請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/55020完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 張俊彥 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Li-Chih Ho | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 何立智 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T03:44:33Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2018-03-13 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2015-03-13 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2015-02-09 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 何立智、張俊彥、陳建中(2012)。景觀特徵演算法於知覺自然度量測之運用。造園景觀學報, 18(1),頁 23-38。
謝孟倫、林晏州 (2011)。 景觀色彩對自然景觀偏好之影響。戶外遊憩研究, 24(2),頁 27-50。 Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. New York: Wiley. Biederman, I. & Vessel, E.A. (2006). Perceptual Pleasure and the Brain. American Scientist, 94(3), 247-253. Bourassa, S.C. (1990). A Paradigm for Landscape Aesthetics. Environment and Behavior, 22(6), 787-812. Carter, R. & Frith, C.D. (1998). Mapping the mind. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Cattaneo, Z., Lega, C., Flexas, A., Nadal, M., Munar, E. & Cela-Conde, C.J. (2014). The world can look better: enhancing beauty experience with brain stimulation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(11), 1713-1721. Chatterjee, A. (2003). Prospects for a cognitive neuroscience of visual aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology and the Art, 4, 55-60. Chen, J.-C. & Ho, L.-C. (2013). Changes in the streambank landscape and vegetation recovery on a stone revetment using the image spectrum: Case study of the Nan-Shi-Ken stream, Taiwan. Ecological Engineering, 61, Part A(0), 482-485. Cooper, J. & Oskrochi, R. (2008). Fractal analysis of street vistas: a potential tool for assessing levels of visual variety in everyday street scenes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35(2), 349-363. Cooper, J., Su, M.l. & Oskrochi, R. (2013). The influence of fractal dimension and vegetation on the perceptions of streetscape quality in Taipei: with comparative comments made in relation to two British case studies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 40(1), 43-62. Crompton, A. & Brown, F. (2008). A statistical examination of visual depth in building elevations. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35(2), 337-348. De Coensel, B., Botteldooren, D. & De Muer, T. (2003). 1/f Noise in Rural and Urban Soundscapes. Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 89(2), 287-295. De Valois, R.L. & De Valois, K.K. (1988). Spatial vision. New York: Oxford University Press. Field, D.J. (1987). Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. J Opt Soc Am A, 4(12), 2379-94. Field, D.J. (1987). Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. Journal of the Optical Society of America A: Optics and Image Science, 4(12), 2379-2394. Frisby, J.P. & Stone, J.V. (2010). Seeing : the computational approach to biological vision. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Geisler, W.S. (2008). Visual perception and the statistical properties of natural scenes. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 167-192. Geisler, W.S. & Ringach, D. (2009). Natural Systems Analysis. Visual Neuroscience, 26(01), 1-3. Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Goldstein, E.B. (2010). Sensation and perception. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Gonzalez, R.C. & Woods, R.E. (2008). Digital image processing. NJ: Prentice Hall. Graham, D.J. & Field, D.J. (2007). Statistical regularities of art images and natural scenes: Spectra, sparseness and nonlinearities. Spatial Vision, 21, 149-164. Graham, D.J. & Field, D.J. (2008). Variations in intensity statistics for representational and abstract art, and for art from the Eastern and Western hemispheres. Perception, 37, 1341-1352. Graham, D.J. & Redies, C. (2010). Statistical regularities in art: Relations with visual coding and perception. Vision Research, 50(16), 1503-1509. Greene, M.R. & Oliva, A. (2009). Recognition of natural scenes from global properties: Seeing the forest without representing the trees. Cognitive Psychology, 58(2), 137-176. Hagerhall, C.M., Purcell, T. & Taylor, R. (2004). Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 247-255. Herzog, T.R. & Kutzli, G.E. (2002). Preference and Perceived Danger in Field/Forest Settings. Environment and Behavior, 34(6), 819-835. Hubel, D.H. & Wiesel, T.N. (1962). Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex. The Journal of Physiology, 160(1), 106-150. Itti, L., Rees, G. & Tsotsos, J.K. (2005). Neurobiology of attention. Amsterdam ; Boston: Elsevier Academic Press. Joye, Y. (2006). Some reflections on the relevance of fractals for art therapy. Arts in Psychotherapy, 33(2), 143-147. Joye, Y. (2007). Architectural Lessons From Environmental Psychology: The Case of Biophilic Architecture. Review of General Psychology, 11(4), 305-328. Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature : a psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (2008). Health, Supportive Environments, and the Reasonable Person Model: 557-565. Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (2009). Creating a larger role for environmental psychology: The Reasonable Person Model as an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 329-339. Kellert, S.R., Heerwagen, J. & Mador, M. (2008). Biophilic design : the theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley. Koch, M., Denzler, J. & Redies, C. (2010). 1/f2 Characteristics and Isotropy in the Fourier Power Spectra of Visual Art, Cartoons, Comics, Mangas, and Different Categories of Photographs. PLoS One, 5(8), e12268. Korpela, K.M., Klemettila, T. & Hietanen, J.K. (2002). Evidence for Rapid Affective Evaluation of Environmental Scenes. Environment and Behavior, 34(5), 634-650. Leeuwenberg, E. & van der Helm, P. (1991). Unity and variety in visual form. Perception, 20(5), 595-622. Mandelbrot, B.B. (1983). The fractal geometry of nature. New York: W.H. Freeman. Marr, D. (1982). Vision : a computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Nilsson, K., 2011. Forests, trees and human health. Dordrecht, Springer Science+Business Media B.V.: xviii, 427 p. Ode, A., Fry, G., Tveit, M.S., Messager, P. & Miller, D. (2009). Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), 375-383. Ode, A., Tveit, M.S. & Fry, G. (2008). Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: Touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research, 33(1), 89-117. Oliva, A. & Torralba, A. (2001). Modeling the Shape of the Scene: A Holistic Representation of the Spatial Envelope. International Journal of Computer Vision, 42(3), 145-175. Oliva, A. & Torralba, A. (2006). Building the gist of a scene: the role of global image features in recognition. Progress in Brain Research. S. L. M. L. M. M. J. M. A. S. Martinez-Conde and P. U. Tse, Elsevier. Volume 155, Part 2: 23-36. Olshausen, B.A. & Field, D.J. (1996). Natural image statistics and efficient coding. Network: Computation in Neural Systems, 7(2), 333-339. Olshausen, B.A. & Field, D.J. (2000). Vision and the Coding of Natural Images. American Scientist, 88(3) Parsons, R. (1991). The potential influences of environmental perception on human health. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(1), 1-23. Peron, E., Purcell, A.T., Staats, H., Falchero, S. & Lamb, R.J. (1998). Models of Preference for Outdoor Scenes: Some Experimental Evidence. Environment and Behavior, 30(3), 282-305. Petrov, V.M. (2007). The Information Approach to Human Sciences, Especially Aesthetics. Evolutionary and neurocognitive approaches to aesthetics, creativity, and the arts C. Martindale. Amityville, N.Y., Baywood Pub. Co.: 129-148. Purcell, A.T., Lamb, R.J., Mainardi Peron, E. & Falchero, S. (1994). Preference or preferences for landscape? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14(3), 195-209. Purcell, T., Peron, E. & Berto, R. (2001). Why do Preferences Differ between Scene Types? Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 93-106. Reber, R., Schwarz, N. & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver's Processing Experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364-382. Redies, C. (2007). A universal model of esthetic perception based on the sensory coding of natural stimuli. Spatial Vision, 21, 97-117. Redies, C., Hasenstein, J. & Denzler, J. (2007). Fractal-like image statistics in visual art: similarity to natural scenes. Spatial Vision, 21, 137-148. Ross, M.G. & Oliva, A. (2010). Estimating perception of scene layout properties from global image features. Journal of Vision, 10(1), 1-25. Salingaros, N.A. & Mehaffy, M.W. (2006). A theory of architecture. Solingen: Umbau-Verlag. Shafer Jr, E.L. & Brush, R.O. (1977). How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes. Landscape Planning, 4(0), 237-256. Snowden, R.J., Thompson, P. & Troscianko, T. (2012). Basic vision : an introduction to visual perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stamps, A.E. (2002). Fractals, skylines, nature and beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(3), 163-184. Torralba, A. & Oliva, A. (2003). Statistics of natural image categories. Network, 14(3), 391-412. Tveit, M., Ode, A. & Fry, G. (2006). Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3), 229-255. Walther, D.B., Caddigan, E., Fei-Fei, L. & Beck, D.M. (2009). Natural Scene Categories Revealed in Distributed Patterns of Activity in the Human Brain. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(34), 10573-10581. Werner, J.S. & Chalupa, L.M. (2014). The new visual neurosciences. Winkielman, P., Halberstadt, J., Fazendeiro, T. & Catty, S. (2006). Prototypes Are Attractive Because They Are Easy on the Mind. Psychological Science, 17(9), 799-806. YUE, X., VESSEL, A., E., BIEDERMAN & Irving. (2007). The neural basis of scene preferences. Hagerstown, MD, ETATS-UNIS: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. Yue, X., Vessel, E.A. & Biederman, I. (2006). The neural basis of preference for natural scenes. Journal of Vision, 6(6), 474. Yue, X., Vessel, E.A. & Biederman, I. (2007). The neural basis of scene preferences. NeuroReport, 18(6), 525-529. Zeki, S. (1999). Inner vision : an exploration of art and the brain. New York: Oxford University Press. Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L. & Taylor, J.G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9(1), 1-33. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/55020 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 當面對令人讚嘆的美景,無數的光粒子進入眼中,心情頓時感到愉悅,這時我們是如何解讀這些光粒子? 景觀偏好(Landscape Preference)即是探討這個問題的研究。
過去的研究回答這個問題有兩種主要的模式,心理物理模式(Psychophysics Paradigm )與認知模式(Cognition Paradigm)。心理物理模式著重於了解外界的環境物理性特徵對景觀偏好的影響,認知模式著重於觀賞者本身對於環境的認知如何影響景觀偏好。那麼是否可以直接從光粒子中的訊號,來了解景觀偏好的形成。因此本研究嘗試模擬大腦處理視覺訊號的過程,建構一個可以透過影像訊號來預測景觀偏好的計算模型。 視覺訊號由相位譜與能量譜構成,能量譜紀錄了這些光粒子的強度與整體結構,對應到實際的環境中是整體的環境質感與空間結構,此特性稱為空間包絡特徵(Spatial Envelope Property, SEP)是一種影像統計量,由於空間包絡特徵與影響景觀偏好的因素(例如開放度、複雜度)相當類似,因此本研究假設可使用影像中的空間包絡特徵構成計算模型以預測景觀偏好。 本研究收集了八種景觀類別(公路、高樓、街道、市區、海岸、森林、鄉村、高山)的影像共480張,運用主成分分析法由影像的能量譜中萃取了三個主要的空間包絡特徵,分別是空間質感、空間方向與空間深度,並依此架構計算模型。同時以網路問卷的方式進行影像景觀偏好調查。 為探討模型的預測力,以空間包絡特徵對景觀偏好進行多元回歸分析,區分為兩種模式,綜合類別分析是混合不同環境類型影像進行測試,單一類別分析是以單一環境類型影像進行測試。結果顯示,在綜合類別分析中,計算模型對景觀偏好的預測力是顯著的,然整體模式解釋力較低,在單一類別分析中,計算模型可以預測三種環境類別的景觀偏好,分別為公路、市區與森林,其餘五類預測效果不佳。影響市區景觀偏好的特徵是空間質感,影響公路與森林景觀偏好的特徵是空間方向與空間深度。 然而空間質感的變化為何會產生愉悅的感受呢?本研究推論其關係可能是建立在空間質感所具有的碎形結構上,由於大腦可以快速處理具有碎形結構的訊號,因此產生愉悅的感受。而空間方向、空間深度與景觀偏好的關係可能建立在眺匿理論上,空間開放度越高生物越能掌握環境對其生存威脅的情況,因此景觀偏好度提高。在應用面上,空間質感與植物元素的變化具有相關性,可運用於植被變化的計算而進行環境監測。亦可運用景觀知覺實驗,探討質感與景觀偏好的關係。 本研究是一個探索性的嘗試,試圖了解環境中光粒子中包含了何種讓我們感到愉悅的訊號統計特質,未來仍有待更多的研究,一起繪製更為完整的景觀偏好圖像。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | When we see beautiful scenery, light particles enter our eyes and induce pleasant feelings. Landscape preference is the study of this phenomenon.
Two paradigms are used to study landscape preference: the psychophysical paradigm and the cognitive paradigm. The psychophysical paradigm focuses on understanding the relationship between the physical attributes of the environment and landscape preference, while the cognitive paradigm focuses on understanding the relationship between the cognitive attributes of the environment and landscape preference. That being the case, what is the relationship between the light particles and landscape preference? The purpose of this research was to establish a landscape prediction model based on the visual signal computational process of the brain. Visual signals are composed of the phase spectrum and the power spectrum. The power spectrum represents the modulation of light intensity, which contains the global spatial structure of a scene. The property, known as spatial envelope property (SEP), is a type of image statistics. Because these properties are similar to factors that affect landscape preference, we therefore suppose these properties could predict landscape preferences and be used to construct a computational model of landscape preferences. The 480 images used in this research were composed of eight types of scenes including highways, tall buildings, streets, inner cities, coasts, forests, the countryside, and mountains. Principle component analysis was applied to extract the SEPs from the power spectrum of these images. Three components were extracted in this research: spatial texture, spatial direction, and spatial depth. The prediction model of landscape preference was constructed from these SEPs. We used multiple regression to test the prediction ability of the model. Two modes were used for testing: the mixed category mode, which tested all the images, and the single