請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/83183
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭佳昆 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.advisor | Chia-Kuen Cheng | en |
dc.contributor.author | 陳皓揚 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author | Hao-Yang Chen | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-01-10T17:11:28Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-11-09 | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2023-01-07 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2022 | - |
dc.date.submitted | 2002-01-01 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | 王倩雯(2020)。應用虛擬實境技術探討都市環境轉移至自然空間之恢復效益(未出版碩士論文),國立臺灣大學,台北市。 危芷芬(2020)。環境心理學。臺北市:五南圖書。 江彥政(2009)。自然環境資訊對心理評價反應影響之模式(未出版博士論文),國立中興大學,台中市。 吳政澤(2009)。虛擬實境(vr)於都市景觀設計互動應用之研究--以新竹市東門街改造為例(未出版碩士論文),輔仁大學,新北市。 吳婉瑄(2019)。使用者的分佈模式對於擁擠感的影響(未出版碩士論文),國立臺灣大學,台北市。 李英弘、梁文嘉(2000)。景觀評估中之心理學模式之研究,造園景觀學報,7(1),67-87。 李唐安(2020)。虛擬實境景觀類型對生命力與注意力恢復力的影響(未出版碩士論文),國立臺灣大學,台北市。 周先捷(2005)。環境偏好與環境恢復性知覺關係之研究─以山景景觀為例(未出版碩士論文),靜宜大學,台中市。 邱方歆(2018)。以演化觀點探討物理環境對地方情感連結之影響(未出版碩士論文),國立臺灣大學,台北市。 侯錦雄(1985)。景觀知覺與景觀設計。東海學報,26,857-867。 施景堯(2013)。恐懼的性質:從視覺注意力到眺匿理論(未出版碩士論文),國立臺灣大學,台北市。 施景堯、周紓帆、鄭佳昆(2015)恐懼的變數:日夜變化對眺匿平衡的影響。戶外遊憩研究,28(3),93-120. 紀芬蓮(2008)。以質性觀點探索環境神秘性涵構(未出版碩士論文),國立中興大學,台中市。 許媁鈞、林晏州(2015)。環境色彩組成與調和對情緒體驗與景觀偏好之影響。戶外遊憩研究,28(3),37-60。 陳昀生(2007)景觀結構指數、環境偏好與環境品質關係之研究碩士(未出版碩士論文),國立中興大學,台中市。 黃宣茹(2020)色彩與照明對餐廳消費者等待時間知覺之影響(未出版碩士論文),國立臺北教育大學,台北市。 黃振寧(2021)都市人行環境空間封閉性對時間知覺之影響(未出版碩士論文),國立臺灣大學,台北市。 楊茹媛(2021)沉浸式景觀體驗之聲音分貝與頻率對於個體生心理效益之影響(未出版碩士論文),輔仁大學,新北市。 歐聖榮、柯嘉鈞、許哲瑜(2012)。景觀設計中眺望藏匿理論模式之應用。建築學報(80),111-129. 鄭佳昆、沈立、全珍衡(2009)。熟悉度於不同情境下對視覺景觀偏好之影響探討。戶外遊憩研究,22(4),1-21。 鄭博云(2019)神秘性與偏好關係之再探討(未出版碩士論文),國立臺灣大學,台北市。 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),27-50。 Andrews, M., & Gatersleben, B. (2010). Variations in perceptions of danger, fear and preference in a simulated natural environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 473-481. Annerstedt, M., Jönsson, P., Wallergård, M., Johansson, G., Karlson, B., Grahn, P., . . . Währborg, P. (2013). Inducing physiological stress recovery with sounds of nature in a virtual reality forest — results from a pilot study. Physiology & Behavior, 118, 240-250. Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape: Wiley. Appleton, J. (1984). Prospects and refuges re-visited. Landscape journal, 3(2), 91-103. Armougum, A., Orriols, E., Gaston-Bellegarde, A., Marle, C. J.-L., & Piolino, P. (2019). Virtual reality: A new method to investigate cognitive load during navigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101338. Bell, S. (1999). Landscape: Patterns, perception and process, efnspon: Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK. Bishop, I. (1992). Visualization in the natural environment: A look forward. Landscape and Urban Planning, 21(4), 289-291. Bohil, C. J., Alicea, B., & Biocca, F. A. (2011). Virtual reality in neuroscience research and therapy. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(12), 752-762. Bourassa, S. C. (1990). A paradigm for landscape aesthetics. Environment and Behavior, 22(6), 787-812. Brown, T. C., Richards, M. T., Daniel, T. C., & King, D. A. (1989). Recreation participation and the validity of photo-based preference judgments. Journal of Leisure Research, 21(1), 40-60. Castronovo, F., Oprean, D., Liu, Y., & Messner, J. (2017). Application of immersive virtual reality systems in an interdisciplinary design studio course. Paper presented at the Lean and Computing in Construction Congress (LC3): Volume I Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Computing in Construction (JC3). Chiang, Y.-C., Nasar, J. L., & Ko, C.-C. (2014). Influence of visibility and situational threats on forest trail evaluations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 166-173. Coates, G. (1992). Program from invisible site-a virtual sho, a multimedia performance work presented by george coates performance works. San Francisco, CA. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences lawrence earlbaum associates. 20th–: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Craik, K. H. (1968). The comprehension of the everyday physical environment. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 34(1), 29-37. Cubukcu, E., & Nasar, J. L. (2005). Influence of physical characteristics of routes on distance cognition in virtual environments. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32(5), 777-785. Danahy, J. W. (2001). Technology for dynamic viewing and peripheral vision in landscape visualization. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1), 127-138. Daniel, T. C. (1976). Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method (Vol. 167): Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range …. Daniel, T. C., & Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring scenic beauty: The scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Res. Pap. No. RM-167, Fort Collins, CO. Diemer, J., Alpers, G. W., Peperkorn, H. M., Shiban, Y., & Mühlberger, A. (2015). The impact of perception and presence on emotional reactions: A review of research in virtual reality. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 26. Dunn, R. (1976). Landscape with photographs: Testing the preference approach to landscape evaluation. Journal of Environmental, Management, 4, 15-26. Dupont, L., Antrop, M., & Van Eetvelde, V. (2014). Eye-tracking analysis in landscape perception research: Influence of photograph properties and landscape characteristics. Landscape Research, 39(4), 417-432. Ernst, M. O., Banks, M. S., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2000). Touch can change visual slant perception. Nature Neuroscience, 3(1), 69-73. Fabos, J., & Mcgregor, A. (1979). Assessment of visual. Aesthetic Landscape Qualities: Report to the Australian Heritage Commission. Gao, T., Liang, H., Chen, Y., & Qiu, L. (2019). Comparisons of landscape preferences through three different perceptual approaches. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(23), 4754. Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, ma, us: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. Gimblett, H. R., Itami, R. M., & Fitzgibbon, J. E. (1985). Mystery in an information processing model of landscape preference. Landscape Journal, 4(2), 87-95. Greenbaum, P. (1992). The lawnmower man. Film and video, 9(3), 58-62. Griffin, T., Giberson, J., Lee, S. H. M., Guttentag, D., Kandaurova, M., Sergueeva, K., & Dimanche, F. (2017). Virtual reality and implications for destination marketing. Gutierrez, M., Vexo, F., & Thalmann, D. (2008). Stepping into virtual reality: Springer Science & Business Media. Hagerhall, C. M. (2000). Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional swedish cultural landscape: Prospect-refuge, mystery, age and management. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(1), 83-90. Hammitt, W. (1980). Designing mystery into trail-landscape experiences. J. Interpretation, 5, 16-19. Hanyu, K. (1997). Visual properties and affective appraisals in residential areas after dark. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(4), 301-315. Hanyu, K. (2000). Visual properties and affective appraisals in residential areas in daylight. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(3), 273-284. Hartmann, T., Wirth, W., Schramm, H., Klimmt, C., Vorderer, P., Gysbers, A., . . . Saari, T. (2016). The spatial presence experience scale (spes). Journal of Media Psychology. Heft, H., & Nasar, J. L. (2000). Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static displays. Environment and Behavior, 32(3), 301-322. Hendrix, C., & Barfield, W. (1996). Presence within virtual environments as a function of visual display parameters. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 5(3), 274-289. Heydarian, A., Carneiro, J. P., Gerber, D., Becerik-Gerber, B., Hayes, T., & Wood, W. (2015). Immersive virtual environments versus physical built environments: A benchmarking study for building design and user-built environment explorations. Automation in Construction, 54, 116-126. Herzog, T. R. (1988). Mystery. Grand Valley Review, 4(1), 8. Herzog, T. R. (1989). