Review of the frictional properties of the finger-object contact when gripping

S Tomlinson, R Lewis, M J Carré

Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Sheffield, Mappin Street, Sheffield,

S1 3JD

Abstract

Gripping is an everyday task which is taken for granted by many. This paper examines extant

knowledge of how objects are gripped for manipulation, and the relationship the coefficient of

friction, between finger and object, has on various grip parameters. It is found that friction is an

essential part of the feedback and feedforward control system for grip. The friction of the finger-

object contact can be measured in several different ways, using methods of either a probe

moving on a finger or a finger moving on a flat surface. These friction measurements can then

be used to gain information about the effect of normal force, sliding speed, contact area and level

of moisture present. They also can provide information about the changes between test subjects,

for example, the effects of age, gender and race. Knowing the effect of these parameters can

help to improve the manoeuvrability of everyday items through inclusive design; designing

products to be used by the whole population regardless of age or ability. This paper also

suggests areas of further investigation so that knowledge of skin friction can be expanded and

applied to a larger range of materials and applications.

1. INTRODUCTION

The hands are complex structures that have evolved to allow humans to lift and manipulate

objects efficiently and effectively. Lifting and moving of objects is something that is taken for

1
granted, however not all objects can be manipulated as effectively as others. There are many

parameters that influence the effectiveness of grip, one of these being friction. Understanding of

these parameters can aid the design of products such as food packaging, computer keyboards,

handrails and sports equipment to improve performance and/or make them inclusive to all users.

Once grip mechanisms are understood the surface textures or materials can be effectively

changed to meet the application.

When attempting to lift or move an object perception of the frictional properties of the finger-

surface contact is achieved using receptors in the fingertips, this information is then fed to the

brain [1]. Understanding the friction involved in an interaction is important for the ergonomic

design of objects to improve the efficiency of lifting. The friction at the fingertips is not only

important for lifting and manipulating, but also for surface perception and everyday tasks, such

as typing, turning of door handles and switching on of lights. Again, these tasks can be made

easier by altering the materials and texture of objects to improve the contact, whilst also

considering any contaminants present.

The first step in understanding the frictional relationship between the skin of the hand and an

object is to identify how objects are gripped. This includes looking at the effect the grip has on

the friction force and how the frictional properties influence the way an object is gripped. There

has been a large of amount of work carried out on the frictional properties of the skin, using

various different methods, testing different areas of the skin and also investigating various

parameters, such as moisture and normal force. These are described in a previous review paper

by Sivamani et al. [2].

2
This paper is concerned with the friction between the finger and an object when trying to grip it.

The various methods of gripping will therefore initially be discussed. Friction of the skin is a

subject that has been investigated by many different scientific disciplines. This information is

brought together in the following sections; particularly concentrating on the more recent work

concerned with finger friction, rather than just skin friction in general. Previous work has

investigated the effects of moisture, sliding speed, normal force, area of contact, age, gender and

race, but there are still many gaps in this knowledge.

1.1 Gripping an object

Grips can be classified in many different ways due to the positioning of the fingers or the forces

applied by them. In total, eight standard grips have been specified, five of which are general

grips, one of which is applied to carrying something such as a light suitcase and two specific to

packaging [3]. These, however, can be more generally categorised as either the precision or the

power grip [4]. The precision grip is a pinching action between the fingers and the opposing

thumb. The power grip includes the palm in the grip, with the object being held between the

fingers and the palm and counter pressure being applied by the thumb, as illustrated in Figure 1.

The choice of grip is not solely dependent on the shape and size of the object, but also the

purpose of use.

Figure 1 – Examples of the precision and power grip

The actual normal force applied in these grips depends on the object’s weight and shape, and the

frictional properties of the surface. It has been shown that friction is used to optimise grip

Precision Grip Power Grip

regardless of whether it is due to the surface structure or the material type [5]. The fingers adjust

the normal force at the digits to the local frictional properties of the contact to achieve grasp

stability. When lifting an object, a preload (normal force) is applied before applying a lifting

force [6]; this is to perceive the properties of the object to be lifted. The normal force at the digit

is then altered for both tangential force and frictional properties of the grip, by the use of

controlled frictional slips [6]. This total force is then distributed between the digits in a way that

reduces the overall normal force, to ensure that the ratio between normal force and load is similar

across all digits. It was found that for multi-digit manipulation (3 fingers) the time taken for all

digits to be in contact with the surface was 96 ms from the first digit to the final one, this

compares to only 26 ms for 2 digit lifting [7], illustrating the added complexity of multi-digit

operations due to the added information to process and distribute the forces.

