fibres are thin,
light, pliable, etc., while the metals are
heavy, cold, hard, stiff, etc. Of course, it
is not wrong to think so, but not all of our
samples made of metals in this series of
experiments are heavy, hard, etc. depend-
ing on their size, shape, and texture. In
162
extreme cases, some of them are far lighter
than a mass of cloth or paper. Therefore,
when we include such preverse samples,
the impressions based on concepts only
will be much different from these of actual
touch or visual impressions. Afterwards,
these results will be compared. Subjects
were 16 female students, none of whom
participated in common with the experi-
ment (C) and (E). The time required to
complete the judgment was about 90 mi-
nutes. The median reliability coefficients
was 0.75, the range being 0.51-0.90.
(E) Instructions and general proce-
dures are the same as in experiment (C) and
(D), except that subjects were not presented
the actual samples, but only the verbal
concepts. Subjects were 8 female students,
none of whom participated in experiment
(C) and (D). If we point out a weakness
in this procedure, some of the samples,
especially ferrotungsten, are not familiar
for the female subjects. Therefore, most of
the subjects, who knew nothing of such un-
familiar samples, guessed it in a haphazard
FIG. 3. Multi-dimensional
(concepts only).
M. YOSHIDA
manner. For example, some subject write
on her recording sheet the title" by imagi-
nation", even though the experimenter
instructed to judge the similarity as" con-
cepts". Perhaps, such samples will be
located near the centroid of the vectors.
Median reliability coefficient was 0.78,
range being 0.49-0.95.
(F) Subjects were presented concepts
of these samples and a set of semantic dif-
ferential rating scales, which was used in
experiment (A) or (B). This procedure is
literally the same as that of Osgood's
" semantic" differential . Although we
referred to the procedure of experiment
(II) a kind of" semantic" differential, if
we invent more appropriate name to the
method, the titles" haptic differential" or
" touch differential" will be the more
pertinent. The subjects were about 20-30
female students for each concept. The
indirect method to construct the" dis-
tances" among the concepts was nearly
the same as that of section (III).
Results The distance matrices among these
scaling, (E) direct estimation of similarities
 Dimensions of Tactual Impressions (2) 163

TABLE 2
A comparison of five scaling methods

samples or concepts for experiment (C),
(D),(E), and (F), and results of multi-
dimensional scaling are shown in Table 1
and Fig. 1 through Fig. 4.
Before going into details of each experi-
ment, it will be advisable to compare the
results of experiments (C) through (F), with
the result of the main experiment de-
scribed in section (III). The correlation
coefficients between the corresponding ele-
ments of two distance matrices are shown in
Table 2 and Fig. 5.
Fig. 5 clearly shows that three direct
estimation methods give us nearly the same
results, while two indirect methods from
semantic or haptic differential give nearly

FIG. 4. Multi-dimensional scaling,(F) indirect methods,(SD of concepts).

164
Code E, F, are marked with
emphasize the fact in these
tactual samples were presented.
FIG. 5. The relationship
methods of scaling" distances".
the same results, which are somewhat
different from the results of direct estima-
tion of similarities. Since the first factor
is clearly a measure of reliability of this
series of experiments, the distances based on
direct methods should be very similar to
those based on indirect method. How-
ever, the amount of variance accounted by
this factor is about 52%, which is not so
high when compared with the other sense
modalities. The second factor corresponds
to the just mentioned opposition of direct
methods and indirect methods, but the
relative weight of this factor is only 14% of
the first. At rfirst thought, it seems to be
more important whether the subjects ac-
tually touch the samples or not, than
whether the method of scaling is direct or
not. The results show decidedly the lat-
ter factor was the more important. This
fact give us a warning signal to the rather
easy-going way of scaling on this paper,
M. YOSHIDA
(C) direct estimation, actual touch
(D) direct estimation, visual cue only
(E) direct estimation, concepts
(F) indirect scaling, concepts
(III) indirect scaling, actual touch
FIG. 6. Rate of convergence of factors.
bold circle to
experiments no and the fluctuation of tactual judgment in
numerical terms especially when the naive
between different subjects are used. The reason why we
used the elements of original distance
matrices and not factor loadings in this
comparison, is that first in extracting fac-
tors we had non-negligible residuals, when
negative values began to appear in the
principal diagonal cells.
The rate of convergence of factors are
shown in Fig. 6.
