## 3 Results
### Correlation with Instrumental Methods and a Reference Panel  
Physical measurement parameters can be categorized in groups according to the physical actions, and hence are expected to correlate with the reference panel parameters obtained by a corresponding hand action. As TSA acoustic values are an indirect measure, they are to be compared with all panel values. Table 4 shows the Pearson correlation factor for each parameter of the panel with each parameter of the methods mentioned above. Expected correlations, based on the similarity of applied action, are marked in the table (with bold/white contour). For better visualization, all values are graded from dark orange (coefficient + 1 strong positive correlation) to dark blue (coefficient -1 strong negative correlation). If there is no correlation, the value is marked white (coefficient 0 correlation does not exist), respectively the lighter variations of the two colors indicate a weaker correlation. All values are given for both types of fabrics involved, indicated as K for knitted and W for woven fabrics. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c l c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**GROUP**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Knitted Fabrics (Experts = 11)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Woven Fabrics (Experts = 10)**} \\ \cline{2-5} \# & **Property (Descriptor)** & **W** & **\(\mathbf{p}\)** & **W** & **\(\mathbf{p}\)** \\ \hline
1. & over-all softness & 0.88 & \(2.7\times 10^{-9}\) & 0.73 & \(1.39\times 10^{-8}\) \\ \hline
2. & smooth/rough & 0.95 & \(1.04\times 10^{-9}\) & 0.51 & \(7.28\times 10^{-6}\) \\ \hline
3. & drapey/stiff & 0.81 & \(1.72\times 10^{-8}\) & 0.70 & \(2.38\times 10^{-8}\) \\ \hline
4. & waxy/dry & 0.75 & \(8.08\times 10^{-8}\) & 0.43 & \(9.66\times 10^{-5}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Kendall concordance factor for the hand-feel panel ranking according to different describing parameters. For knitted fabrics, human and instrumental assessments showed a high correlation. As the table shows, all-over knitted fabric \"softness\" evaluations resp. calculations by both human panels and the Phabrometer (RHV (Relative Hand Value)) show a correlation above 0.9. Panel results corresponding to actions where the fabric is bent or sheared show a correlation between 0.8 and 0.95 with Kawabata and the Phabrometer, as well as with the human \"softness\" assessment by the Reference Panel the procedure followed there. Hand actions on the surface, i.e., caressing for \"smoothness\" and applying higher finger pressure for \"waxiness\" correlate with Kawabata MIU (Rubbing coefficient) variation and roughness indicator. A lower correlation was observed with Phabrometer \"smoothness\" as well as with the \"smoothness\" results from the reference panel. However, the research panel's \"waxiness\" correlated better than \"smoothness\" with the reference panel's \"smoothness\". This indicates the dependence of this parameter on the applied pressure, parallel to what is expected when measuring friction. Based on the experience from the tissue sector [24], the TSA provider states TS7 as a measure of fiber softness, and TS750 for total surface smoothness. Basically, all panel \"softness\" results correlate with TS7 (\(>\)\(-\)0.9). \"Softness\" related values show a fair correlation with TS750 (\(\sim\)0.8), while surface-related \"smoothness\" shows correlation factors around 0.7. The hand-feel value HF is obtained by an algorithm, which had been developed by the provider based on the TSA parameters, fabric mass per unit area, thickness, and panel assessment of the knitted fabrics, to be used and tested for fabrics of comparable construction.