As regards the shape of the manipulated object, the angle relative to the perpendicular of the

lifting direction, of the surface being lifted, in most cases not the curvature, effects the normal

force applied. As the angle increases the normal force also rises [8]. The curvature, however,

only affects the grip force when considering torsional loads and is used to select the grasp points

when the person cannot see the object [9]. This increase in normal force with angle could be to

do with the grip that needs to be employed, within either the power or precision grip

classification. Work carried out by McDonnell et al. [10] showed that the force applied in excess

of that required, depended on the grip type and this was due to the difference in contact area of

the finger with the object; increasing contact area increases the coefficient of friction.

4
The normal force applied is also affected by the age of the person doing the manipulative task.

The applied normal force is increased for both children [11] and old people compared to that of

younger adults. This is for two different reasons; the difference in properties of the skin and the

development stage of the brain and receptors. Forssberg et al. [11] showed that children display

an immaturity in storing and processing frictional information. This is thought to be a learnt

process, mainly developing after the age of two; however it is present to an extent in younger

children. The child therefore is unable to react effectively to sudden events such as slipping, so

they apply a larger than needed normal force to prevent slippage from occurring.

Older people apply a greater normal force than required for accurate lifting; twice that of the

younger groups, due to the change in friction of the fingers, a reduction in ability to detect the

frictional properties of a contacting surface and also the deterioration of the receptors in the

fingers [12]. A decrease in coefficient of friction means that a greater normal force is needed to

prevent slippage. The change, with age, in the frictional force between the finger and contacting

material is dependent upon the roughness of the material. For example, Cole [13] found that the

change in the coefficient of friction for acetate occurred at an earlier age than for sandpaper.

This is thought to be because the roughness of the sandpaper dominates the frictional properties

of the interaction. Although these changes with age are present, they were not seen until the age

of 50 yrs for the acetate and 70 yrs for the sandpaper [13]. This may explain why many

published papers, using a smaller ranged test sample, state that there is no significant change in

the coefficient of friction with age.

5
The decrease in coefficient of friction of older people is not the only factor decreasing their

ability to lift efficiently. This decrease in coefficient of friction is coupled with the reduction in

the ability to detect the frictional properties of the contacting surface. Cole [13] found this to be

due to decreased hydration of the skin reducing roughness perception. The force amplitude and

direction applied to/by the fingers is detected by the receptors found in the papillae dermis [14]

(area of loose connective tissue in the dermis which extends up to the epidermis), these are part

of a feedback and feedforward mechanism of signal processing and detection between the finger

and the brain [15]. With age, these sensing nerves deteriorate, so older people are less receptive

to the properties of the object being lifted and therefore apply a larger than needed force to

compensate [13].

1.2 Frictional mechanisms and skin structure

The basic structure of skin consists of the epidermis as the surface layer. Beneath this there is

the dermis, followed by the subcutaneous tissue, as shown in figure 2 [16]. The dermis

contributes to the load carrying and elastic properties of the skin. Collagen fibres make up 77%

of the dermis, and these bioviscoelastic solids are the main load carrying elements. Elastins

account for 4% of the content of the dermis and contribute highly to the elastic properties of the

skin [16].

Figure 2- Skin structure. Adapted from [17]

The two main mechanisms concerned with friction in viscoelastic materials, such as rubber, are

adhesion and hysteresis [18], this is also true for the skin. Adhesion is where local bonds occur

at the asperities and the frictional force is the force required to shear these junctions. Hysteresis

6
is the delayed response of a material to the forces acting on it. Therefore, with regards to

friction, a larger force is required to move the object, to compensate for this energy dissipation.

Comaish and Bottoms [19] say that the skin does not follow Amonton’s Law; so the frictional

force is not proportional to the normal force and it is dependent on the area of contact.

The skin is a viscoelastic material with varying properties depending on the age of a person.

There is an increase in the Young’s Modulus at the age of 30 [20], but the frictional properties

are not found to change until later than this. Table 1 shows the in-vivo properties for the skin,

found in the literature. The Poisson’s ratio has only been measured in-vitro and for a cows teat it

was found to be 0.5-1.3 [21], depending on direction. However, for many experiments with

human skin it is often assumed to have a Poisson’s ratio of 0.5 [22, 23]. Due to the mechanisms

of friction, it is not only the surface layer of the skin that affects the coefficient of friction, but

the whole structure. The properties of the different layers are shown in Table 1. The area of skin

is also specified in some instances because there are no unique values for the properties of the

skin [23]. The properties vary depending on location, age, gender and factors such as sun

exposure [24, 25].