Here again, the contrast between three
direct methods and two indirect methods
becomes apparent, and indirect methods
have a tendency to give us a more clear cut
picture of the state of affairs. If we rely
on the subject's introspective (not neces-
sarily atomistic) analysis, the direct method
should be the ultimate criterion of validity,
as a direct expression of their real ex-
perience of touch. Furthermore, direct
estimation can provide us some informa-
tion of similarity, not easily feasible to
conventional verbal habits (like the scales
included in semantic differential). How-
ever, often the complaint was heard from
the subjects that such judgment of simi-
 Dimensions of Tactual
larity is very difficult, if not impossible,
because there are so many points of differ-
ence among them. In contrast with this,
subjects of semantic or haptic differential
have expressed no such complaints. Pro-
bably the stability of judgment compen-
sated for the indirectness of the semantic
or judgment and can get to fairly valid
points more easily. To some extent, the
arbitraliness in constructing" distances"
from semantic or haptic dirrerential, may
account for the second reason why we
obtained somewhat divergent results.
(C) Direct estimation of tactual simi-
larity with vision. See Table 1 (C) and
Fig. 1.
Here, the most dominant factor seems to
be the opposition of ferrotungsten vs wool,
that is the axis a2, and on the negative side
there cluster the metals and stones, while
on the positive side fibres of cloths and
papers. The former is a cluster of hard,
heavy, and cold, rough samples and the
latter is a cluster of soft, light, warm and
smooth samples. The meaning of axis al
is not so clear as a2i in spite of the fact that
the relative weight of al is no less than that
of a2. A characteristic feature of this
result is that the position of absorbent cot-
ton is located in the middle of fabrics, not
at the extreme of this group, and ferrotung-
sten is located at the opposite extreme.
(D) Direct estimation of tactual simi-
larity, with vision only. See Table 1 (D)
and Fig. 2.
Here, the most dominant factor is the
opposition of ferrotungsten and cast iron,
vs cotton, absorbent cotton, and fur etc.
that is the first axis a1. The meaning of
this axis probably is heavy vs light, while
the meaning of the second axis a2 is pro-
bably hard, smooth vs rough. In the fibre
group, silk, nylon, and acetate cluster
together, which is a very reasonable fact
because nylon or acetate were invented to
replace or substitute the place of silk, but
these are fairly far from the cluster of other
fibres, namely, cotton, linen, wool, etc.
Opposite to this group, rubber, cheese,
Impressions (2) 165
cowhide, etc. which show high elasticity
together.
(E) Direct estimation of tactual simi-
larity with concepts only-no sample pre-
sented—See Table 1 (E) and Fig. 3.
Here, the most dominant factor is axis
a1. On the positive side of this axis fibres
are located, the most representative being
the absorbent cotton, wool, and fur, while
on the negative side, ferrotungsten, cast
iron, and silver are located. On the
positive side of axis a2, acetate, silk and
nylon are located, while at the negative
side, bamboo, linen, wool, etc. are located.
Probably the first axis represents the op-
position of light, soft, vs heavy, stiff, rigid,
etc. The second axis represents the op-
position of smooth vs rough. Although
some of the samples were never experienced
by most of the subjects, the results are
fairly reasonable one.
(F) Indirect method to construct a
measure of similarity, from semantic differ-
ential of concepts-no sample presented-
See Table 1 (F) and Fig. 4.
As was expected, here, ferrotungsten is
not the most representative champion of
metals and stones, probably because of its
unfamiliarity. Ferrotungsten, which in
reality has many distinctive features, such
as rough, heavy (specific gravity about 13,
which is the largest in our samples), non-
elastic, non-plastic, non-viscous, etc. is not
known to most of the subjects, as will be the
case for ordinary females in every country.
Hence, the features, stiff, pointed, cold,
painful, hard, etc. were to a considerable
extent exaggerated when touch was al-
lowed. Instead cast iron get to the place
of the championship. For the layman,
this is also a quite reasonable result. In
this case, however, absorbent cotton shows
a vector nearly orthogonal to the vector of
cast iron, which is peculiar feature of this
result, and the most representative fibre is
silk. In order to save space, semantic
profiles for each sample is omitted, however
some of the samples are conceived in a
very different way from the result described
166
in section (II). For example, linen in real
sample group is a handkerchief, but we
can infer from the semantic profile ob-
tained for this concept, that many of the
subjects seemed to associate it with a large
bag of jute for industrial materials. (In
Japanese language, the term asa does not
specifically mean flax, hemp, ramie or
jute.)
