請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/7009
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 張俊彥 | |
dc.contributor.author | Ying-Ju Lin | en |
dc.contributor.author | 林映汝 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-17T09:23:51Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2017-08-22 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-17T09:23:51Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2012-08-22 | |
dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2012-08-19 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1.Aguirre, G. K. & D'Esposito, M. (1997). Environmental knowledge is subserved by separable dorsal/ventral neural areas. Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 2512-2518.
2.Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14(1), 5-28. 3.Bar, M. (2004). Visual objects in context. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(5), 617-629. 4.Berman, M. G., Jonides, J. & Kaplan,S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207-1212. 5.Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249-259. 6.Berto, R. (2008). Do eye movements measured across high and low fascination photographs differ? Addressing Kaplan’s fascination hypothesis. Journal of Environment Psychology, 28, 185-191. 7.Berto, R. (2010). An exploratory study of the effect of high and low fascination environment on attentional fatigue. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 494-500. 8.Biederman, I. & Vessel, E. A. (2006). Perceptual pleasure and the brain. American scientist, 94, 247-253. 9.Cabeza, R., Prince, S. E., Daselaar, S. M., Greenberg, D. L., Budde, M., Dolcos, F., LaBar, K. S. & Rubin, D. C. (2004). Brain activity during episodic retrieval of autobiographical and laboratory events: an fMRI study using a novel photo paradigm. Journal Cognition Neuroscience, 16, 1583–1594. 10.Canin, L.H. (1991). Psychological restoration among AIDS caregivers: Maintaining self care. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. 11.Chang, C. Y., Hammitt W. E., Chen, P. K., Machnik, L. & Su, W. C. (2008). Psychophysiological responses and restorative values of natural environments in Taiwan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85(2), 79-84. 12.Cimprich, B. (1993). Development of an intervention to restore attention in cancer patients. Cancer Nursing, 16, 83–92. 13.Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Neuroscience, 3, 201-205. 14.Corbetta, M., Kincade, J. M., Ollinger, J. M., McAvoy, M. P. & Shulman, G. L. (2000). Voluntary orienting is dissociated from target detection in human posterior parietal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 292-297 15.Corbetta, M., Patel, G. & Shulman, G. L. (2008). The Reorienting System of the Human Brain: From Environment to Theory of Mind. Neuron, 58(3), 306-324. 16.Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the mind. Viking Adult. 17.Ellisonm, A., Schindler, I., Pattison, L. L. & Milner A. D. (2004). An exploration of the role of the superior temporal gyrus in visual and spatial perception. Brain, 127, 2307-2315. 18.Epstein, R. A., Higgins, J. S., Jablonski, K. & Feiler, A. M. (2007). Visual Scene Processing in Familiar and Unfamiliar Environments. Journal of Neurophysiology, 97, 3670-3683. 19.Fan, F., McCandliss, B. D., Fossella, J., Flombaum, J. I. & Posner, M. I. (2005). The activation of attentional networks. Neuroimage, 26, 471–479. 20.Fan, F., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, M. & Posner, M. I. (2002). Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 340–347. 21.Fisher, J. D., Bell, P. A. & Baum, A. (1984). Environmental Psychology. CBS College Publishing. 22.Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 23.Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Garling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23,109-123. 24.Hartig, T., Kaiser, F., Bowler, P. A. (1997). Further development of a measure of perceived environment restorativeness. Gavel, Sweden: Uppsala University, Institute for Housing Research. 25.Hartig, T., Korpela, K. M., Evans, G. W., Garling, T. (1996). Validation of a measure perceived environmental restorativeness. (Goteborg Psychological Reports, 26: 1-64). Goteborg: Goteborg University, Department of Psychology. 26.Hartig, T., Mang, M. and Evans, G. W.(1991) Restorative effects of natural environment experiences, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1:3-26. 27.Henderson, J. M., Larson, C. L. & Zhu, D. C. (2007). Cortical activation to indoor versus outdoor scenes:an fMRI study. Experimental brain research, 179, 75-84. 28.Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M. & Fountaine, K. A. & Knotts, D. J. (1997). Reflection and Attentional Recovery as Distinctive Benefits of Restorative Environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 17, 165-170. 29.Herzog, T. R., Colleen, P., Maguire, C. P.. & Nebel, M. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 159-170. 30.Kaplan, R. (1973). Some psychological benefits of gardening. Environment and Behavior, 5, 145-162. 