category mode, which tested the category of the image. The results show that the model could predict landscape preference in the mixed category mode but the R-square of the model was lower. In the single category mode, the computational model could predict landscape preference in the following three categories: highways, inner cities, and forests. Spatial texture was found to affect landscape preference in the inner city categories; whereas, spatial direction and spatial depth affect landscape preference in the highway and forest categories. However, why does spatial texture induce landscape preference? We suppose that the reason is the fractal structure of spatial texture. Because our brain can process signals composed of fractal structures easily, we feel pleasure when seeing such scenes. The relationship between spatial direction and spatial depth to landscape preference may be explained by prospect-refuge theory, because creatures could protect themselves from being eaten in an open scene. According to the relationship between spatial texture and the variation of vegetation, it could be used as the index for monitoring the environment. In addition, spatial texture could be used in a landscape perception experiment for examining the relationship between preference and distribution of spatial texture. This exploratory research aimed to understand the signal information contained in the environmental light particles, which induce our landscape preference. We found a small component of the answer but further research is required to construct the complete picture of landscape preference. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T03:44:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-104-D96628009-1.pdf: 10933228 bytes, checksum: 7e5ca5f1a83dad0baf463df2bb7bf375 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 誌謝 III
中文摘要 V 英文摘要 VII 目錄 IX 圖目錄 XIII 表目錄 XV 第一章 研究背景與目的 1 第一節 研究背景 1 一、 景觀偏好研究模式 1 二、 影像統計量與視覺訊息理論 3 第二節 研究主題與目的 5 一、 研究主題與內容 5 二、 研究目的 5 第二章 文獻回顧 7 第一節 景觀視覺訊號處理 7 一、 視覺訊號處理過程 7 二、 視覺訊號轉換 10 三、 視覺系統訊號分析模型 12 第二節 空間包絡理論 15 一、 空間包絡特徵 15 二、 空間包絡特徵之計算 16 第三節 空間包絡計算模型之發展 20 一、 空間包絡特徵計算方法之選擇 20 二、 空間包絡特徵與景觀偏好之關係 21 三、 空間包絡計算模型架構 21 第三章 研究方法 23 第一節 研究流程 23 第二節 影像資料庫 24 第三節 影像評分 29 一、 評分內容 29 二、 影像景觀偏好調查 29 第四節 計算模型建構方法 30 一、 能量譜之訊號內容 30 二、 區域特徵擷取方法 31 三、 主成分分析 33 四、 空間包絡計算模型 34 第五節 計算模型測試 34 一、 測試方法 34 二、 模型的限制 34 第四章 空間包絡計算模型建構 37 第一節 空間包絡特徵分析 37 一、 主成分選取 37 二、 第一主成分-空間質感 38 三、 第二主成分-空間方向 40 四、 第三主成分-空間深度 42 五、 影像投射 44 第二節 本研究計算模型 46 第五章 空間包絡計算模型測試 47 第一節 模型測試 47 一、 綜合類別測試 48 二、 單一類別測試 50 第二節 小結 62 一、 計算模型預測能力 62 二、 空間包絡特徵對景觀偏好之影響 62 三、 影響計算模型預測力的可能原因 62 第六章 討論 65 第一節 空間包絡特徵對景觀偏好之影響 65 一、 空間質感對景觀偏好之影響 65 二、 空間方向與深度對景觀偏好之影響 68 三、 小結 70 第二節 空間包絡計算模型檢討 71 一、 環境類別效果之影響 71 二、 其它空間包絡特徵之影響 74 三、 其它視覺訊號之影響 76 第三節 空間包絡特徵之應用 78 一、 溪流護岸工程植被恢復期估計 78 二、 景觀知覺實驗 81 第四節 研究限制 82 一、 空間包絡特徵對景觀偏好之解釋力 82 二、 線性演算法的限制 83 三、 本研究影像資料庫之限制 83 第七章 結論 85 第一節 總論 85 一、 模型建構 85 二、 模型測試 85 三、 模型討論 86 第二節 結論-大腦中的景觀偏好訊號 88 引用文獻 91 附錄一 腦啡結合理論 97 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 計算模型 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 視覺訊號 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 影像統計量 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 景觀偏好 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 能量譜 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 空間包絡特徵 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Visual signal | en |
| dc.subject | Computational model | en |
| dc.subject | Spatial envelope property | en |
| dc.subject | Power spectrum | en |
| dc.subject | Landscape preference | en |
| dc.subject | Image statistics | en |
| dc.title | 運用影像統計量預測景觀偏好之研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Using Image Statistics to Predict Landscape Preference | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 103-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳建中,歐聖榮,William C. Sullivan,林晏州,侯錦雄 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 視覺訊號,影像統計量,景觀偏好,能量譜,空間包絡特徵,計算模型, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Visual signal,Image statistics,Landscape preference,Power spectrum,Spatial envelope property,Computational model, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 98 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2015-02-09 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 園藝暨景觀學系 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 園藝暨景觀學系 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-104-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 10.68 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。