On the other hand, the samples whose
profiles are very similar irrespective of the
participation of actual touch, are nylon,
cast iron, silver, stone, absobent cotton,
bamboo basket, and cheese. If we average
the" difference" between profiles of the
same sample obtained under two condi-
tions, i.e., the sum of the absolute values of
the difference on each of the fifteen scales,
the following values are obtained.
Profiles for touch & vision vstouch only
5.1
Profiles for touch & vision vs concept
8.3
Profiles for touch only vs concept
8.3
Here, the unit of" difference" is a step on
the rating scale. In case of concepts, two
samples showed fairly different profiles
from those obtained under actual touch
and vision, or touch only. Of course, it is
natural that the" difference" of the pro-
files of a sample under two or more
ditions, is by far the smaller than
" difference" betwcen two samples
one experimental condition, especially
under the participation of actual touch.
Since the average for twenty-five samples
for the latter condition amounts to 16.2
(total sum of the 300 distances between
pairs of samples divided by 300). The
corresponding figure for concepts is 15.1,
which is very close to the former value.
Therefore, Yoshida's anticipation that in
conceptual scheme the characteristic fea-
tures will be more emphasized than in
haptic differential (or generally real sen-
sation) was not verified, or contrary to the
fact.
M. YOSHIDA
(VI) General discussion
In this paper attempts were made to
apply the multi-dimensional scaling model
and semantic differential rating in the
description and analysis of sense of touch.
Hence, the title itself was named as
" dimensions of tactual impressions"
.
However, does this mean really an analy-
sis of the dimensions of" sensory" im-
pressions ? Although the author thinks
what he is doing is really a psychological
analysis of sensation, and does not think
it merely an analysis of verbal labels or
linguistic habits, many objections would
be arised to such a way of thought.
The ground to believe in it will be
stated briefly, as follows. First, we were
stimulated by some mechanical objects to
our tactual organs (either or both soma-
thetic and kinesthetic), and these stimuli
give rise to some sort of impressions,
sometimes called sensations or perceptions,
with accompanying associations. The na-
ture of functional relationship between
the stimulation and impression per se is not
yet known so exactly, (for example, in
psychology Fechnerian school regards it
as logarithmic, while Stevens and his as-
sociates regard it as power function, and in
physiology also the evidences are divided
for both schools). Second, subjects are
con- asked to express their impressions in some
the manner. Once the subjects can express
under
their own experience in some way, we can
handle it as rational as possible. Unless
the subjects give us some information
of their experiences or impressions, can
we not describe or analyze" the other
person's" private experience. The im-
pressions per se are not palpable and
observable to the non-feelers or the third
person researcher. So we should secure in
some way, the expressions of the subjects.
Here also, the nature of functional rela-
tionship between the impressions per se and
their expressions is not known more clearly
than the former relation between stimula-
tion and impression. Probably the form
 Dimensions of Tactual
of this relationship will differ from case to
case, depending on the mode of expression,
whether they are given in some numerical
or graphic form, verbal terms or otherwise
motor response. As Namba (1966) points
out, with only one exception of Wada's
(1950) description of tonal pitch, in al-
most every sensory modality, phenomeno-
logical description is still lacking.
The attempts here developed open a way
to construct a mathematical phenomeno-
logy of sense of touch. Of course, the
phenomenology is only a part of psychology
and in the next step we should go a step
further to construct a truely ecological
(not bound to the so-called" exact "
conditions of laboratory) psychophysics.
However, in order to construct a psycho-
physical scale, the dimensions of attributes
of the sensation should be clarified and
purified beforehand. Once a psychological
scale, whose reliability, validity, or uni-
dimensionality satisfy a desired criterion, is
constructed, we can examine in detail the
functional relationship between the cor-
responding physical characteristic and the
scale. In case of hearing, the state of the
audiology seems to have reached to such a
stage, while in our case of touch almost no
similar attempts were made since the later
years of Titchener, etc. some fourty years
ago (e.g.), Sullivan (1927), Meenes &
Zigler (1923). The need for phenomeno-
logical research is obvious. But how can
we achieve to this end? Semantic differ-
ential method developed by Osgood, Succi
& Tannenbaum (1957) seems to give a
starting point to this direction.
