Problem Statement: In the design of therapeutic environments, material selection is predominantly driven by technical and hygienic criteria, while the experiential role of visual and haptic qualities on environmental comfort and physiological arousal remains less explored.

Research Question: What difference do the sensory conditions of “haptic-only” versus “visuo-haptic integration” make in users’ physiological and perceptual responses to materials?

Objective: To empirically assess autonomous biosignals and subjective pleasantness during material interaction, aiming to formulate complementary sensory criteria for health-supportive spaces.

Method: In this within-subjects experiment, 40 healthy volunteers evaluated four material samples (ceramic tile, concrete, brick and glass) under two conditions — “haptic-only” (20 s of tactile exploration in an occluded box) and “visuo-haptic integration” (15 s of observation followed by 20 s of exploration). Changes in heart rate(ΔHR)and electrodermal activity(ΔEDAwere captured via an ESP32-based biosensing system, while subjective pleasantness was rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Data were analyzed using a two-way repeated-measures ANOVA in SPSS.

Conclusion: Material type and sensory condition significantly influenced physiological arousal. In the haptic-only condition, brick (due to roughness) and glass (due to thermal contrast and slipperiness) elicited the highest sympathetic arousal and more unpleasant appraisals in the absence of visual previews, whereas ceramic tile produced the most stable responses. Visual information attenuated haptic-induced arousal by resolving perceptual ambiguity; the main effect of material type on (ΔHR) and (ΔEDA) yielded ηₚ²:0.32 and ηₚ²:0.39respectively, while the effect of sensory condition on these two indices was ηₚ²:0.15 and ηₚ²:0.23respectively. Sensory material qualities should therefore serve as complementary parameters alongside technical and hygienic standards in healthcare architecture.