7
 Dermis
Skin Epidermis
3-5 [16]
Thickness 0.06-0.8 [16]
1.11 - 1.28 [24] (Neck) 1.1-1.8 [24] (arm)
(mm) 1.5 [26] (palm)
1.1 [27]
Young's
4.2 x 105 to 8.5 x 105 [20]
modulus 2.1e10^6 [20] (SC) (back) E = 2.1 x 109 [28]
2 x 104 to 105 [22] (Forearm)
(Nm-2)
Density 1110 – 1190 [29] 1116 [29]
(kgm-3) 1500 (SC) [29]
Ultimate
Tensile 7.3 [29] (hand)
Strength 9.5 [29] (arm)
(Nm-2)
Biological Young 0.66±0.33 [25] (palm)
Elasticity Old 0.53±0.02 [25] (palm)
SC = Stratum Corneum (see figure 2)
Viscoelastic
properties
with Young 0.49±0.05 [25] (palm)
respect to Old 0.53±0.04 [25] (palm)
immediate
distension
Table 1 – Properties of the whole skin, epidermis and dermis.

2. TECHNIQUES FOR MEASURING SKIN FRICTION

Many of the tests carried out on skin, especially the earlier ones, tested the forearm or calf skin

rather than the hand, due to the test results being more consistent in these areas. The most

widely used, and earliest design of skin friction testing rig, consists of a probe running along the

skin at a constant applied normal force [19, 30]. This probe moves with either a linear or

rotational motion. In these designs the applied normal force is usually regulated using either

static weights [19], a spring load [31], balanced beams [30] or in the more modern of equipment

computer controlled servo feedback [32], shown in figure 3.

Figure 3 – Different designs for skin friction measurements

8
The advantage of the probe method is that the normal force and speed of the probe can be

controlled. However the curvature of the probe significantly affects the results due to the

deformation of the skin [34]. When considering the fingers, this type of deformation is not seen

in a wide range of tasks, which is a disadvantage of this method.

An increasingly popular design of rig, which is a more finger specific test, is one where the

finger is moved along some sort of stationary measuring device. The normal and frictional loads

are then measured using strain gauges [35], piezoelectric material [36], leaf springs [37],

potentiometers [38] or load cells, or a combination of these. An example of this design is shown

in Figure 4 [39, 40].

Figure 4 – Finger friction measurement rig [41]

In 2005 Zahouani et al. [42] measured friction using the acoustic emissions produced when skin

interacts with a surface, illustrated in Figure 5. The results gained seem to correlate well with

the roughness and stiffness of the skin, but they were unable to quantify the friction coefficient

between the skin and the object. However, there is scope for this technique to be developed

further.

Figure 5 – Acoustic emissions method, redrawn from [42]

The majority of these tests have involved examining the dynamic coefficient of friction. Very

few consider the static friction, especially when testing fingers. The static coefficient is difficult

to measure, due to the velocity dependence seen with viscoelastic materials [43]. The other

difficulty is that the static and dynamic behaviour of viscoelastic materials is different to that

9
seen with non-viscoelastic materials. Moore [44] states that no viscoelastic material will have a

higher static than dynamic coefficient of friction. However, Lewis et al. [40] and Koudine et al.

[30] measured the static coefficient of friction for fingers and forearm, respectively, and found

this to be greater than the kinetic coefficient of friction.

3. PARAMETERS INFLUENCING FRICTION

The coefficient of friction does not depend on the contacting material alone. Other parameters

such as the normal force, sliding speed, contact area and person tested can also influence the

results. Table 2 shows a summary of some of the tests carried out. The coefficient of friction

can be seen to vary substantially but this is thought to be mainly due to the different test

materials and methods, as well as skin hydration [45].