In this method, the varbal statement of
the subject in quantitative terms can be
regarded as a response to the stimulus
situation and can be treated in the similar
way as in the study of animal learning or
human motor skills. What we want to
construct from these statements is a kind
of intervening variable which really rep-
resents the impressions. Nakatani (1965)
points out two possible routes to bridge
the stimulus situation and the observable
Impressions (2) 167
response. The one is a route, in which
the human transfer function is calculated,
and the other is a route in which some
random variable is introduced in their
model. The most representative research-
er who pursue the former route are
Licklider, and Masuyama, but we do not
discuss it further here. Those who pursue
the latter route are represented by Thur-
stone (1959), Stevens (1934, 1958, 1959),
and Luce (1959). In the latter group,
the mathematical models introduced are
considerably different from one researcher
to another. Thurstone assumes in his
famous law of comparative judgment
normal probability distribution of errors,
while Stevens assumes log-normal dis-
tribution from his power law, and Luce
assumes logistic function which in its
essential form very similar to that of
Thurstone.
Hereupon the strategy adopted by the
latter group diverge further into two sub-
route, i.e., direct method and the indirect
method. Of course, Stevens is the most
representative of the direct method group,
who regards the varbalized numerals of his
subjects as a most immediate and direct
expression of his impressions.
Such a method is quite peculiar to the
field of psychology and not secn in the othcr
sciences. In the other sciences the indirect
method are usually adopted to construct
their system of knowledge. Indeed, Thur-
stonian school is a representative one who
pursue this sub-route in psychology (e.g.
see Gulliksen, 1961). This method seems
apparently less objectional, because it
requires their subjects only very simple
judgment of" larger or smaller"," greater
or less", etc. But especially in case of
multi-dimensional scaling it is often very
inefficient to collect the original data,
because the task assigned to each subject
is so simple that to secure full information
required, we should extend the experiment
to very many subjects and on very many
occasions. Although such problem of
efficiency is a trivial argument for a
168 M.
science, there awaits the next question of
its indirectness. As mentioned above , the
data of a science may be indirect in other
sciences. However, in case of psychology
the system of knowledge to be constructed
should be one which represent the direct
expression of impressions. To such a pur-
pose, indirect method affords us only a very
round-about way, which does not neces-
sarily reach to immediate impressions, and
in this sense not necessarily more valid
one. Then, how can we reach such im-
mediate impressions? Stevens proposed a
method to avoid the use of" number be-
havior" and yet to reach the immediate
impressions. It is socalled cross-modality
matching. Perhaps this would introduce
the other kind of difficulty, and it is not
relevant to discuss it here in detail, since we
do not refer it in this paper further.
Here, the only way to reach in immediate
impression of subjects is to rely on their
number behavior. Indeed, this is a mat-
ter of belief. But, if we have no way to
examine the truthfulness of this assump-
tion, such system of knowledge is not
science. But we can examine the consis-
tency of such number behavior, and see
whether the power n of S^ is invariant,
when we vary the modulus of response or
value of anchoring stimulus, say, from 5 to
10, or 20. If some invariance is found, the
basic assumption of Stevens and his as-
sociates is proved to be true.
Many difficulties are pointed out by the
critics of direct methods. For example, in
his model the factor of variability of judg-
ment is not treated formally, since variabil-
ity is assumed to cancel, when we average
the raw scores. And yet in Stevens' data,
the amount of variability is considerably
large.
Recently, several researchers have ex-
amined the functional relationship between
category scales (indirect method) and ratio
or magnitude scales (direct method).
However, we do not discuss this general
problem further, since the reviews by
Nakatani (1965), or Ekman & Sjoberg
YOSHIDA
(1965) give us thoroughgoing information
in this field.
Particularly, direct method in multi-
dimensional scaling is sometimes criticized
as unjustifiable (e.g. Pieron, 1963). While
in Torgerson-Indow's method, the set of
points is located in an m dimensional real
Euclidean space, other researchers find
city-block model, or the space having some-
what intermediate characteristics between
the above two, would be more pertinent
to their data. Next, Torgerson himself
(1961), criticized that Indow's ratio scale
was merely a relative distance and not
absolute distance, although Indow gave
proof that his scores were measures of
absolute distances. However, recently a
very important article by Shepard (1962)
appeared, entitled "analysis of proximi-
ties", which does not assume any distance
function. In his method, through high
speed iteration, multi-dimensional space
which contain the set of points can be
reconstructed. The only prerequisite for
his model is the relation of" monotoni-
city", and not necessarily the linearity.
