## 3 Results  
### Visual and Tactile Subjective Evaluation  
Finally, 53 valid questionnaires were collected to obtain the average subjective evaluation scores of the 9 subject materials, which are shown in Table 3.  
As shown in Figure 1, the average scores of the subjective material tactile perception evaluations from high to low were S1 (silicone), P1 (plastic PP), P3 (plastic PVC), P4 (plastic PVC), P5 (plastic ABS), P2 (plastic PP), M2 (metal stainless steel), M3 (metal stainless steel), and M1 (metal aluminum). The data of this questionnaire were analyzed using [PERSON]'s coefficient with IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). As shown in Table 4, [PERSON]'s alpha coefficient for the questionnaire of this study was 0.931, which means that the questionnaire data have relatively high reliabil \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Material** & **Cold–** & **Unlively–** & **Complicated–** & **Rough–** & **Painful–** & **Amoius–** & **Dangerous–** & **Hard–Soft** \\
**Number** & **Warm** & **Lively** & **Handy** & **Smooth** & **Conforbable** & **Calm** & **Safe** & **Hard–Soft** \\ \hline P1 & 0.23 & 0.32 & 1.06 & 1.87 & 1.4 & 0.94 & 1.17 & 1.58 \\ P2 & 0.66 & 0.79 & 0.91 & 0.17 & 1 & 0.6 & 1.21 & 0.96 \\ P3 & 0.19 & 0.53 & 0.58 & 1.38 & 1.26 & 1.02 & 1.09 & 1.26 \\ P4 & 0.21 & 0.38 & 0.72 & 1.45 & 1.06 & 1.09 & 1.04 & 1.21 \\ P5 & 0.09 & 0.62 & 0.74 & 1.51 & 1.11 & 0.83 & 1.06 & 1.21 \\ M1 & \(-2.17\) & \(-1.87\) & \(-1.58\) & 1.08 & \(-0.74\) & 0.94 & \(-0.68\) & \(-1.28\) \\ M2 & \(-0.96\) & \(-0.6\) & \(-1.04\) & 0.49 & 0.4 & 0.87 & 0.55 & \(-0.15\) \\ M3 & \(-1.85\) & \(-1.4\) & \(-1.21\) & 0.38 & \(-0.17\) & 0.6 & \(-0.25\) & \(-0.62\) \\ S1 & 1.94 & 2.11 & 2.17 & 1.7 & 2.11 & 0.74 & 2.23 & 2.51 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Average scores of materials in visual and tactile perception evaluations. Secondly, for validity testing of the questionnaire evaluation data, Table 5 shows the KMO test value of the questionnaire in this study was 0.691, a value close to 0.7. The significance of [PERSON]'s spherical test was 0.000, which is less than 0.05 and significant. This indicates that the variables in this questionnaire are significantly related and the evaluation data are suitable for factor or principal component analysis. Table 6 shows all perceptual vocabulary pairs. The table shows that the value of the common degree of all variables was greater than 0.850, indicating a strong correlation between the variables and the items under study. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Perceptual Vocabulary Pairs** & **Initial** & **Extraction** \\ \hline Cold–Warm & 1 & 0.984 \\ Unlively–Lively & 1 & 0.985 \\ Complicated–Handy & 1 & 0.974 \\ Rough–Smooth & 1 & 0.860 \\ \hline Painful–Comfortable & 1 & 0.981 \\ Anxious–Calm & 1 & 0.902 \\ Dangerous–Safe & 1 & 0.981 \\ Hard–Soft & 1 & 0.992 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Commonality of variables of principal component analysis. Figure 1: The average score of 9 materials in visual and tactile perception evaluations. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**KMO Test** & **0.691** & \\ \hline [PERSON]’s test of sphericity & Chi-squared value & 117.189 \\ Degrees of freedom & 28 \\ Significance & 0.000 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Questionnaire validity test. The scree plot in Figure 2 shows that the first two factors have steeper slope lines and the fold plot moves more gently after the second factor, so the first two factors are the main factors. As shown in Table 8, the rotated component matrices had more apparent assignments than the unrotated component matrices. Thus, the rotated component matrices were more likely to substantiate the significance of the factors. The top two perceptual vocabulary pairs for principal component factor 1 were \"unlively-lively\" and \"cold-warm\", with values of 0.992 and 0.990, respectively.