請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/65938
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 張俊彥(Chun-Yen Chang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Min-Chi Pan | en |
dc.contributor.author | 潘敏琪 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T00:15:52Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2025-02-18 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2020-02-18 | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2020-02-13 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. 張俊彥(2010)。農村健康景觀設計。台北:人與植物學報。
2. Aldhafeeri, F. M., Mackenzie, I., Kay, T., Alghamdi, J., & Sluming, V. (2012). Regional brain responses to pleasant and unpleasant IAPS pictures: Different networks. Neuroscience Letters, 512(2), 94-98. 3. Banaei, M., Hatami, J., Yazdanfar, A., & Gramann, K. (2017). Walking through architectural spaces: the impact of interior forms on human brain dynamics. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 11, 477. 4. Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects.Psychological Science, 17(8), 645–648. 5. Barbas, H. (1992). Architecture and cortical connections of the prefrontal cortex in the rhesus monkey. Advances in neurology, 57, 91. 6. Booth, N. K. (1989). Basic elements of landscape architectural design. Waveland press. 7. Booth, N. (2011). Foundations of landscape architecture: integrating form and space using the language of site design. John Wiley & Sons. 8. Borod, J. C. (1992). Interhemispheric and intrahemispheric control of emotion: a focus on unilateral brain damage. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 60(3), 339. 9. Bradley, M. M., Greenwald, M. K., Petry, M. C., & Lang, P. J. (1992). Remembering pictures: pleasure and arousal in memory. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(2), 379. 10. Bratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P., Hahn, K. S., Daily, G. C., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 112(28), 8567-8572. 11. Burley, J., & Loures, L. (2008, June). Conceptual landscape design precedent: four historic sites revisited. In Proceedings of the 1st WSEAS International Conference on Landscape Architecture, Algarve, Portugal (p11-16). 12. Cambridge University Press. (2019, December 25). Cambridge dictionary [online dictionary]. Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/ 13. Carter, R. (2014). The human brain book: An illustrated guide to its structure, function, and disorders: Penguin. 14. Cha, S. H., Koo, C., Kim, T. W., & Hong, T. (2019). Spatial perception of ceiling height and type variation in immersive virtual environments. Building and Environment, 163, 106285. 15. Chatterjee, A. (2011). Neuroaesthetics: a coming of age story. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 23(1), 53-62. 16. Chatterjee, A., & Vartanian, O. (2014). Neuroaesthetics. Trends in cognitive sciences, 18(7), 370-375. 17. Cheng, K. A. N. G., Fujita, H., Kanno, I., Miura, S., & Tanaka, K. E. I. J. I. (1995). Human cortical regions activated by wide-field visual motion: an H2 (15) OPET study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 74(1), 413-427 18. Ching, F. D. (2014). Architecture: Form, space, and order: John Wiley & Sons. 19. Choo, H., Nasar, J. L., Nikrahei, B., & Walther, D. B. (2017). Neural codes of seeing architectural styles. Scientific reports, 7, 40201. 20. D’Acci, L. (2019). Aesthetical cognitive perceptions of urban street form. Pedestrian preferences towards straight or curvy route shapes. Journal of Urban Design, 1-17. 21. Damasio, A. R., Grabowski, T. J., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Ponto, L. L., Parvizi, J., & Hichwa, R. D. (2000). Subcortical and cortical brain activity during the feeling of self-generated emotions. Nature neuroscience, 3(10), 1049. 22. Davachi, L., Mitchell, J. P., & Wagner, A. D. (2003). Multiple routes to memory: distinct medial temporal lobe processes build item and source memories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(4), 2157-2162. 23. Davidson, R. J., & Irwin, W. (1999). The functional neuroanatomy of emotion and affective style. Trends in cognitive sciences, 3(1), 11-21. 24. de Tommaso, M., Pecoraro, C., Sardaro, M., Serpino, C., Lancioni, G., and Livrea, P. (2008). Influence of aesthetic perception on visual event-related potentials. Conscious. Cogn. 17, 933–945. 25. Dougherty, D. D., Shin, L. M., Alpert, N. M., Pitman, R. K., Orr, S. P., Lasko, M., ... & Rauch, S. L. (1999). Anger in healthy men: a PET study using script- driven imagery. Biological psychiatry, 46(4), 466-472. 26. Eisenman, R. (1967). Complexity-simplicity: I. Preference for symmetry and rejection of complexity. Psychonomic Science, 8(4), 169-170. 27. Elsadek, M., Sun, M., Sugiyama, R., & Fujii, E. (2019). Cross-cultural comparison of physiological and psychological responses to different garden styles. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 74-83. 