This gives us a very strong and convenient
ground for us to start with direct method,
which in critic's eyes would seem rather
rough.
Torgerson's method of triads may be an
exact one, but probably not the only way to
construct the absolute (ratio scalable)
distances between the set of points. In his
method, the number of comparisons is in
proportion to the third power of the stimuli
judged. Therefore we are forced to a
dilemma. On the one hand if a number of
stimuli excedes 10 or so, the number of
comparisons amounts very quickly to a
prohibitive value. On the other hand, it
will be of little importance, if we constrain
the number of stimuli, so as to save the
number of comparisons in the manageable
range of one experiment. Since in the
latter case we can fit any number of di-
mensions for such small set of points.
Perhaps on this ground, heretofore only
two reports have appeared, which faithfully
 Dimensions of Tactual
follow the model of Torgerson. The one
is Indow and his associates' research on
colour solid (stimuli), and the other is Ya-
maguchi's research on timbre (stimuli).
Of course, the determination of the
number of dimensions should precede the
linear scaling of sensory attributes. But
because of the late development of multi-
dimensional scaling, almost no attempts
were made in most of the sensory modality.
In such state of affairs, we are in need of
the relevant description and determina-
tion of the phenomena or impressions per
se. This is the reason why we here attempt
our phenomenology. Semantic different-
ial of Osgood have a merit to make the
task of the subjects very simple and easy,
providing a framework of response, es-
pecially when they are not experts in this
field. Of course, thcre may be some
occasion where the subjects are bound to
this framework and cannot state or de-
scribe quite freely. Therefore the selec-
tion of relevant scales for the battery should
be done very carefully.
If the field in question is a very technical
one, like the " handling " of texture re-
ported by Yoshida (1962-3, 1968a), the
universe of scales from which to select a
few samples should he a technical term
used in the discourse of experts. But,
in the present study, subjects should be
laymen, since the sense of touch should
not be limited to experts. Here, first,
reports of the previous authorities should
be consulted. However, we could not find
them, except that of D. Katz. (In case
of olfaction, psychologist Hazzard 1930,
or perfumer Kainoshow provide us some
clue to this framework).
In this report, both semantic differential
and multi-dimensional scaling are used.
The principal reason why we used them
concurrently is twofold. First, to explore
the possibility to construct a distance
scale from the results of the semantic
differential ratings, this is a problem of
scaling, and the second to examine whether
any invariant relationship can be found
Impressions (2) 169
in the field of surface touch. Here, the
term invariance means that more than
two methods independently performed (no
common subjects in both experiments, and
preferably with two different procedures)
give corresponding results. In this paper,
although not so perfect, certain invariant
relationship was found, namely the op-
position of metals-stones-fibres, and the
meaning of this opposition (physical charac-
teristics most prominently contributing to
this axis) can be construed with ease.
There remains a question, whether such
dimensions are in reality" sensory" or
merely verbal?
According to Boring (1950, p20), Wundt
and Kiilpe thought that attributes of
sensation should be (i) inseparable from
the sensation itself, and (ii) should be
varied independently. Quality, intensity,
extensity or spacial spread, temporal dura-
tion were often regarded as attributes of
any sensation. However, later workers in
this field, especially Gestaltists, attacked
these assumptions, since they presuppose
the existence of sensory elements before
the perception of an object emerges (so-
called Konstanzannahme). Other work-
ers, for example, Stevens (1934) criticized
these two criteria, and substitute the uni-
queness of the just noticeable difference to
the second point. The ground for his
proposal is that the latter is more uniquely
difinable through operational procedure.
The field of audition can be treated more
rigorusly (from the physical standpoint,
measurement is easily achieved), in con-
trast to our sense of touch. As the physics
of optics or acoustics are constructed
for the field of vision and audition,
mechanics is a representative system of
physical knowledge in tactual field. But
in the latter field, it is often difficult to
find physically measurable quantity which
uniquely corresponds to a psychological
attribute. Probably the physical measures
themselves are complexly intermingled, and
the so-called physical" measurements" in
engineering have often very fortuitous
170 M.
aspects. For example, the roughness or
hardness of a surface is defined in various
ways, and we cannot regard the one of
them "the" physical roughness or "the"
physical hardness. In such state of af-
fairs, it is often desirable to factor analyze
the physical scores and psychological
characteristics. (For example, the works
of Harper (1956) and Scott-Blair in psy-
chorheology is a representative one).
