Skip navigation

DSpace JSPUI

DSpace preserves and enables easy and open access to all types of digital content including text, images, moving images, mpegs and data sets

Learn More
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • Browse
    • Communities
      & Collections
    • Publication Year
    • Author
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Advisor
  • Search TDR
  • Rights Q&A
    • My Page
    • Receive email
      updates
    • Edit Profile
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 生物資源暨農學院
  3. 園藝暨景觀學系
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/51494
Full metadata record
???org.dspace.app.webui.jsptag.ItemTag.dcfield???ValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisor林晏州(Yan-Jou Lin)
dc.contributor.authorAngela Shi-Han Huangen
dc.contributor.author黃詩涵zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-15T13:36:17Z-
dc.date.available2021-02-15
dc.date.copyright2016-02-15
dc.date.issued2016
dc.date.submitted2016-01-27
dc.identifier.citation1. 吳仕傑、李哲源、李素馨、雷祖強,(2010),結合眼球追蹤與影像紋理技術於景觀視覺偏好萃取,第七屆數位國際研討會,(pp. 575-588),臺北:中國文化大學數位地球研究中心。
2. 李素馨、何英齊,(2000),應用瞳位追蹤方法建立景觀偏好模式之研究,造園學報,6(2),71-89。
3. 李素馨、陳育文,(2006),駕車者對廣告招牌與植栽形式之視覺認知與偏好研究,戶外遊憩研究,19(3),45-67。
4. 李素馨、雷祖強、吳仕傑、侯錦雄、曾國雄,(2015),以眼球追蹤技術檢驗眺望藏匿理論中的景觀偏好,戶外遊憩研究,28(2),1-18。
5. 林昆範,(2008),色彩原論(二版),臺北:全華科技。
6. 唐大崙、李天任、蔡政旻,(2006),以色彩喜好作業探索偏好與視線軌跡的關係,廣告學研究,25,55-79。
7. 湯喻晴、吳仕傑、黃筑筠、李素馨、雷祖強、劉立偉,(2011),以眼球運動模式探討水體景觀圖像之特性,第九屆造園景觀學術研討會論文集,臺灣造園景觀學會編,(pp. 453-468),臺北:臺灣大學。
8. 華鈺菁、林晏州,(1998),堤防與河灘地美化型式對視覺景觀偏好之影響,中國園藝,44(2),144-159。
9. 黃詩涵、林晏州、蘇愛媜,(2015),運用瞳位追蹤技術探討景觀視覺移動之影響因素,第十七屆休閒、遊憩、觀光學術研討會暨國際論壇論文集,中華民國戶外遊憩學會編,(pp. 1-18),南投:國立暨南國際大學。
10. 黃嘉健、李素馨、吳仕傑、王彥力,(2007),以注意力復癒體驗對水體景觀類型之視覺反應、景觀偏好與注意力復癒性之研究,第九屆休閒、遊憩、觀光學術研討會暨國際論壇論文集,中華民國戶外遊憩學會編,(pp. 46-59),臺中:靜宜大學。
11. 廖婉婷、鄭佳昆、林晏州,(2013),不同地點標籤對自然度感受及偏好影響之研究,戶外遊憩研究,26(4),31-56。
12. 謝孟倫、林晏州,(2011a),景觀色彩對自然景觀偏好之影響,戶外遊憩研究,24(2),27-50。
13. 謝孟倫、林晏州,(2011b),景觀複雜度對自然景觀偏好之影響,都市與計劃,38(4),427-447。
14. Anderson, N. C., Bischof, W. F., Laidlaw, K. E., Risko, E. F., & Kingstone, A. (2013). Recurrence quantification analysis of eye movements. Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 842-856.
15. Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. New York: John Wiley.
16. Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14(1), 5-28.
17. Bergstrom, K. J., & Hiscock, M. (1988). Factors influencing ocular motility during the performance of cognitive tasks. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 42(1), 1-23.
18. Berto, R., Massaccesi, S., & Pasini, M. (2008). Do eye movements measured across high and low fascination photographs differ? Addressing Kaplan’s fascination hypothesis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 185-191.
19. Borsci, S., Macredie, R. D., Barnett, J., Martin, J., Kuljis, J., & Young, T. (2013). Reviewing and extending the five-user assumption: A grounded procedure for interaction evaluation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(5):29, 1-23.
20. Buswell, G. (1935). How people look at pictures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21. Clay, G. R., & Daniel, T. C. (2000). Scenic landscape assessment: The effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49(1), 1-13.
22. Crane, H. D. (1994). The Purkinje image eyetracker, image stabilization, and related forms of stimulus manipulation. In D. H. Kelly (Ed.), Visual science and engineering: Models and applications (pp. 15-89). New York: Marcel Dekker.
23. Daniel, T. C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1), 267-281.
24. Daniel, T. C., & Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method (Vol. 66). Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
25. Daniel, T. C., & Vining, J. (1983). Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 39-84). New York: Plenum Press.
26. de Bettencourt, J. S., Peterson, G. L., & Wang, P. K. (1978). Managing wilderness travel: A Markov-based linear programming model. Environment and Planning, 10, 71-79.
27. De Lucio, J. V., Mohamadian, M., Ruiz, J. P. Banayas, J. & Bernaldez, F. G. (1995). Visual landscape exploration as revealed by eye movement. Landscape and Urban Planning, 34, 135-142.
28. Dearden, P. (1984). Factors influencing landscape preferences: An empirical investigation. Landscape Planning, 11(4), 293-306.
29. Dorr, M., Martinetz, T., Gegenfurtner, K. R., & Barth, E. (2010). Variability of eye movements when viewing dynamic natural scenes. Journal of Vision, 10(10):28, 1-17.
30. Duchowski, A. (2007). Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). London, UK: Springer Science & Business Media.
31. 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.
32. Fei-Fei, L., Iyer, A., Koch, C., & Perona, P. (2007). What do we perceive in a glance of a real-world scene? Journal of Vision, 7(1):10. 1-29.