28. Fletcher, P. C., Frith, C. D., Baker, S. C., Shallice, T., Frackowiak, R. S., & Dolan,R. J. (1995). The mind's eye—precuneus activation in memory-related imagery. Neuroimage, 2(3), 195-200. 29. George, M. S., Ketter, T. A., Parekh, P. I., Herscovitch, P., & Post, R. M. (1996). Gender differences in regional cerebral blood flow during transient self-induced sadness or happiness. Biological psychiatry, 40(9), 859-871. 30. Gupta, R. (2019). Positive emotions have a unique capacity to capture attention Progress in Brain Research: Elsevier. 31. Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and behavior, 23(1), 3-26. 32. Höfel, L., and Jacobsen, T. (2007). Electrophysiological indices of processing aesthetics: spontaneous or intentional processes? Int. J. Psychophysiol. 65, 20–31. 33. Hunter, M., & Askarinejad, A. (2015). Designer's approach for scene selection in tests of preference and restoration along a continuum of natural to manmade environments. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1228). 34. Ishizu, T., & Zeki, S. (2013). The brain's specialized systems for aesthetic and perceptual judgment. European Journal of Neuroscience, 37(9), 1413-1420. 35. Jacobs, R. H., Renken, R., & Cornelissen, F. W. (2012). Neural correlates of visual aesthetics–beauty as the coalescence of stimulus and internal state. PLoS One, 7(2), e31248. 36. Jacobsen, T., and Höfel, L. (2001). Aesthetics electrified: an analysis of descriptive symmetry and evaluative aesthetic judgment processes using event-related brain potentials. Empir. Stud. Arts 19, 177–190. 37. Jacobsen, T., & Höfel, L. E. A. (2002). Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: analyses of individual judgments. Perceptual and motor skills, 95(3),755-766. 38. Jacobsen, T., & Höfel, L. (2003). Descriptive and evaluative judgment processes: Behavioral and electrophysiological indices of processing symmetry and aesthetics. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3(4), 289-299. 39. Jacobsen, T., Schubotz, R. I., Höfel, L., & Cramon, D. Y. v. (2006). Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty. NeuroImage, 29(1), 276-285. 40. Kaplan, J. T., Freedman, J., & Iacoboni, M. (2007). Us versus them: Political attitudes and party affiliation influence neural response to faces of presidential candidates. Neuropsychologia, 45(1), 55-64. 41. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of environmental psychology, 15(3), 169-182. 42. Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and Environment: Functioning in An Uncertain World. Australian Psychological Society. 43. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Brown, T. (1989). Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior, 21(5), 509-530. 44. Karlsson, H. K., Seppälä, K., Karjalainen, T., Nummenmaa, L., Nuutila, P., Jääskeläinen, I. P., . . . Hari, R. (2018). Opioidergic Regulation of Emotional Arousal: A Combined PET–fMRI Study. 45. Kimbrell, T. A., George, M. S., Parekh, P. I., Ketter, T. A., Podell, D. M., Danielson, A. L., ... & Post, R. M. (1999). Regional brain activity during transient self-induced anxiety and anger in healthy adults. Biological psychiatry, 46(4), 454-465. 46. Kim, G.-W., & Jeong, G.-W. (2014). Brain activation patterns associated with the human comfortability of residential environments: 3.0-T functional MRI. Neuroreport, 25(12), 915-920. 47. Kim, G.-W., Jeong, G.-W., Kim, T.-H., Baek, H.-S., Oh, S.-K., Kang, H.-K., . . . Song, J.-K. (2010). Functional Neuroanatomy Associated with Natural and Urban Scenic Views in the Human Brain: 3.0T Functional MR Imaging. Korean J Radiol, 11(5), 507-513. 48. Kirk, U., Skov, M., Christensen, M. S., & Nygaard, N. (2009). Brain correlates of aesthetic expertise: A parametric fMRI study. Brain and Cognition, 69(2), 306-315. 49. Klein, L. R., Hendrix, W. G., Lohr, V. I., Kaytes, J. B., Sayler, R. D., Swanson, M. E., ... & Reganold, J. P. (2015). Linking ecology and aesthetics in sustainable agricultural landscapes: lessons from the Palouse region of Washington, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning, 134, 195-209. 50. Kross, E., Egner, T., Ochsner, K., Hirsch, J., & Downey, G. (2007). Neural dynamics of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(6), 945-956. 51. Lane, R. D., Chua, P. M., & Dolan, R. J. (1999). Common effects of emotional valence, arousal and attention on neural activation during visual processing of pictures. Neuropsychologia, 37(9), 989-997. 52. Lane, R. D., Reiman, E. M., Bradley, M. M., Lang, P. J., Ahern, G. L., Davidson, R. J., & Schwartz, G. E. (1997). Neuroanatomical correlates of pleasant and unpleasant emotion. Neuropsychologia, 35(11), 1437-1444. 53. Leeuwenberg, E. L. (1971). A perceptual coding language for visual and auditory patterns. The American journal of psychology, 307-349. 54. Lim, E. M., Honjo, T., & Umeki, K. (2006). The validity of VRML images as a stimulus for landscape assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(1-2), 80-93. 