One of the easiest way (from the view-
point of both the experimenter and the
subject) to secure as many qualitative
characteristic, as we desire, is to construct
a semantic differential battery for the field
in question. If we present to the subjects
only verbal labels or so-called concepts,
this is literally a "semantic" differential.
But when we present to the subjects the
actual samples which stimulates the sensory
organs, the verbal report expressed by the
subjects should represent some aspects of
their sensation. If the subjects are re-
quired to report the only one aspect which
the experimenter intend to study, it is
very difficult to guarantee the sameness of
the experimenter's intent and subject's
report, as old researchers pointed out. If
we deal with only verbal labels, it leads to
a futile debate when both sides refer in
reality to the same thing or not. But once
a stimulus is presented, it becomes very
easy to settle the difference in statements
by both sides. When the sensory data to
be reported are many sided, and subjects
can use as many rating scales as possible,
subject's loads will be much lessened.
Although we do not necessarily agree
completely with Osgood and his school
(1957) as to the nature of syneasthetic fac-
tor in semantic differential, probably such
factor will facilitate the study of sensory
data. We say e. g. some colours are light-
heavy, hard-soft, warm-cool etc, which
in their proper usage should be limited to
sense of touch. We say some tones are
high-low, voluminous-slim, dark-light,
which in their original meaning should be
limited to visual appearances, or heavy-
YOSHIDA
light which also is a kinesthetic sensation.
Some odours are called sweet-sour, which
is peculiar to taste, not smell, and so
on. Other scales may be of use, some of
which are not necessarily synaesthetic,
clearly associated with past experience of
other sensory modality.
Perhaps, the only criterion to select the
scale is, whether it seems to be related to
the relevant sensory modality, or whether
the score on a scale vary systematically
according to the corresponding variation
of the stimulus. When we plot the profile
of each sample on a graph like Fig. 1 of
Yoshida (1968b), those scales, on which
the range of rating scores is considerably
large, will be regarded as relevant. In
some of the scales which we had examined,
approximately logarithmic relationship was
found between the rating scores of samples
and the physical constants of the samples.
This is an indirect evidence, that the
scores are some representatives for sensory
attributes, and they were not based on
conceptual schemes alone. Indeed, in our
daily experience the conceptual schemes
influence sensory impression per se very
often and to a considerable extent. In
such a case, it is very difficult to separate
the verbal or conceptual components from
the purely sensory impressions. In this
paper, an attempt was proposed to separate
them indirectly via the comparison of data
from actual, with that of concept alone .
We included samples of very dierent size
and shape from our daily experience and
"common sense" in our set of samples,
thereby intending to "bias" the con-
ceptual scheme from the actual sensory
impressions. Unless there is some such
"biasing"
, confounding of factors cannot
be unraveled.
If there exists any interaction between
concepts and scales, as Osgood (1962) and
Tanaka (1964) admit recently, this is the
very ground for our application of semantic
differential to sensory phenomena. Un-
less such interaction exists, the results of
Osgood are "the" results of semantic
 Dimensions of Tactual
differential, and we can find no importance
in our attempt, except to fortify their
results.
In the field of audition (timbre), aesthe-
tic richness, dynamic volume, and metalic-
ness were found by Kitamura, Namba &
Mito (1962), or Sone, Kido & Nimura
(1962). And in the field of olfaction,
dimensions of hedonic tone, harshness,
and intensity or vividness were found by
Yoshida (1964a, b, c). These "dimen-
sions" are not necessarily the same as
those found by Osgood. It is here that our
present study has much significance.
Perhaps, our dimensions are not neces-
sarily as elementary as those conceived
by Wundt-Kulpe-Titchener. However it
does not necessarily follow from this, that
intermediate degree of abstraction are of
little value. On the contrary, we think
that the level of abstraction should be of
various grades, i.e., from comparatively
concrete or low grade abstraction to very
high grade abstraction. Each has their
own merit. In the present case, perhaps
the lowest grade is each rating scale per se,
which were rather uncritically adopted
from many sources. The next grade ab-
straction is the "dimensions" of the present
paper, which were rationally condensed
from the first grade abstraction by factor
analytic procedures. Perhaps, more ele-
mentary or atomistic abstraction may
exist, which does occur at the physiological
level of sensory organs or transducers.