Ref. Area Test Test Normal Speed Coefficient

Material Method Force of Friction
[46] Forearm Polymeric Probe 0-30 g 0.27 mms-1 0.42
[47] Finger Smooth Moving 1-20 N 45 1.4
Polycarbonate belt -55 mms-1
Rough Polycarbonate 0.7-0.8
[48] Finger Sandpaper (grade 0) piezoelectric Applied 1.361
mini force by hand
Perspex plate 1.475
[35] Finger Rubber Finger 2.5
Polycarbonate moving 2.5
Paper on plate 0.5
[33] Finger Acrylic Plate 0.5-1 N 1.5
moving
stationary 4-6 N 0.4
plate
[37] Finger Latex glove 1.2
-1
[32] Forearm Stainless steel UMT Probe 20 g 0.4 mms 0.33-0.55
[41] Finger Glass Finger 17-20 N 121 mms-1 1.1
moving on
Steel 15-19 N 135 mms-1 0.97
plate
Table 2- Measured coefficients of friction

10
3.1 Normal force applied in the contact

The stress-strain behaviour of the skin is non-linear, as illustrated in figure 6 [27]. The skin

contains elastins and collagen fibres in the dermis and these fibres behave linearly. However, the

structure of these strands is non-uniform resulting in non-linear behaviour of the skin. The first

stage (I in figure 6) is due to the elastins causing the skin to stretch in a linear manner. In the

second stage (II in figure 6) starts to become non linear as the straightening of the collagen fibres

cause an increase in stiffness. Then in the third phase (III in figure 6) the collagen

fibres are straight causing the stress-strain relationship to become linear.

Figure 6 – Stress strain curve for skin, modified from [27]

In this non-linear section (II on figure 3), the general trend is a decreasing coefficient of friction

with increasing normal force [32, 33, 47]. This is because as the skin becomes stiffer, due to the

straightening of the collagen fibres, less deformation occurs, which therefore means a reduction

in the hysteresis friction mechanism resulting in a lower coefficient of friction.

Previous work, excluding that of Asserin et al. [46], found the relationship between the frictional

force and the normal force to be described by Equation 1 [19, 49].

Where F = frictional force, N = normal force and n = a constant less than 1. n is suggested to

have a value of approximately 0.3 [30, 32].

Tests carried out by Asserin et al. [46] showed the coefficient of friction to be proportional to the

normal force applied, in the range of 0.05 - 0.3 N. Asserin et al. [46] presents his data

11
differently to that of the other authors, in that he looks at the relationship of frictional force to

normal force, rather than coefficient of friction to normal force. To investigate the relationship

of frictional force to normal force further the results from four different investigations were taken

and manipulated to show the frictional and normal forces. The four sets of data chosen for

analysis were that of Koudine et al. [30], Sivamani et al. [32], Han et al. [33] and Tomlinson et

al. [41]. The coefficients of friction were measured using a glass probe on the forearm (dorsal

side), a steel probe on top (not palm) of finger, the finger moving on a transparent acrylic board

and the finger on a steel plate, respectively. The coefficients of friction stated by Koudine et al.

[30], Sivamani et al. [32] and Han et al. [33] were multiplied by the normal force to give the

frictional force. In all cases, the equipment used measured normal and frictional force, so it is

assumed that the coefficient of friction stated is the ratio of these. These plots are shown in

figure 7.

When these results were plotted they seemed to show a linear relationship between normal and

frictional force, which is in agreement with that stated by Asserin et al. [46], but contradicts that

of both Koudine et al. [30] and Sivamani et al. [32]. Due to this inconsistency the relationship

was investigated further. Figure 7 shows two lines of best fit; the first is based on a linear

relationship and the second is based on the form F = mNa, where m and a are constants. The

equations of best fit for the data, in these two forms, and the r-squared values, are shown on each

graph.

Figure 7 – Comparison of results from various authors

Figure 7 shows that the fit of the form F=μNa is a reasonable suggestion, as the literature states.

However contrary to the values published in the literature the value of ‘a’ is much higher than

12
0.3; for this data ranging from 0.62 to 0.87. The straight line fit also provides a good solution for

the fit of the data. The R squared values, for both the fits applied to the data in figure 7, are high.

Due to the closeness of the r-squared values the comparison of these is not effective in

determining the correct relationship. To determine the best relationship, physical changes to the

skin with load needs to be considered. The tests on the forearm and top of the finger are done at

low loads, comparatively. There would not be much deformation expected on the top of the

finger (compared to other parts of the body) and the low loads on the forearm mean that not

much deformation would be seen. Also on the finger tips, if the way the deformation of the

fingertip is observed; there is a large initial deformation with load and then this appears to either

stop or reduce to a very small amount. The deformation will contribute to non linearity. If it is

assumed that the data examined in this comparison is above the load for deformation, the linear

relationship fits the data and the physical process most appropriately, in the range of forces

tested.