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9(1), 27-43. Herzog, T. R., & Bryce, A. G. (2007). Mystery and preference in within-forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 39(6), 779-796 Herzog, T. R., & Flynn-Smith, J. A. (2001). Preference and perceived danger as a function of the perceived curvature, length, and width of urban alleys. Environment and Behavior, 33(5), 653-666. Herzog, T. R., & Kirk, K. M. (2005). Pathway curvature and border visibility as predictors of preference and danger in forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 37(5), 620-639. Herzog, T. R., & Kropscott, L. S. (2004). Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environment and Behavior, 36(5), 659-677. Herzog, T. R., & Kutzli, G. E. (2002). Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 34(6), 819-835. Herzog, T. R., & Miller, E. J. (1998). The role of mystery in perceived danger and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 30(4), 429-449. Herzog, T. R., & Smith, G. A. (1988). Danger, mystery, and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 20(3), 320-344. Hollenhorst, S. J., Brock, S. M., Freimund, W. A., & Twery, M. J. (1993). Predicting the effects of gypsy moth on near-view aesthetic preferences and recreation appeal. Forest Science, 39(1), 28-40. Hull, R. B., & Stewart, W. P. (1992). Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(2), 101-114. Iachini, T., Coello, Y., Frassinetti, F., Senese, V. P., Galante, F., & Ruggiero, G. (2016). Peripersonal and interpersonal space in virtual and real environments: Effects of gender and age. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 154-164. Ikemi, M. (2005). The effects of mystery on preference for residential façades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(2), 167-173. Kalawsky, R. S., Bee, S. T., & Nee, S. P. (1999). Human factors evaluation techniques to aid understanding of virtual interfaces. BT Technology Journal, 17(1), 128-141. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective: Cambridge university press. Kaplan, S. K. R. (1982). Cognition and environment : Functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger. Kent, R. L. (1989). The role of mystery in preferences for shopping malls. Landscape Journal, 8(1), 28-35. Kisker, J., Gruber, T., & Schöne, B. (2021). Experiences in virtual reality entail different processes of retrieval as opposed to conventional laboratory settings: A study on human memory. Current Psychology, 40(7), 3190-3197. Kuper, R. (2015). Examining the visual effects of plant foliation and vegetative winter dormancy on preference and mystery. Landscape Journal, 34(2), 139-159. Lange, E. (2001). The limits of realism: Perceptions of virtual landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1), 163-182. Mcandrew, F. T. (1993). Environmental psychology. Belmont, CA, US: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Meitner, M. J. (2004). Scenic beauty of river views in the grand canyon: Relating perceptual judgments to locations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 3-13. Meitner, M. J., & Daniel, T. C. (1997). Effects of animation and interactivity on human responses to a visualized forest site. Project final report. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team. Mujber, T. S., Szecsi, T., & Hashmi, M. S. J. (2004). Virtual reality applications in manufacturing process simulation. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 155-156, 1834-1838. Mustafa, K. B. M.-S. (1994). A cross-cultural comparison of visual landscape preferences for the natural environment. Colorado State University. Nasar, J. L. (1992). Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and application: Cambridge University Press. Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics:The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 377-401. Nasar, J. L., & Cubukcu, E. (2011). Evaluative appraisals of environmental mystery and surprise. Environment and Behavior, 43(3), 387-414. Nasar, J. L., & Jones, K. M. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and Behavior, 29(3), 291-323. Nichols, S., Haldane, C., & Wilson, J. R. (2000). Measurement of presence and its consequences in virtual environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(3), 471-491. Paes, D., Irizarry, J., & Pujoni, D. (2021). An evidence of cognitive benefits from immersive design review: Comparing three-dimensional perception and presence between immersive and non-immersive virtual environments. Automation in Construction, 130, 103849. Rogers, B., & Graham, M. (1979). Motion parallax as an independent cue for depth perception. Perception, 8(2), 125-134. Rossano, M. J., West, S. O., Robertson, T. J., Wayne, M. C., & Chase, R. B. (1999). The acquisition of route and survey knowledge from computer models. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(2), 101-115. Rossetti, T., & Hurtubia, R. (2020). An assessment of the ecological validity of immersive videos in stated preference surveys. Journal of Choice Modelling, 34, 100198. Roth, M. (2006). Validating the use of internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment—an empirical study from germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(3), 179-192. Ruddell, E. J., Gramann, J. H., Rudis, V. A., & Westphal, J. M. (1989). The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty models. Environment and Behavior, 21(4), 393-412. Saar, A. (2014). Preference of different graphic technique images in design projects. Sacchelli, S., Grilli, G., Capecchi, I., Bambi, L., Barbierato, E., & Borghini, T. (2020). Neuroscience application for the analysis of cultural ecosystem services related to stress relief in forest. Forests, 11(2), 190. Schöne, B., Wessels, M., & Gruber, T. (2019). Experiences in virtual reality: A window to autobiographical memory. Current Psychology, 38(3), 715-719. Schuemie, M. J., Van Der Straaten, P., Krijn, M., & Van Der Mast, C. A. (2001). Research on presence in virtual reality: A survey. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(2), 183-201. Scott, S. C. (1993). Complexity and mystery as predictors of interior preferences. Journal of Interior Design, 19(1), 25-33. Sevenant, M., & Antrop, M. (2011). Landscape representation validity: A comparison between on-site observations and photographs with different angles of view. Landscape Research, 36(3), 363-385. Shafer, E. L., & Brush, R. O. (1977). How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes. Landscape Planning, 4, 237-256. Shafer, E. L., & Richards, T. A. (1974). A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes (Vol. 302): Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, Northeastern Forest Experiment …. Shi, J., Honjo, T., Zhang, K., & Furuya, K. (2020). Using virtual reality to assess landscape: A comparative study between on-site survey and virtual reality of aesthetic preference and landscape cognition. Sustainability, 12(7), 2875. Šikl, R. (2012). Zrakové vnímání: Grada. Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments (five): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 6(6), 603-616. Smith, J. W. (2015). Immersive virtual environment technology to supplement environmental perception, preference and behavior research: A review with applications. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(9), 11486-11505. Stamps, A. E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71(3), 907-913. Stamps, A. E. (1993). Simulation effects on environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 38(2), 115-132. Stamps, A. E. (2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 1-16. Stamps, A. E. (2007). Mystery of environmental mystery. Environment and Behavior, 39(2), 165-197. Stamps, A. E. (2012). Atmospheric permeability and perceived enclosure. Environment and Behavior, 44(3), 427-446. Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of communication, 42(4), 73-93. Sutherland, I. (1965). The ultimate display. Svobodova, K., Vojar, J., Sklenicka, P., & Filova, L. (2018). Presentation matters: Causes of differences in preferences for agricultural landscapes displayed via photographs and videos. Space and Culture, 21(3), 259-273. Trent, R. B., Neumann, E., & Kvashny, A. (1987). Presentation mode and question format artifacts in visual assessment research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 225-235. Tress, B., & Tress, G. (2003). Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape planning—a study from denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(3), 161-178. Van Den Berg, A. E., & Ter Heijne, M. (2005). Fear versus fascination: An exploration of emotional responses to natural threats. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 261-272. Vince, J. (2004). Introduction to virtual reality: Springer Science & Business Media. Wang, T.