But it is wrong to conclude from this that
the most primary elements are the only
object of psychology, because every grade
of abstraction has equal right to describe
our real world of experience. This may be
likened to the state of affairs in chemistry.
In chemistry, of course, the study of 'ele-
ments' has significance, but most of the
system of knowledge called organic chemis-
try is constructed rather independently
from the study of elements per se. In this
case, both of them are complementary in
nature, but the tremendous importance
should be ascribed to the latter 'lower
Impressions (2) 171
grade abstraction '. The most grave mis-
take which atomistic school has comitted
in the history of psychology is not that
they had attempted to analyze or reduce
to the primary elements, since every
science should in some manner analyze
the object in question, but that they did
not admit the analysis or description at the
other (lower grade abstraction) level as a
part of their science.
One more word is necessary about multi-
variate analysis. It is a very useful tool
in the developing stage of science. But it
has some drawbacks. (1) Whether it may
be factor analysis or multi-dimensional
scaling, it often leads to an aggregate of
semantic scales (factor analysis) or stimulus
objects (multi-dimensional scaling), which
cannot be easily named or interpreted.
(2) There remains often a considerable
amount of variance unaccounted for by the
several factors which was named reasonab-
ly, especially when the researcher include
many samples or scales without discretion.
SUMMARY
(V) Similarity among 25 samples of various
material were directly estimated with
actual touch (C), with vision only (D),
and with concepts only (E), while in
procedure (F) a measure of similarity was
indirectly scaled from semantic differential
ratings. Multidimensional scaling was
applied to the distance matrices obtained
by the procedure (C) through (F). Analy-
sis (C) through (F) and (III) of Yoshida
(1968b) showed consistently the opposition
between fibres and metals. The results
of three direct estimation procedures are
very similar, while the results of two
indirect procedures are somewhat at vari-
ance with the former three.
(VI) Dimensions of tactual impressions
found in the above analysis are construed
as an intermediate degree of abstraction
between purely phenomenological des-
cription and sensory attributes of the
structuralism.
172 M. YOSHIDA
REFERENCES
BORING, E. G. 1950 History of experimental psy
chology. New York: Century.
EKMAN, G. 1963 A direct method for multi
dimensional ratio scaling. Psychometrika, 28,
33-41.
EKMAN, G., & Sjoberg, L. 1965 Scaling. 4nn.
Rev. Psychol., 16, 451-474.
GULLIKSEN,H. 1961 Linear and multidimension
al scaling. Psychometrika, 26, 9-25.
HARPER, R. 1956 Factor analysis as a technique
for examining complex data on foodstuffs.
Appl. Stat., 5, 32-48.
HAllARD, F. W. 1930 A descriptive account of
odors. 3. exp. Psychol., 13, 297-331.
INDOW,T., & KANAZAWA,K. 1960 Multidimen
sional mapping of Munsell colors varying in
hue, chroma, and value. 3. exp. Psychol., 59,
330-336.
INDOW,T., & SHIOSE,T. 1956 An application of
the method of multidimensional scaling to
perception of similarity or difference in colors.
Jap. psychol.Res.,3, 45-64.
INnow, T., & UcHizoxo, T. 1960 Multidimen
sional mapping of Munsell colors varying in
hue and chroma. J. exp. Psychol., 59, 321-329.
KATZ, D. 1925 Der Aufbau der Tastwelt. Z.f.
Psychol., Erg. Bd. 11, 270.
KATZ, D. 1938 The judgment of test bakers;
a psychophysical study. Occup. Psychol., 12,
139-148.
KITAMURA, O., NAMBA, S., & MITO, S. 1962
Psychological evaluation of reproduced sounds.
Res. Memo. Electro-acoustic res. Commitee. Inst.
Elect. Comm.(In Japanese)
KITAMURA, O.,MITO, S., NAMBA,S., & MATSUMOTO,
N. 1961 Studies in Timbre. Rep. acoust.
Soc. Japan, May 55-58, October 35-36, 1962
May 65-70, October 191-192.(In Japanese)
KRUSKAL,J. B. 1964 Multidimensional scaling
by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric
hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1-28, 115-129.