55. Linden, B. M. (2006). Nineteenth-Century German-American Landscape Designers. SiteLINES: A Journal of Place, 1(2), 9-11. 56. Lohr, V. I., & Pearson-Mims, C. H. (2006). Responses to Scenes with Spreading, Rounded, and Conical Tree Forms. Environment and Behavior, 38(5), 667-688. 57. Loidl, H., & Bernard, S. (2014). Open (ing) Spaces: Design as Landscape Architecture. Walter de Gruyter. 58. Malouin, F., Richards, C. L., Jackson, P. L., Dumas, F., & Doyon, J. (2003). Brain activations during motor imagery of locomotor‐related tasks: A PET study. Human brain mapping, 19(1), 47-62. 59. Makino, Y., Yokosawa, K., Takeda, Y., & Kumada, T. (2004). Visual search and memory search engage extensive overlapping cerebral cortices: an fMRI study. Neuroimage, 23(2), 525-533. 60. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. the MIT Press. 61. Meng, X. Y., & Wang, X. R. (2009). Geometry in the Landscape: Danish Landscape Architecture from 1920 through 1970 [J]. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 5. 62. Nakamura, K., & Kubota, K. (1996). The primate temporal pole: its putative role in object recognition and memory. Behavioural brain research, 77(1-2), 53-77. 63. Negrín, F., Hernández-Fernaud, E., Hess, S., & Hernández, B. (2017). Discrimination of Urban Spaces with different level of restorativeness based on the original and on a shorter version of Hartig et al.’s perceived restorativeness scale. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1735. 64. Nelson, T., Johnson, T., Strong, M., & Rudakewich, G. (2001). Perception of tree canopy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 315-324. 65. Nejad, K. K., Sugiura, M., Nozawa, T., Kotozaki, Y., Furusawa, Y., Nishino, K., ... & Kawashima, R. (2015). Supramarginal activity in interoceptive attention tasks. Neuroscience letters, 589, 42-46. 66. Olson, I. R., Plotzker, A., & Ezzyat, Y. (2007). The enigmatic temporal pole: a review of findings on social and emotional processing. Brain, 130(7), 1718-1731. 67. Pandya, D. N., & Yeterian, E. H. (1996). Comparison of prefrontal architecture and connections. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 351(1346), 1423-1432. 68. Pasini, M., Berto, R., Scopelliti, M., & Carrus, G. (2009). Measuring the restorative value of the environment: Contribution to the validation of the Italian version of the Perceived Restorativeness Scale. Bollettino di psicologia applicata, 257(1), 3-11. 69. Pessoa, L., Kastner, S., & Ungerleider, L. G. (2002). Attentional control of the processing of neutral and emotional stimuli. Cognitive Brain Research, 15(1), 31-45. 70. Rolls, E. T. (2019). The cingulate cortex and limbic systems for emotion, action, and memory. Brain Structure and Function, 1-18. 71. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(6), 1161. 72. Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1977). Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions. Journal of research in Personality, 11(3), 273-294. 73. Russell, J. A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to environments. Journal of personality and social psychology, 38(2), 311. 74. Russell, J. A., & Snodgrass, J. (1987). Emotion and the environment. Handbook of environmental psychology, 1(1), 245-281. 75. Ruta, N., Mastandrea, S., Penacchio, O., Lamaddalena, S., & Bove, G. (2019). A comparison between preference judgments of curvature and sharpness in architectural façades. Architectural Science Review, 62(2), 171-181. 76. Schertz, K. E., Sachdeva, S., Kardan, O., Kotabe, H. P., Wolf, K. L., & Berman, M. G. (2018). A thought in the park: The influence of naturalness and low-level visual features on expressed thoughts. Cognition, 174, 82-93. 77. Schienle, A., Stark, R., Walter, B., Blecker, C., Ott, U., Kirsch, P., ... & Vaitl, D. (2002). The insula is not specifically involved in disgust processing: an fMRI study. Neuroreport, 13(16), 2023-2026. 78. Schubotz, R. I., & von Cramon, D. (2003). Functional-anatomical concepts of human premotor cortex: evidence from fMRI and PET studies. Neuroimage, 20, S120. 79. Schwartz, G. E., & Davidson, R. J. (1997). Neuroanatomical correlates of happiness, sadness, and disgust. The American journal of psychiatry, 154(7). 80. Seiyama A, Yamada K, Osaki K, Nakai R, Matsumoto J, et al. (2018) Neural Bases on Cognitive Aspect of Landscape Evaluation: A Study Using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. J Neurol Neurosci Vol.9 No.4:263. 81. Shemesh, A., Talmon, R., Karp, O., Amir, I., Bar, M., & Grobman, Y. J. (2017). Affective response to architecture–investigating human reaction to spaces with different geometry. Architectural Science Review, 60(2), 116-125. 82. Siebert, M., Markowitsch, H. J., & Bartel, P. (2003). Amygdala, affect and cognition: evidence from 10 patients with Urbach–Wiethe disease. Brain, 126(12), 2627-2637. 