## 4 Results and Discussion
### Analysis of Coincidence between Physical Prototypes and HHP
Table 2, analogous to Table 1, shows the sum of the answers given to each attribute, indicating the level of coincidence for the type B product between both experiments. In the summation, it is observed that 228 responses correspond to a deviation of \(\pm 1\) on a weighting of 5 points, followed by total coincidence with 224 responses. As in Table 1, the rest of the answers are much smaller in magnitude than the rest of the data. In this way it is observed that in product B there is also a tendency to respond with a total coincidence or \(\pm 1\) so this second product also suggests that the HHP method makes it possible to analyze haptic-visual properties in the field of industrial design, generating an assessable sensory experience. On the other hand, Figure 10 shows the results obtained in Table 2 as a percentage of responses. In a deeper analysis of the results, it is observed that the deviation of \(\pm 3\) and \(\pm 4\) is comparatively reduced and can be considered irrelevant, which reinforces the validation of the method in the same way as for the A packaging. In addition, from the results it is extracted that there are 4 adjectives that present a majority of total coincidence for product B, these are: \"silky\", \"dirty\", \"abrasive\" and \"clean\". Specifically, this last term represents the highest percentage of coincidence with 58.9% and the terms \"silky\" and \"dirty\" have had the lowest percentage of coincidence with 54.4% each. This indicates that there is only a 3.5% difference between the highest hit values. Considering the values of coincidence \(\pm 2\), it is observed that the adjectives that present greater reliability between answers are \"soft\", \"sharp-edge\", \"slippery\", \"adherent\" and \"smooth\". The highest value is produced for \"soft\" with 58.9% and the lowest for \"sharp-edge\" with 44.6%, there is a difference of 14.3% between them. Regarding the values for the \(\pm 3\) coincidence, only the term \"Sharp-edge\" is between 20% and 30%, with the rest of the data being much lower. As a global result of the study of product type B it is obtained that 80.7% of the answers are concentrated between the total coincidence and \(\pm 1\). As in product A, this result indicates that the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Silky** & **Dirty** & **Abrasive** & **Rough** & **Soft** & **Sharp-Edge** & **Clean** & **Slippery** & **Adherent** & **Smooth** & \(\Sigma\) \\ \hline
**C** & 31 & 31 & 32 & 23 & 16 & 8 & 33 & 18 & 15 & 17 & 224 \\
**C\(\pm\)1** & 18 & 18 & 15 & 23 & 33 & 25 & 12 & 29 & 27 & 28 & 228 \\
**C\(\pm\)2** & 7 & 5 & 9 & 7 & 5 & 15 & 9 & 7 & 9 & 7 & 80 \\
**C\(\pm\)3** & 0 & 1 & 0 & 3 & 2 & 7 & 2 & 2 & 4 & 4 & 25 \\
**C\(\pm\)4** & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Number of cumulative responses according to the degree of coincidence for product type B.  
Figure 10: Cumulative match of responses for product type B.  
respondents tend to repeat their answers between the first phase and the second in an exact way or with the minimum deviation. In a comparative evaluation between Figures 9 and 10, it is observed that the total coincidences and the coincidences \(\pm 1\) have increased in product B with respect to A for all the adjectives evaluated except for the term \"rough\". Based on this, it should be noted that the maximum deviation between the maximum value reached in product A and the lowest in product B for the concept \"rough\" occurs for the coincidence \(\pm 1\) and is 5.3%. This value in comparison with the increments that have experienced the rest of adjectives can be considered unrepresentative. This general increase in the coincidence between one product and another indicates that the dot pattern texture generates less response dispersion than the sawtooth texture and the results obtained are clearer.