LUcE, R. D. 1959 Individual choicebehavior. New
York: Wiley.
MEENES, M., & ZIGLER, J. J. 1923 An experi
mental study of the perceptions of roughness
and smoothness. Amer. J. Psychol., 34, 542
549.
NAKATANI, K. 1965 Sensory scaling. Jap. J.
Psychol., 36, 202-211.(In Japanese)
NAMBA, S. 1967 The problem of attribute of
sensation. Osaka Univ. Studies in Hum. Soc.
Sci., Collegegen. Educ., 15, 2-18.(In Japanese)
OSGOOD,C. E. 1962 Studies on the generality of
affective meaning systems. Amer. Psychol
ogist, 17, 10-28.
Oscoon, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H.
1957 Measurementof meaning. Urbana: Univ.
Illinois Press.
PIERON,H. 1963 La psychophysique. In Piaget,
J. & Fraisse, P.(Eds.), Traite de psychologie
experimentale,II, P. U. F.
SHEPARD, R. N. 1962 Analysis of proximities.
Psychometrika, 27, 125-140, 219-246.
SHIOSE,T. 1958 An application of the method of
multidimensional scaling to perception of
similarity or difference in colours.(2). Jap. J.
Psychol., 28, 375-385.(In Japanese)
SONE,T., KIDO, K., & NIMURA,T. 1962 Analysis
of terms used in the evaluation of timbre.
Jap.J.Acoust,,18,320-326.(In Japanese)
SULLIVAN,A. H. 1927 The cutaneous perception of
softness and hardness. J. exp. Psychol., 10,
447-462.
STEVENS,S. S. 1934 The atributes of tones. Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sci., 20, 457-459.(cit. in Boring,
1942, Sensation and perception. New York:
Century).
STEVENS,S. S. 1958 Problems and methods of
psychophysics. Psychol. Bull., 54, 177-196.
STEVENS,S. S. 1959 Measurement, psychophy
sics, and utility. In Churchman, C. R. &
Ratoosh, P.(Eds.), Measurement: definitions
and theories. New York: Wiley. Pp. 18-63.
TANAKA,Y. 1964 Studies on the measurement of
meaning and systems of affective meaning
system. Jap. Rev. Psychol., 8, 27-69.(In
Japanese)
THURSTONE,L. L. 1959 The measurementof values.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.
TORGERSON,W. S. 1958 Theory and methods of
scaling. New York: Wiley.
TORGERSON,W. S. 1960 Quantitative judgment
scales. In Gulliksen, H. & Messick, S.
(Eds.), Psychological scaling. New York:
Wiley. Pp. 21-32.
TORGERSON,W. S. 1961 Scaling and test theory.
Ann. Rev. Psychol., 12, 51-60.
WADA, Y. 1950 Psychology of tone. Tokyo: So
gensha, Pp. 271.(In Japanese)
YOSHIDA,M. 1962-63 Handling of woolen tex
tiles. Hinshitsu-Kanri (Quality control), 13, No.
10, 107-112, 14, No.10, 68-74.(In Japanese)
YOSHIDA,M. 1963 Studies in psychometric clas
sification of odors.(2). Journal Jap. Women's
 Dimensions of Tactual Impressions (2) 173

Univ., 12, 46-78.(In Japanese) YOSHIDA, M. I964c Studies of psychometric clas-

YOSHIDA, M. 1963 Similarity among different sification of odors (4)-(5). Jap. psychol.Res.,
kinds of taste near the threshold concentra- 6, 115-124, 145-154.
tion-Jap. J. Psychol., 34,25-35,(In Japanese YOSHIDA,M. 1965 Studies on touch. Ergonomic
with English abstract) Soc. Japan, No.2, 23.(In Japanese)
YOSHIDA,M. 1964a Dimensions of tactual im- YOSHIDA, M. 1968a Psychometric analysis of
pressions. Journal Jap. Women's Uniu., 13, textile handling. Jap. psychol. Res., 10, 1-12.
47-68.(In Japanese) YOSHIDA,M. 1968b Dimensions of tactual im-
YOSHIDA, M. 1964b Studics in psychometric clas- Pressions(1). Jap. psychol.Res. 10, 123-137.
sification of odors (3). Jap. J. Psychol., 35, (Received July 4, 1968)
1-17.(In Japanese with English abstract)