To fully understand this relationship, extensive tests over a wide range of forces, on the same

material should be done to see whether at lower loads, as expected, the relationship is nonlinear

due to the deformation of the finger.

3.2 Contact parameters

The surface area, of the fingertip, alters from person to person (i.e. large or small fingertips), but

also by varying the angle of contact between the finger and the surface, or the way in which the

finger deforms in the contact. The exact contact area used in gripping is difficult to determine

13
due to the differing ridges on the fingers. Pressing the finger against Perspex shows that the

ridges do not deform to a point where the apparent area of contact is flat [50]. At decreased

angles of contact, and therefore larger contact areas, the coefficient of friction was found to

increase [33]. This is explained because an increase in surface area leads to an increase in

adhesive friction mechanism.

3.3 Direction of motion

The ridges of the finger are arranged in such a way that the ridges are always perpendicular to

the friction force; this should mean that in terms of gripping an object, the direction of motion

should have little effect on the gripping capability [51]. However, the direction of the motion

will affect the deformation of the finger, which in turn affects the coefficient of friction.

Srinivasan et al. [34] found this not to be the case, whereas Han et al. [33] found the coefficient

of friction to be larger for backwards movement when compared to forwards motion of the

finger. This disagreement could be caused by the difference in the test procedures. Srinivasan et

al. [34] made use of a probe test and Han et al. [33] tested the friction by running the finger

along a flat plate. The deformation of the finger in these two tests will be different and the

amount of deformation and type will alter the coefficient of friction.

3.4 Sliding Speed

There seems to be little work carried out on the effects of sliding speed. The work that has been

done, with probe on finger, suggests that increasing the speed will increase the coefficient of

friction [34]. This would agree with what is already known about viscoelastic materials. For

example, with rubber the coefficient of friction increases with speed because this increases the

14
surface temperature which in turn increases the contacting area [52] and therefore the amount of

adhesive friction [53].

3.5 Hydration

The natural hydration of the skin affects the coefficient of friction, as seen with older people, but

friction can also be affected by moisture from external additions. Moisture can be as a result of

something ‘unwanted’, such as rain, or from a chemical added to the hand voluntarily, for

example hand cream. Sweating is another source of additional moisture. The effect of this

hydration varies depending on the material and the degree of hydration. It has been found that

dry skin (chemically dried [32, 54] and without added hydration [32, 36, 39]) has a lower

coefficient of friction than slightly hydrated skin. Increasing the hydration of the skin increases

the coefficient of friction, up to a point. This increase is due to liquid bridging between the

ridges of the skin and the contacting surface. This bridging effect causes increased friction due

to the shear forces set up [36]. Past this point a further increase of hydration has the effect of

decreasing the coefficient of friction [32, 36, 38, 54, 55].

Changing the roughness of the material can alter the effect of moisture. Increasing the roughness

increases the distance between the surface and the ridges, allowing fewer bridges to form.

Therefore, the coefficient of friction decreases with increased roughness [36]. Bobjer et al. [47]

found this to be to such a degree that the coefficient of friction decreased with the addition of

moisture for the extremities of roughness.

15
Cosmetic creams have been shown to have the same effect on the coefficient of friction as water.

However, the effects are seen for a much longer time after application [55]. Contaminants such

as oil have the affect of reducing the coefficient of friction [47], this is true for even a small

amount of natural oil [38].

One of the functions of the sweat produced by the hands is to increase the coefficient of friction

between the hand and contacting surface. This was studied by Mackenzie and Iberall [51] who

found that a single gland produces more sweat when the hand is grasping a dynamometer than

when the hand is at rest. It is also thought to be part of the “fight or flight” mechanism. When a

person is scared they sweat more, this increases the friction between the ground and the sole of

the foot making running an easier task. When an object is held for a long time the build up of

sweat can become too high and the coefficient of friction reduce, this does not happen when

running (barefoot) because the sweat is continually deposited [56].

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 Normal Force

The way an object is gripped and the forces involved in the grip are determined by the frictional

properties and shape of the object. Naturally adult humans try to apply the minimum force they

can by using the information provided by touch and small slips.

Previous work carried out shows conflicting information about the relationship between the

normal force and frictional force. Many studies suggest the relationship to be non linear and

16
approximately of the form F=μN0.3. However, the re-plots of the results done in this review

highlight that the relationship may in fact be linear.