83. Sommer, R., & Summit, J. (1995). An exploratory study of preferred tree form. Environment and Behavior, 27(4), 540-557. 84. Tang, I. C., Tsai, Y.-P., Lin, Y.-J., Chen, J.-H., Hsieh, C.-H., Hung, S.-H., . . . Chang, C. Y. (2017). Using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to analyze brain region activity when viewing landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 162, 137-144. 85. Tang, Y. Y., Lu, Q., Feng, H., Tang, R., & Posner, M. I. (2015). Short-term meditation increases blood flow in anterior cingulate cortex and insula. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 212. 86. Tang, Y. Y., Lu, Q., Geng, X., Stein, E. A., Yang, Y., & Posner, M. I. (2010). Short- term meditation induces white matter changes in the anterior cingulate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(35), 15649-15652. 87. Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. 88. Tsukiura, T., & Cabeza, R. (2011). Shared brain activity for aesthetic and moral judgments: implications for the Beauty-is-Good stereotype. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 6(1), 138-148. 89. Twedt, E., Rainey, R. M., & Proffitt, D. R. (2016). Designed Natural Spaces: Informal Gardens Are Perceived to Be More Restorative than Formal Gardens. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(88). 90. Twedt, E., Rainey, R. M., & Proffitt, D. R. (2019). Beyond nature: The roles of visual appeal and individual differences in perceived restorative potential. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101322. 91. Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., Modroño, C., ... & Skov, M. (2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach- avoidance decisions in architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (Supplement 2), 10446-10453. 92. Vogt, B. A., Finch, D. M., & Olson, C. R. (1992). Functional heterogeneity in cingulate cortex: the anterior executive and posterior evaluative regions. Cerebral cortex, 2(6), 435-443. 93. Wagner, T. D., & Smith, E. E. (2003). Neuroimaging studies of working memory: a meta-analysis. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3(4), 255-274. 94. Wang, J., Rao, H., Wetmore, G. S., Furlan, P. M., Korczykowski, M., Dinges, D. F., & Detre, J. A. (2005). Perfusion functional MRI reveals cerebral blood flow pattern under psychological stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(49), 17804-17809. 95. Wittling, W. (1996). 12 Brain Asymmetry in the Control of Autonomic- Physiologic Activity. Brain asymmetry, 305. 96. Wyczesany, M., Ligęza, T., Tymorek, A., & Adamczyk, A. (2018). The influence of mood on visual perception of neutral material. Acta neurobiologiae experimentalis, 78(2). 97. Zald, D. H., Lee, J. T., Fluegel, K. W., & Pardo, J. V. (1998). Aversive gustatory stimulation activates limbic circuits in humans. Brain: a journal of neurology, 121(6), 1143-1154. 98. Zhang, W., He, X., Liu, S., Li, T., Li, J., Tang, X., & Lai, S. (2019). Neural correlates of appreciating natural landscape and landscape garden: Evidence from an fMRI study. Brain and behavior, e01335 99. Zhang, W., Tang, X., He, X., & Lai, S. (2018). Attentional bias to beauty with evolutionary benefits: Evidence from aesthetic appraisal of landscape architecture. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 71. 100. Zhang, Z., and Deng, Z. (2012). Gender, facial attractiveness, and early and late event-related potential components. J. Integra. Neurosci. 11, 477–487. 101. Zeki, S., Romaya, J., Benincasa, D., & Atiyah, M. (2014). The experience of mathematical beauty and its neural correlates. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8(68). | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/65938 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 人們在體驗環境時,會因不同空間的氛圍,而產生不同情感。空間秩序原 則能創造有秩序的空間,有秩序的空間能創造具美感的空間,具美感的空間能 成為健康的景觀空間。過去已探討不同景觀花園風格的生心理恢復性價值,然 而卻未深入探討不同風格中細部空間秩序或結構,且在腦區研究中亦未有針對 都市景觀中細部空間結構的探討。因此本研究以功能性磁振造影(fMRI)和心理 問卷來探討何種空間秩序的設計手法在腦區和心理感受中較具審美,且可以提 供人們正向的情緒與良好的環境感受呢?研究結果顯示,曲線形式的韻律和基 律空間,以及軸線設計手法設計於都市空間,皆能提升都市環境的正向情緒感 受和審美體驗,然而軸線屬於較特殊的空間設計手法,因此在設計時可根據該 空間定位、環境性質和意義來採用。對稱空間會涉及評價審美的腦區,感知對 稱的複雜程度與審美腦區呈正相關,而較高的視覺對稱會降低空間的靈活性。 位階空間則是唯一未活化審美腦區的秩序原則,且在心理感受中未有特別突出 的結果,因此之後能再多嘗試不同位階形式的空間組合,以確定位階空間在秩 序原則中真正的角色。本研究可作為未來景觀、建築、都計領域空間規劃設計 之選用搭配,提升都市環境的正向感受。