Skin in the Game: The New Science of Touch for Wearables

How Quantifying Touch Can Be the Hidden Competitive Edge in Wearable Tech

When human touch meets synthetic sensing: the future of comfort in wearable tech

The Question That Sparked This Blog

In my consulting work, one recurring issue is material roughness: For instance, what level of roughness is needed to keep a device in place without slipping, while still being comfortable for daily wear?

This is challenging to answer because it seems like there is no universal way to quantify how a material feels against the skin. I asked Maria Thiry of AATCC (the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists) at Functional Fabric Fair NYC 2025 about this, and she confirmed that there is no current international standard to quantify how a material feels to the skin.

At TexWorld 2025, I learned from Alexander Gruener of EMTEC about the Tactile Sensation Analyzer (TSA), which uses acoustic signals to quantify how fabrics feel to the touch. It was an innovative approach to quantifying and simulating how a material feels to human touch. This inspired me to investigate whether other tactile sensing tools exist. I learned about other devices (SynTouch BioTac, KES), but a common framework for measuring how materials feel against human skin is still missing.

What We Already Know About Comfort

Decades of textile research have found that human touch perceives comfort as a mix of softness, smoothness, conformability, and low surface friction [1,2]. High-end or “luxury” feel typically aligns with fine fibers, smooth surfaces, and an even pressure distribution.

Why Comfort Alone Isn’t Enough for Wearables

• Too smooth → Devices slip, causing unstable sensors due to micro-motion artifacts [3].

• Too rough → Grip improves, but risk of irritation, abrasion, or shear injury rises [4,5].

• Moisture changes everything → Sweat softens skin, increases adhesion, and raises perceived stickiness [6].

• Pressure is the other game-changer → Both normal pressure (direct compression) and shear pressure (sliding forces) influence how materials feel against the skin. A surface that feels acceptable under no load can feel completely different—and cause very different skin responses—under high pressure [4].

This balance is best understood through tribology—the physics of friction and movement of a surface against the skin. Tribological studies show that friction arises from both adhesion (bonding between skin and the surface) and deformation (how skin flows around surface irregularities) [3,5]. Tribology explains why the same material can feel silky in one context and abrasive in another. Wearables operate in complex tribological regimes involving sweat, variable pressure, occlusion, and repeated motion.

However, physics alone does not capture what the skin actually feels. Skin sensation is mediated by a network of mechanoreceptors:

• Merkel cells (SA-I): Detect fine texture and edges.

• Meissner corpuscles (RA-I): Sense slip and light vibration.

• Pacinian corpuscles (RA-II): Register high-frequency microtextures.

• Ruffini endings (SA-II): Detect sustained skin stretch.

• Nociceptors: Warn when forces cross irritation or pain thresholds [7].

In other words: tribology explains the mechanics, while skin biology explains the experience. Good wearable design requires an understanding of both.

How to Gain a Competitive Edge in Wearable Tech Comfort and Wearability

Tools like EMTEC TSA, SynTouch BioTac, and KES show that it is possible to measure tactile properties. But today:

• Each tool is proprietary and not interoperable.

• There is no universal standard for smooth/rough tactile measurement.

• No centralized database links tactile metrics to outcomes.

The industry as a whole would benefit from a shared tactile database that links measured friction and roughness under realistic conditions (sweat, humidity, high pressure) to outcomes like comfort, safety, stability, and sensor fidelity.

Forward-thinking companies do not need to wait. They can work within existing measurement frameworks—even proprietary ones like TSA or BioTac—to build an internal tactile database tied directly to consumer comfort feedback and field performance data.

This approach creates two advantages:

• Better design decisions → Materials chosen not just for biocompatibility, cost or durability, but for proven skin compatibility and wearability under real world operating conditions.

• Competitive differentiation → Devices that prioritize comfort and stability become part of users’ daily routines. This extends the device lifecycle and strengthens the surrounding ecosystem, encouraging users to keep wearing—and upgrading within—the same platform.

Conclusion

Wearables succeed or fail at the skin interface. By combining lessons from textiles, insights from tribology, and the biology of touch, the industry can move past subjective guesswork. The ability to quantify tactile data—and to use this information strategically—may be a critical factor in device design.

A device may have the latest and greatest technology, but if it is not comfortable or cannot sustain wearability under the conditions it is meant to function, consumers will simply not wear it.

If you have questions about the comfort and wearability of materials for your device, contact BOHLD Consulting.

References

1. Li Y, Wong ASW. Comfort Properties of Textiles. Textile Progress. 2006.

2. Slater K. Comfort of Clothing. 1986.

3. Adams MJ, et al. Friction of Human Skin Against Different Fabrics. Tribology Letters. 2007.

4. Chien W-C, Tsai T-F. The Pressurized Skin. IJMS. 2023.

5. MacFarlane D, et al. Skin Tribology in Sport. Biosurface and Biotribology. 2021.

6. Zhang X, et al. Accumulated Stickiness Magnitude in Fabric–Skin Friction. R Soc Open Sci. 2019.

7. Abraira VE, Ginty DD. The Sensory Neurons of Touch. Neuron. 2013.

8. Emtec Electronic GmbH. TSA Technical Datasheet.