4.2 Contact Parameters

Although it is clear that the surface of the fingertip varies from person to person, the extent of

this variability in terms of friction is not yet known. There does not seem to be any difference in

skin coefficient of friction for males or females [38] and there is also no measured difference

between people of different races [57].

Increasing the surface area of the contact increases the coefficient of friction. The exact reason

for this mechanism has not been fully investigated, however, it can be assumed that, as with

viscoelastic materials (e.g. rubber) that have been studied to a larger degree, friction increases

with area due to the possibility of more adhesion taking place.

All tests found in the literature, except Roberts work on surgeons’ gloves [37], used standard

non-viscoelastic engineering materials (e.g. steel), therefore it is not known as to what extent the

relationships shown hold for viscoelastic materials such as rubber. Knowledge of this is

important because, for comfort or functional reasons, many items now are made from

viscoelastic materials, for example the handles of kitchen utensils or tennis rackets.

4.3 Hydration

A certain amount of water involved in the object hand contact will increase the coefficient of

friction, due to the modification of the adhesive forces. However, increasing this hydration

17
further will start to reduce the coefficient of friction as the water (or other moisture) begins to

form a layer of separation between the two materials. It is known that increasing the roughness

of the material can decrease the coefficient of friction between the finger and the material.

However, studies into the effect of water on different types of materials have not been

comprehensive. The general trends seem to be the same for all standard engineering materials;

but no one has yet looked at viscoelastic materials.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

The skin is a viscoelastic material so it does not obey the traditionally accepted laws of friction;

Amonton’s laws. The frictional properties of the contact are dependent upon normal force,

sliding speed, area of contact, motion type and hydration. It has been shown that the coefficient

of friction decreases with increasing normal force. Area of contact has the opposite effect and

increases the coefficient of friction, as can a certain amount of water, however too much

moisture will result in a decrease in coefficient of friction.

Further work should be done to continue looking at these parameters, enabling a full

understanding of the effects of normal force, hydration, sliding speed, all materials and the

variation from person to person. To extend the knowledge of the effect of normal force on the

frictional force, tests performed over a much larger range on the same material would give a

better picture of exactly what the relationship is, rather than taking sections of it. It may also be

interesting to look at the effect of normal force on viscoelastic materials. Understanding the

behaviour of viscoelastic materials is important, as they may not exhibit the same frictional

18
characteristics as standard materials, yet they are used in many situations where a good grip is

required, for example; tennis rackets, some handles on walking frames and some steering wheels.

A fuller understanding of the effect of speed and direction of movement of the finger on the

object will give a better understanding for the design of specific objects. The situation in which

an object is used determines the speed and direction the hand moves on it, understanding this

will make the design of the product more effective for its purpose. The velocity dependence of

friction mechanisms in other viscoelastic materials also makes sliding speed an interesting factor

for further investigation.

The amount of hydration may also be able to be utilised to improve grip. This will require a

good understanding of the points at which the coefficient of friction increases with water and

then starts to decrease. This level may or may not be the same for all materials.

The coefficient of friction has been found not to vary with race or gender, as a population,

however there will be some variation between people. This should be investigated to find out

what the variation is so that when objects are designed for good grip, this is a good grip for all

users.

6. REFERENCES

19
1. Johansson RS, Westling G. Signals in tactile afferents from the fingers eliciting

adaptive motor responses during precision grip. Experimental Brain Research. 1987, 66,

141-154.

2. Sivamani RK, Goodman J, Gitis NV, Maibach HI. Coefficient of Friction:

Tribological Studies in Man - An Overview. Skin Research and Technology. 2003, 9,

227-234.

3. Yoxall A, Luxmoore J, Austin M, Canty L, Margrave KJ, Wearn J. Getting to Grips

with Packaging: Using Ethnography and Computer Simulation to Understand Hand-Pack

Interaction. Packaging Technology and Science. 2006, 20 (3), 217-229.

4. Napier JR. The prehensile movements of the human hand. The Journal of Bone and

Joint Surgery. 1956, 38b (4), 902-913.

5. Cadoret G, Smith AM. Friction, not texture, dictates grip forces used during object

manipulation. Journal of Neurophysiology. 1996, 75 (5), 1963-1969.

6. Burstedt MKO, Flanagan JR, Johansson RS. Control of Grasp Stability in Humans

Under Different Frictional Conditions During Multidigit Manipulation. Journal of

Neurophysiology. 1999, 82, 2393–2405.

