Sensory incongruity: Comparing vision to touch, audition and olfaction

Proceedings from the 5th Conference on Design and Emotion 2006

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages

  Ludden, Geke D S ^a   Schifferstein, Hendrik N J ^a   Hekkert, Paul ^a  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Audition; Incongruity; Olfaction; Surprise; Touch; Vision

Indexed keywords

AUDITION; VISION;

INCONGRUITY; OLFACTION; PRODUCT EVALUATION; PRODUCT EXPRESSION; SENSORY INFORMATION; SURPRISE; TOUCH;

PRODUCT DESIGN;

EID: 85019828766     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Blackwell, L. (1995) "Visual cues and their effects on odour assessment." Nutrition & Food Science 5: 24-28.
2. Hekkert, P. (2006) "Design aesthetics: principles of pleasure in design." Psychology Science in press.
3. Jones, B. and O'Neil, S. (1985) "Combining vision and touch in texture perception." Perception & Psychophysics 37: 66-72.
4. Klatzky, R. L., Pai, D. K. and Krotkov, E. P. (2000) "Perception of material from contact sounds." Presence 9: 399-410.
5. Lageat, T., Czellar, S. and Laurent, G. (2003) "Engineering hedonic attributes to generate perceptions of luxury: consumer perception of an everyday sound." Marketing Letters 14: 97-109.
6. Ludden, G. D. S. and Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2006a) "Effects of visual-auditory incongruity on product expression and surprise." Submitted.
7. Ludden, G. D. S. and Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2006b) "Should Mary smell like biscuit? Scent in product design." Manuscript in preparation.
8. Ludden, G. D. S., Schifferstein, H. N. J. and Hekkert, P. (2006a) "Surprise as a design strategy." (Submitted for publication).
9. Ludden, G. D. S., Schifferstein, H. N. J. and Hekkert, P. (2006b) "Visual - tactual incongruities in products as sources of surprise." Submitted.
10. Marks, L. E. (1978) The unity of the senses: Interrelations among the modalities. New York: Academic Press.
11. Martino, G. and Marks, L. E. (2000) "Cross-modal interaction between vision and touch: the role of synesthetic correspondence." Perception 29: 745-754.
12. Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2006) "The relative importance of sensory modalities in product usage: a study of self-reports." Acta Psychologica 121: 41-64.
13. Schifferstein, H. N. J. and Cleiren, M. P. H. D. (2005) "Capturing product experiences: a split-modality approach." Acta Psychologica 118: 293-318.
14. Schifferstein, H. N. J., Otten, J. J. and Hekkert, P. (2006) "An experimental approach to assess sensory dominance in a product development context." submitted.
15. Shams, L., Kamitani, Y. and Shimojo, S. (2002) "Visual illusion induced by sound." Cognitive Brain Research 14: 147-152.
16. Spangenberg, E. R., Grohmann, B. and Sprott, D. E. (2005) "It's beginning to smell (and sound) a lot like Christmas: the interactive effects of ambient scent and music in a retail setting." Journal of Business Research 58: 1583-1589.
17. Vroomen, J. and de Gelder, B. (2000) "Sound enhances visual perception: cross-modal effects of auditory organization on vision." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26: 1583-1590.
18. Zampini, M. and Spence, C. (2004) "The role of auditory cues in modulating the perceived crispness and staleness of potato chips." Journal of Sensory Studies 19(5): 347-363.