|This study aimed to understand the importance of applying finishing materials into interior space, and to add meaning to the creation of functional space, associated interior finishing materials with brain science. To achieve this purpose, brainwave(EEG) experiment was conducted. The brainwave appearing when sensing the surface of interior finishing materials with hands was measured. The locations of the electrode were FP1, FP2, F3, F4, C3, C4, P3, P4, O1, O2, F7, F8, T3, T4, T5, T6, CZ, FZ, and PZ and in addition to these, AFZ was added. Eight(8) kinds of finishing materials: metallic material, film paper, lumbar, stone, glass, silk wallpaper, fabric, and paint were used to measure ‘α-wave against β wave.’ As a result, it was found that the most activated finishing material in term of relaxation was film paper, followed by metallic, glass, paint, fabric, stone, lumbar, and silk wallpaper. To explain in light of this, ① ‘α-wave against β wave’ was the most activated at ch1-FP1 and ch2-FP2, and at ch17-AFZ and ch19-FZ, which indicated that metopic-prefrontal lobe showed the highest activation in relaxation. Film paper, among the finishing materials, showed the highest increase in relaxation. ② In general, ‘α-wave against β wave’ relaxation was inhibited at ch13-T3 and ch14-T4, and at ch15-T5 and ch16-T6 and the arousal in the temporal lobe was prominent. Silk wallpaper, among the finishing materials, showed the highest arounsal effect. As a result of measuring the superficial touch on the silk wallpaper, which was regarded as the most rough material among the eight finishing materials, the arousal effect of α-wave against β-wave, among the brainwave characteristics, was found to be the highest. ③ to judge from the scope of this experiment regarding the tactile sensation over the finishing materials, it is considered that the brainwave reaction sometimes appeared contrastive depending on whether the surface was smooth or rough and there also appeared a difference in relaxation and arousal reaction of the brainwave depending on whether the surface was hot or cold, but the sensation on the surface texture was often evaluated differently depending on who you were. For this reason, this study has some limitations.