7. Flanagan JR, Burstedt MKO, Johansson RS. Control of fingertip forces in multidigit

manipulation. Journal of Neurophysiology. 1999, 81, 1706–1717.

8. Jenmalm P, Johansson RS. Visual and somatosensory information about object shape

control manipulative finger tip forces. Journal of Neuroscience. 1997, 17, 4486-4499.

9. Jenmalm P, Goodwin AW, Johansson RS. Control of grasp stability when humans lift

objects with different surface curvatures. . Journal of Neurophysiology. 1998, 79, 1643-

1653.

20
10. McDonnell MN, Ridding MC, Flavel SC, Miles TS. Effect of human grip strategy on

force control in precision tasks. Experimental Brain Research. 2005, 16, 1368-373.

11. Forssberg H, Eliasson AC, Kinoshita H, Westling G, Johansson RS. Development of

human precision grip. IV. Tactile adaptation of isometric finger forces to the frictional

condition. Experimental Brain Research. 1995, 104, 323-330.

12. Cole KJ. Grasp force control in older adults. Journal of Motor Behavior. 1991, 23, 251-

258.

13. Cole KJ, Rotella DL, Harper JG. Mechanisms for Age-Related Changes of Fingertip

Forces during Precision Gripping and Lifting in Adults. The Journal of Neuroscience.

1999, 19 (8), 3238–3247.

14. Vivier Ad. Atlas of Clinical Dermatology. 3rd ed Churchill Livingstone, 2002.

15. Wheat HE, Salo LM, Goodwin AW. Human ability to scale and discriminate forces

typical of those occurring during grasp and manipulation. Journal of Neuroscience. 2004,

24, 3394-3401.

16. Williams AC. Transdermal and Topical Drug Delivery. London: Pharmaceutical Press.

2003.

17. Lennard CJ, Patterson T. Friction Ridge Skin. The Thin Blue Line Information Section;

2007.

18. Lindner M, Kröger M, Popp K, Blume H. Experimental and Analytical Investigation

of Rubber Friction. ICTAM, Warsaw; 2004

19. Comaish S, Bottoms E. The Skin and Friction: Deviations from Amonton's Laws, and

the effects of hydration and lubrication. British Journal of Dermatology. 1971, 84 (1), 37.

21
20. Agache PG, Monneur C, Leveque JL, Rigal JD. Mechanical Properties and Young's

Modulus of Human Skin in Vivo. Dermatological Research. 1980, 269, 221-232.

21. Lees C, Vincent JF, Hillerton EJ. Poisson's ratio in skin. Bio-Medical Materials and

Engineering. 1991, 119-123.

22. Sanders R. Torsional Elasticity of Human Skin in vivo. Pflugers Archive: European

Journal of Physiology. 1973, 342, 255-260.

23. S.Diridollou, V.Vabre, M.Berson, et al. Skin ageing: changes of physical properties of

human skin in vivo. International Journal of Cosmetic Science. 2001, 23, 353-362.

24. Waller JM, Maibach HI. Age and skin structure and function, a quantitative approach

(I): blood flow, pH, thickness, and ultrasound echogenicity. Skin Research and

Technology. 2005, 11, 221-235.

25. Cua AB, Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI. Elastic properties of human skin: relation to age,

sex, and anatomical region. Archives of Dermatological Research. 1990, 282, 283-288.

26. Habif T. Principles of Diagnosis and Anatomy. In: Habif T, ed. Clinical Dermatology.

New York: Mosby; 2004:1-2.

27. Hendriks FM. (Koninklijke Philips Electronics). Mechanical behaviour of human skin in

vivo. 2001.

28. Hendriks FM, Brokken D, Oomens CWJ, et al. The relative contributions of different

skin layers to the mechanical behavior of human skin in vivo using suction experiments.

Medical Engineering and Physics. 2006, 28, 259-266

29. Duck FA. Physical Properties of Tissue. A Comprehensive Reference Book. Bath:

Academic Press Ltd, 1990.

22
30. Koudine AA, Barquins M, Anthoine PH, Aubert L, Leveque JL. Frictional properties

of skin: proposal of a new approach. International Journal of Cosmetic Science.

2000(22), 11-20.

31. Highley DR, Coomey M, DenBeste M, Wolfram LJ. Frictional Properties of Skin. The

Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 1977, 69, 303-305.

32. Sivamani RK, Goodman J, Gitis NV, Maibach HI. Friction coefficient of skin in real

time. Skin Research and Technology. 2003 (9), 235-239.

