ArticleScientific reports2026
Haptic perception of 2.5D surface feature height.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The present study investigates the human haptic perception of 2.5D dome-shaped surface features in terms of difference and absolute thresholds. We conducted two experiments to measure the thresholds, analyzing the effect of sample base area, or diameter, and surface material compliance. In Experiment 1, the difference threshold for 2.5D surface feature height was measured for three different sample base diameters, 1.4, 2.8, and 5.6 mm. The results indicated a decreasing trend in Weber fraction, i.e., higher sensitivity, with an increase in the sample base diameter. The effect of surface material compliance was found to be insignificant. Further analysis indicated the decreased Weber fraction with an increase in base diameter for shapes with a smaller reference height-to-diameter ratio. However, the effect of base diameter became insignificant for a larger reference height-to-diameter ratio. In Experiment 2, the absolute threshold was measured for three sample base diameters, 1.4, 2.8, and 5.6 mm. The experimental result showed a clear linearly increasing trend in the absolute threshold as the sample base diameter increased, which is consistent with a previous study.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.