31.Kaplan, R. (1993). The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26, 193–201. 32.Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. NY: Cambridge University Press. 33.Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., Ryan, L. R., (1998). With People in Mind. Island Press, Washington, DC. 34.Kaplan, S. & Berman, M. G. (2010). Directed attention as a common resource for executive functioning and self-regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(1), 43-57. 35.Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169-182. 36.Kaplan, S. (2001). Meditation, restoration, and the management of mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33, 480-506 37.Kuo, F.E. (2001). Coping with poverty: Impacts of environment and attention in the inner city. Environment and Behavior, 33, 5–34. 38.Latham, A. (1991). To a stranger, Africa feels like home. The New York Times, November 10. 39.Laumann, K., Garling, T. & Stormark, K. M. (2001). Rating scale measures of restorative components of environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 31-44. 40.Laumann, K., Garling, T., & Stormark, K. M. (2003). Selective attention and heart rate responses to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 125-134. 41.Lederbogen, F., Kirsch, P., Haddad, L., Streit, F., Tost, H., Schuch, P., Wust, S., Pruessner, J. C., Rietschel, M., Deuschle, M., Lindenberg, A. M. (2011). City living and urban upbringing affect neural social stress processing in humans. Nature, 474, 498-501. 42.Litton Jr, R. B. (1968). Forest landscapes description and inventories: A basis for land planning and design (PSW-49). Berkeley, CA: U.S. Forest Service and University of California Berkeley. 43.Maulan, S., Mohd, M. K. & Miller, P. A. (2006). Landscape preference and human well-being. ALAM CIPTA, International Journal on Sustainable Tropical Design Research & Practice, 1 (1). pp. 25-30. ISSN 1823-7231. 44.Ottosson, J., & Grahn, P. (2005). A comparison of leisure time spent in a garden with leisure time spent indoors: On measures of restoration in residents in geriatric care. Landscape Research, 30, 23–55. 45.Peyrin, C., Baciu, M., Segebarth, C. & Marendaz, C. (2004). Cerebral regions and hemispheric specialization for processing spatial frequencies during natural scene recognition. An event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage, 23,698-707. 46.Posner, M. I. & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annals of Neuroscience, 1(3), 25-42. 47.Posner, M. I. & Petersen, S. E. (2012). The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after. Annals of Neuroscience, 35, 73-69. 48.Posner, M. I. & Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Research on attention networks as a model for the integration of psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 1-23. 49.Pulvermuller, F., Shtyrov, Y. & Ilmoniemi, R. (2005). Brain signatures of meaning access in action word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(6), 884-892. 50.Staats, H., Kieviet, A., & Hartig, T. (2003). Where to recover from attentional fatigue: An expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 147-157. 51.Stathis, P., Panourias, I. G., Themistocleous, M. S. & Sakas, D. E. (2007). Connections of the basal ganglia with the limbic system: implications for neuromodulation therapies of anxiety and affective disorders. Acta Neurochirurgica Supplementum, 97(2), 575-586. 52.Ulrich, R. S. (1981) Natural versus urban scenes some psychophysiological effects, Environment and. Behavior, 13(5), 523-556. 53.Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill, Eds., Human Behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research (vol. 6), 85-125. New York: Plenum. 54.Ulrich, R. S., Ulrich, R. F., Simons, B., Losito, E., Fiorito, M.A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201-230. 55.Van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L., & Van der Wulp, N. Y. (2003). Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 135-146. 56.Van den Born, R.J.G., Lenders, H.J., De Groot, W.T. & Huijsman, E. (2001) The new biophilia: an exploration of visions of nature in Western countries. Environmental Conservation, 28: 65–75. 57.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. Journal of Neuroscience. (in the press) 58.Yue, X., Vessel, E. A. & Biederman, I.(2006). The neural basis of scene preferences, Vision, 18, 525-529. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/7009 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 許多研究證實相對於都市環境,人們偏好自然環境,且在疲勞後接觸自然環境可以恢復注意力,過去研究多以量表或生理量測等間接的方式探討不同景觀的恢復能力,甚少有較直接及客觀的方式來驗證自然景觀之恢復效益,近年來隨著腦部造影技術的發展,藉由觀察腦區活化的情形可以瞭解各種生心理反應及行為的源起,因此本研究之目的欲瞭解不同景觀對心理及腦區反應的影響,探討人在觀看不同環境類型的圖片後,知覺到的恢復評價是否會有差異,及在觀看圖片的過程中,腦部運作的情形是否會有不同。在環境類型方面,首先探討都市、高山、森林及水體四種景觀型態的差異,而後再以注意力恢復理論為基礎,探討以恢復性環境特徵為標準之四種環境類型對人之影響,心理反應以恢復體驗程度及知覺注意力恢復力為指標,腦區反應以fMRI為研究工具,討論不同景觀引發活化的腦區及其功能意義。結果顯示都市景觀恢復力最低,其次為森林景觀,高山及水體景觀恢復力最高,腦區反應方面,觀看都市景觀時所使用的腦區多於自然景觀之反應腦區,其中都市景觀反應腦區中包含Right superior parietal lobe,此區過去被認為與注意力恢復理論中提到需要耗費資源的直接注意力有關,高山及水體景觀反應腦區則以視覺腦區為主;在不同恢復性環境特徵方面,結果顯示一致性的自評恢復力最低,遠離性、魅力性及相容性沒有顯著差異,在知覺注意力恢復力上,相容性有略高於其他三者;腦區反應方面,四種景觀皆有視覺相關腦區被活化,其中魅力性環境反應較激烈,包含額葉及頂葉多處處理較高層級認知系統的腦區,表示耗費較多資源在注意環境,可能表示恢復效益較低,與心理反應結果顯示一致性恢復力最低不同,未來仍需增加更多實驗組別以確立其關係。