33. Han H-Y, Shimada A, Kawamura S. Analysis of Friction on Human Fingers and

Design of Artificial Fingers. International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

Minneapolis, Minnesota; 1996, 3061-3066.

34. Srinivasan MA, Biggs SJ, Raju BI, et al. (Yale University, project sponsored by

National Institutes of Health). Role of Skin Biomechanics in Mechanoreceptor Response.

2002.

35. Gee MG, Tomlins P, Calver A, Darling RH, Rides M. A new friction measurement

system for the frictional component of touch. Wear. 2005, 259 (2), 1437-1442.

36. Dinç OS, Ettles CM, Calabrese SJ, Scarton HA. Some parameters affecting tactile

friction. Journal of Tribology. 1991, 113, 512-517.

37. Roberts AD, Brackley CA. Friction of Surgeons' gloves. Journal of Physics: Applied

Physics. 1992, 25, A28-A32.

38. Spurr RT. Fingertip Friction. Wear. 1976, 39, 167-171.

39. Tomlinson SE. Grip on Rugby Balls [MEng]. The University of Sheffield, 2006.

40. Lewis R, Menardi C, Yoxall A, Langley J. Finger Friction: grip and opening

packaging. In Press; Wear. 2007.

23
41. Tomlinson SE, Lewis R, Carré MJ. Improving the understanding of grip. In: F.K. F, A.

S, S. U, eds. The Impact of Technology on Sport II: Taylor & Francis Group, London, in

press; 2007.

42. Zahouani H, Flament F, Vargiolu R, Bot AL, Mavon A. Acoustic Tribology of

Human Skin. World Tribology Congress III. Washington DC, USA; 2005.

43. Schallamach A. The load dependence of rubber friction. The Proceedings of the Physical

Society. 1952, 65 (393 B), Part 9, 657-660.

44. Moore DF. The Friction and lubrication of elastomers. Vol. 9 Pergamon Press, 1972

International Series of Monographs on Materials Science and Technology).

45. Ramalho A, Silva CL, Pais AACC, Sousa JJS. In vivo friction study of human skin:

influence of moisturizers on different anatomical sites. In Press. 2007.

46. Asserin J, Zahouani H, Humbert P, Couturaud V, Mougin D. Measurement of the

friction coefficient of the human skin in vivo Quantification of the cutaneous smoothness.

Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces. 2000 (19), 1-12.

47. Bobjer O, Johansson S-E, Piguet S. Friction between hand and handle. Effects of oil

and lard on textured and non textured surfaces; perception of discomfort. Applied

Ergonomics. 1993, 24 (3), 190-202.

48. Fuss FK, Niegl G, Tan AM. Friction between hand and different surfaces under

different conditions and its implication for sport climbing. The Engineering of Sport.

Davis, California; 2004, 269-275.

49. Zatsiorsky VM. Kinetics of Human Motion Human Kinetics, 2002.

50. Cutkosky MR, Jourdain JM, Wright PK. Skin Materials for Robotic Fingers. IEEE.

1987, 1649-1654.

24
51. Mackenzie CL, Iberall T. The Grasping Hand. Skin: An Organ Critical for Grasp.

Advances in Physiology. 1994, 104, 205-218.

52. Persson BNJ, Albohr O, Tartaglino U, Volokitin AI, Tosatti E. On the nature of

surface roughness with application to contact mechanics, sealing, rubber friction and

adhesion. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter. 2004, 17, R1–R62.

53. Technology IR. Rubber Friction. Sports Car Magazine. 2004.

54. Smith AM, Cadoret G, St-Amour D. Scopolamine increases prehensile force during

object manipulation by reducing palmar sweating and decreasing skin friction.

Experimental Brain Research. 1997, 114, 578–583.

55. Gitis N, Sivamani R. Tribometrology of Skin. Tribology Transactions. 2004 (47), 461-

469.

56. Adelman S, Taylor CR, Heglund NC. Sweating on paws and palms: What is the

function? American Journal of Physiology. 1975, 229, 1400-1402.

57. Sivamani RK, Wu GW, Gitis NV, Maibach HI. Tribological testing of skin products:

gender, age and ethnicity on the volar arm. Skin Research and Technology. 2003(9), 299-

305.

7. APPENDICES

7.1 List of Notations

µ = coefficient of friction

a = constant, specific to the interaction

F = frictional force

m = constant, specific to the interaction

25
N = normal force

SC = Stratum corneum

26