-H., Wu, W.-H., Shen, L., & Cheng, C.-K. (2021). Exploring the validity of using immersive virtual reality technique on perceived crowding of recreational environment. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 17(3), 299-308. Wergles, N., & Muhar, A. (2009). The role of computer visualization in the communication of urban design—a comparison of viewer responses to visualizations versus on-site visits. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(4), 171-182. Willemsen, P., & Gooch, A. A. (2002, 24-28 March 2002). Perceived egocentric distances in real, image-based, and traditional virtual environments. Paper presented at the Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality 2002. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225-240. Xiang, Y., Liang, H., Fang, X., Chen, Y., Xu, N., Hu, M., . . . Gao, T. (2021). The comparisons of on-site and off-site applications in surveys on perception of and preference for urban green spaces: Which approach is more reliable? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 58, 126961. Young, R. N. (1992). Two dimensional landscape photography and the three dimensional landscape. Landscape Research, 17(1), 38-46. Yu, C.-P., Lee, H.-Y., & Luo, X.-Y. (2018). The effect of virtual reality forest and urban environments on physiological and psychological responses. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 35, 106-114. Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., & Anderson, T. W. (1974). Review: ‘Perception and measurement of scenic resources in the southern connecticut river valley’ publication no r-74-1. Landscape Research, 1(8), 10-11. 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/123456789/83183 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 景觀評估中景觀偏好被視為評估一種依據,而在景觀偏好的相關研究中,Kaplan & Kaplan(1989)提出的偏好矩陣為最常被提及的理論,而神秘感是偏好矩陣中的的預測因子之一。在神祕感被提出時,定義中雖然有提及對於方向性指引的需求,但並沒有針對其來源、影響做出相關說明。因此,過往神秘感的相關研究中,皆透過採用平面媒體做為刺激物,進而指定受測者的觀看方向。然而,在平面媒體上,並無法針對方向性因子進行控制,因此在缺乏其他有效測量神秘感工具的情況下,有關方向性對於神祕感的影響始終沒有研究與定論。 沈浸式虛擬實境(Immersive Virtual Reality, IVR)技術,隨著科技進步逐漸成熟與普及,同時被認為可以讓使用者在虛擬環境中,產生與在真實環境中相同的反應;但是對於IVR是否能成為另一種有效測量環境神秘感的工具,目前並沒有相關研究針對此議題進行探討。因此,本研究共分為三個研究,所有研究皆以實驗法進行,首先透過研究一,利用IVR與照片評估法呈現相同環境,確認使用IVR評估環境神秘的效果;再經由研究二,使用IVR作為實驗工具,比較不同觀看模式之間差異,補足過往神秘感研究對於方向性影響的不確定性;最後藉著研究三,同樣使用IVR作為研究工具,將環境依照方向與神祕程度進行組合,比較不同環境間神秘感之差異,釐清方向性與神祕感變化的組合如何影響環境神秘感評估。 在研究一中,配對檢定結果顯示,IVR評估法與照片評估法,在環境神秘感與空間臨場感上,前者評值顯著高於後者;在相關性的部分,IVR評估法與照片評估法,在環境神秘感與空間臨場感變項上,兩者之間的評值具有顯著的高度相關;由此可知,受測者在每個場景中的評分變動趨勢相同,同時具有顯著差異。說明IVR可作為除傳統照片評估法以外,另一種有效評估環境神秘感的研究工具。 研究二經由配對檢定結果顯示,在指定觀看方向與不限觀看方向兩種觀看模式下,進行環境神秘感評估,兩者之評值並無實質上的差異,表示即使觀景者在全景的狀況觀看景觀,觀景者依然會以特定方向之景觀作為神祕感的評估依據,因此可確認方向性會影響神秘感評估。。 研究三結果說明當起始觀看方向不同,對於整體環境神秘感評估具有顯著的影響。不同環境方向中神秘感變化組合,各組之間在環境神秘感評估上有顯著差異:前景為高神秘環境,將不受到後方環境神秘感的影響;前景為低神秘環境,整體環境神祕感評值,與後方環境神秘感變化具有正向關係。 本研究以三個子研究證明,IVR可做為新的測量環境神秘感的工具;進行神秘感評估時,受測者本身就會指定評估方向;以及方向性與不同神秘感組合,將會影響環境神秘感的評估。因此未來在評估環境神秘感,可使用IVR替代傳統照片評估工具,提供更精準的實驗控制以及豐富且準確的空間資訊。而過往研究中所採用的刺激物,可能並不能完全代表在真實環境所感受的神秘感,必須要做進一步的檢視;同時,在進行環境設計時,可透過控制觀看方向性,使觀察者在相同環境中,感受到環境神秘感的變化,豐富環境體驗的經驗。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Mystery was one of four informational variables included by Kaplan & Kaplan (1989) in their well- known “preference matrix.” Mystery offers the promise of learning more about an environment as one moves further into it. Which means when someone needs to enter the environment, the need to get information about directionality arises to know where to go. However, no empirical evidence had shown if the directionality of viewing behavior would influence perception of mystery. A possible reason is the difficulty of manipulating direction of viewing behavior both in 2D photo simulations and on-site experiences. Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR) has become a popular research equipment which allows subjects to integrate into virtual environments that simulate real-world situations. However, it remains doubtful if IVR can be another tool for measuring mystery, since its ability to identify the level of mystery in the environment has not been tested empirically. For the issues aforementioned, this thesis consisted of three major parts. The first part tested the ability of IVR technique for identify the level of mystery in the environment. The second part intend to prove the influence of directionality of viewing behavior on perception of mystery using IVR technique. The purpose of the third study to explore the both the directionality in viewing behavior and changes in the level of environmental mystery on perception of mystery. In the first study, pairwise comparisons showed that photographic and IVR ratings differed significantly in preference, mystique, and spatial presence. All paired evaluations in the experiments were significantly correlated, indicating similar trends across methods. Therefore, IVR technology can measure the level of mystery in an environment as accurately as a photo. In other words, IVR will be another tool for measuring mystery. The second study focused on the influence of directionality of viewing behavior on perception of mystery. The results showed that no matter the media provide information about directionality or not. Subject will use the environment ahead as a basis for perceiving mystery. That is to say, directionality of viewing behavior will influence perception of mystery. The results of the third study revealed that subjects’ evaluation was different when same environment was viewed from in front or behind the subjects. Put simply, the environment mystery was influenced by the mystery level of where you start to view. Results also showed the change mystery's level of behind environment would not influence people measure mystery, when the in front environment reached a high mystery level. Furthermore, the study also found objects’ mystery evaluation were positively related to the mystery's level of behind environment when in front environment has a low mystery setting. The results from the above three studies confirmed IVR technique could be a valid tool in measuring mystery. In the same time, this study also proved that one’s evaluation of mystery would be influenced by the directionality in viewing behavior. Therefore, IVR could serve as an ideal research tool in landscape studies which could providing sufficient study controls. Additionally, all the results could contribute to the future design and planning tasks. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-01-10T17:11:28Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-01-10T17:11:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章、緒論 1 第一節、研究背景 1 第二節、研究目的 2 第三節、研究流程 3 第二章、文獻回顧 4 第一節、景觀評估 4 第二節、景觀神秘感 10 第三節、沉浸式虛擬實境技術 22 第四節、小結 30 第三章、以沉浸式虛擬實境測量景觀神秘感之效果 33 第一節、研究背景 33 第二節、研究目的 34 第三節、研究方法 35 第四節、研究結果 42 第五節、小結 44 第四章、觀看方向性對於景觀神秘感判斷之影響 46 第一節、研究背景 46 第二節、研究目的 46 第三節、研究方法 47 第四節、研究結果 53 第五節、小結 57 第五章、環境組合變化對於景觀神秘感判斷之影響 59 第一節、研究背景 59 第二節、研究目的 59 第三節、研究方法 60 第四節、研究結果 67 第五節、小結 72 第六章、討論與建議 74 第一節、研究結論 74 第二節、未來研究建議與應用 78 參考文獻 81 附錄一 研究一之照片評估實驗問卷 92 附錄二 研究一之IVR評估問卷內容 95 附錄三 研究二之問卷內容 99 附錄四 研究三之問卷內容 105 | - |
dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
dc.title | 以沉浸式虛擬實境探討方向性與觀景方式對景觀神秘感之影響 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Understanding the Effects of Directionality and Viewing Media on Landscape Mystery Using Immersive Virtual Reality | en |
dc.title.alternative | Understanding the Effects of Directionality and Viewing Media on Landscape Mystery Using Immersive Virtual Reality | - |
dc.type | Thesis | - |
dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | - |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林晏州;張俊彥;郭彰仁;顏宏旭 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Yann-Jou Lin;Chun-Yen Chang;Chang-Jen Kuo;Hung-Hsu Yen | en |
dc.subject.keyword | 景觀偏好,神祕感,沉浸式虛擬實境,方向性, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Landscape Preference,Mystery,Immersive Virtual Reality,Directionality, | en |
dc.relation.page | 108 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202204016 | - |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
dc.date.accepted | 2022-09-28 | - |
dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | - |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 園藝暨景觀學系 | - |
dc.date.embargo-lift | 2027-09-26 | - |
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 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-2509202221013500.pdf 此日期後於網路公開 2027-09-26 | 6.27 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。