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Over the years, people had diverse emotion reaction to the different spatial atmosphere. The ordering principle of space created regular spaces, regular spaces created aesthetic spaces, and aesthetic spaces leaded to healthy landscape spaces. The psychologically restorative value of different landscape garden styles had been explored, but the different spatial structures of spaces had not been explored profoundly. Therefore, this study used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and psychological questionnaires to explore what kind of spatial design principle was more aesthetic in the brain region and psychological feelings, and could provide people with positive emotion and favorable experience? The results showed that the curvilinear design of datum and rhythmic spaces, and axis space could be applied in urban space which could improve the positive emotional feeling and aesthetic experience. Symmetric space activated the aesthetic brain regions, but higher visual symmetry also reduced the feeling of spatial flexibility. Hierarchy space was the only ordering principle that did not activate the aesthetic brain region, and it had no particularly important results in psychological response. The results of this study might be applied in the landscape architecture, architecture, and metropolitan field of urban areas for environmental recovery. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T00:15:52Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-109-R06628324-1.pdf: 14027442 bytes, checksum: 671fb37d0d3974aa22a3d2b80474e9ee (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 ....................................................................................................1
第一節 研究背景與動機....................................................................................1 第二節 研究目的..............................................................................................2 第三節 研究限制與範圍....................................................................................2 第二章 文獻回顧 .............................................................................................3 第一節 景觀空間..............................................................................................3 第二節 視覺的腦區反應....................................................................................19 第三節 環境的心理感受....................................................................................30 第四節 文獻回顧小結.......................................................................................34 第三章 研究方法 .............................................................................................36 第一節 研究架構與假設....................................................................................36 第二節 研究變項..............................................................................................37 第三節 研究設計..............................................................................................46 第四節 資料搜集與分析方法.............................................................................50 第四章 研究結果 .............................................................................................55 第一節 樣本特性分析.......................................................................................55 第二節 腦造影實驗分析....................................................................................55 第三節 行為實驗分析.......................................................................................75 第四節 空間秩序原則對腦區與心理之關係.........................................................84 第五章 討論 ...................................................................................................101 第六章 結論與建議 ........................................................................................106 第一節 結論...................................................................................................106 第二節 後續研究建議......................................................................................107 參考文獻........................................................................................................109 附錄一 實驗刺激物 .........................................................................................121 附錄二 心理感受問卷 .....................................................................................126 附錄三 研究倫理委員會計畫核定公文 .............................................................127 附錄四 受測者知情同意書 ..............................................................................128 附錄五 MRI實驗安全同意書............................................................................132 附錄六 重要文獻原文摘要 ..............................................................................134 附錄七 空間秩序原則間之腦區活化程度比較 ...................................................143 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 景觀空間秩序原則對腦區與心理的影響 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Influence of Ordering Principles in Landscape Spatial Design on Brain and Psychological Response | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 108-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林晏州,歐聖榮,何立智,張伯茹 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 空間設計,秩序原則,功能磁振造影,情緒, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Spatial Design,Ordering Principle,Functional Magnetic Resonance Image(fMRI),Emotion, | en |
dc.relation.page | 147 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202000390 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2020-02-13 | |
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-109-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 13.7 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。