研究結果初步顯示自然環境在心理及腦區反應都比都市環境較具有恢復效益,其中高山及水體景觀恢復力較高,未來可再深入探討自然景觀恢復效益產生的機制,以證實自然景觀的重要性外,對神經科學領域也將產生不同於以往的討論方向。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Many studies have shown that people prefer natural environment than urban environment, and exposure to the natural environment can restore attention from fatigue. Most of previous studies on the restorativeness of natural landscape used indirect measurements such as scale or physiological data, seldom direct evidence was obtained. With the development of functional magnetic resonance imaging in recent years, observation of the activation of brain regions helps us to understand the origins of a variety of psychological reactions and behavior. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to understand the psychological response and brain region activity when viewing different landscapes using questionnaire and fMRI. Psychological response was measured by questionnaire of restorative experience and perceived restorativeness, and the brain region activity was measured by fMRI. The current study was divided into two parts. First, four types of landscapes were used to explore human response toward landscape types, including cities, mountains, forests, and water bodies. In the second part, the effects of four restorative environmental characteristics based on Attention Restoration Theory were tested. In the first part, the results of psychological response showed that viewing pictures of urban landscape had lower attention restoration than nature, and forests had lower attention restoration than mountains and water bodies. The results of brain region activity showed that Right superior parietal lobe was activated when viewing city pictures. Moreover, only two brain regions related to visual reaction activated when viewing mountains and water bodies. Right superior parietal lobe is about top-down attention and may possibly relate to directed attention. In the second part, the results showed that coherence environment gave the lowest possibility of restorative experience among four and there were no significant differences on restoration among being away, fascination, and compatibility environments. In the perceived restorativeness scale, the compatibility environment had slightly higher attention restoration than the other three environments. The results of brain region activity, however, showed that the brain region activities related to visual reaction were all active in the four environments and many brain regions on frontal and parietal lobe were activated when viewing fascination environment. Frontal and parietal lobes are considered to handle high-level cognitive system and may consume more resources. The result implied lower attention restoration when viewing fascination environment. In conclusion, natural environment has more attention restoration effect than urban environment, and mountain and water have more attention restoration effect than forest in both psychological response and brain region activity. Future can go further into the effectiveness of the natural landscape perception mechanism to confirm the importance of the natural environment, and will also have a discussion of different direction in the field of neuroscience. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-17T09:23:51Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-101-R99628305-1.pdf: 4337756 bytes, checksum: ced8b59c908c0e51f8b3737045468324 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究目的 3 第三節 研究限制 4 第二章 文獻回顧 5 第一節 景觀效益 5 一、自然景觀效益 5 二、景觀型態與心理反應 6 第二節 注意力恢復相關理論 8 一、注意力的發展 8 二、注意力恢復理論 9 三、景觀恢復效益相關研究 12 第三節 腦區反應相關理論 16 一、視覺知覺路徑 16 二、注意力反應腦區 20 第四節 注意力恢復理論與腦區反應相關研究 26 第五節 小結 28 第三章 研究方法 30 第一節 研究假設與架構 30 第二節 研究設計 32 一、研究工具 32 二、研究地點 33 三、受測者 34 四、實驗設計 35 五、實驗流程 39 六、分析方法 45 第四章 研究結果與討論 47 第一節 環境類型與心理反應 47 一、樣本特性分析 47 二、景觀型態對心理反應之影響 48 三、恢復性環境特徵對心理反應之影響 53 第二節 環境類型與腦區反應 60 一、樣本特性分析 60 二、景觀型態對腦區反應之影響 60 三、恢復性環境特徵對腦區反應之影響 65 第五章 結論與建議 75 第一節 結論 75 一、不同環境類型對受測者恢復體驗程度及知覺注意力恢復力的影響 75 二、不同環境類型對受測者腦區反應的特性 76 三、景觀對心理反應與腦區反應之影響 78 第二節 後續研究建議 81 參考文獻 83 附錄 89 附錄一 研究問卷 89 附錄二 實驗受試者說明書 90 附錄三 實驗安全問卷 93 附錄四 聲明同意書 94 附錄五 實驗受試者前置檢查問卷 95 附錄六 倫委會臨床試驗計畫核定公文 96 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 不同景觀對心理及腦區反應之影響 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Effects of Landscape on Psychological Response and Brain Region Activity | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 100-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 連韻文,歐聖榮,林晏州,趙芝良 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 景觀效益,功能性磁振造影,注意力恢復理論,恢復性環境,恢復體驗, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | landscape benefits,functional magnetic resonance imaging,attention restoration theory,restorative environments,restorative experience, | en |
dc.relation.page | 97 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2012-08-20 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 園藝學研究所 | 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-101-1.pdf | 4.24 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。