33. Foulsham, T., & Kingstone, A. (2010). Asymmetries in the direction of saccades during perception of scenes and fractals: Effects of image type and image features. Vision Research, 50(8), 779-795.
34. 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.
35. Henderson, J. M. (2003). Human gaze control during real-world scene perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 498-504.
36. Henderson, J. M. (2011). Eye movements and scene perception. In S. P. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist & S. Everling (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 593-606). New York: Oxford University Press.
37. Herzog, T. R. (1985). A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 225-241.
38. Herzog, T. R. (1989). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 27-43.
39. Herzog, T. R., & Bosley, P. J. (1992). Tranquility and preference as affective qualities of natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 115-127.
40. Holmqvist, K., Nystrom, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & Van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41. Jacob, R. J. K., & Karn, K. S. (2003). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver the promises. In J. Hyona, R. Radach & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 573-605). North Holland: Elsevier.
42. Judd, T., Ehinger, K., Durand, F., & Torralba, A. (2009, September). Learning to predict where humans look. In 2009 IEEE 12th international conference on computer vision (pp. 2106-2113). Japan: IEEE.
43. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature. NY: Cambridge University Press.
44. Kaplan, S. (1975). An informal model for the prediction of preference. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush & J. G. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions, and resources (pp.92-101). PA: Dowden Hurchinson and Ross.
45. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception & Psychophysics, 12(4), 354-356.
46. Kim, M., Kang, Y., & Abu Baker, S. (2013). A nightscape preference study using eye movement analysis. Alam Cipta Journal, 6(2), 85-99.
47. Liversedge, S. P., Gilchrist, I. D., & Everling S. (2011). The Oxford handbook of eye movements. New York: Oxford University Press.
48. Lyons, E. (1983). Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behavior, 15(4), 487-511.
49. Mackworth, N. H., & Morandi, A. J. (1967). The gaze selects informative details within pictures. Perception & Psychophysics, 2(11), 547-552.
50. Massaro, D., Savazzi, F., Di Dio, C., Freedberg, D., Gallese, V., Gilli, G., & Marchetti, A. (2012). When art moves the eyes: A behavioral and eye-tracking study. PloS One, 7(5), 1-16.
51. Nagai, M., Oyana-Higa, M., & Miao, T. (2007, October). Relationship between image gaze location and fractal dimension. In IEEE International conference on systems, man and cybernetics (pp. 4014-4018). Japan: IEEE.
52. Nielsen, J. (2000). Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users. Retrieved June, 24, 2014. From: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-many-test-users/
53. Nielsen, J., & Landauer, T. K. (1993, May). A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In Proceedings of the INTERACT'93 and CHI'93 conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 206-213). New York: ACM.
54. Nordh, H., Hagerhall, C. M., & Holmqvist, K. (2010). Exploring view pattern and analyzing pupil size as a measure of restorative qualities in park photos. Acta Hort, 881, 767-772.
55. Nordh, H., Hagerhall, C. M., & Holmqvist, K. (2013). Tracking restorative components: Patterns in eye movements as a consequence of a restorative rating task. Landscape Research, 38(1), 101-116.
56. Ohtani, A. (1971). An analysis of eye movements during a visual task. Ergonomics, 14(1), 167-174.
57. Parkhurst, D., Law, K., & Niebur, E. (2002). Modeling the role of salience in the allocation of overt visual attention. Vision Research, 42(1), 107-123.
58. Potocka, I. (2013). The Lakescape in the eyes of a tourist. Quaestiones Geographicae, 32(3), 85-97.
59. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
60. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457-1506.
61. Rayner, K., & Morrison, R. E. (1981). Eye movements and identifying words in parafoveal vision. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17(3), 135-138.
62. Sevenant, M., & Antrop, M. (2009). Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(9), 2889-2899.
63. Shafer, E. L., & Richards, T. A. (1974). Comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes (NE-302). Upper Darby, PA: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.
64. Shuttleworth, S. (1980). The use of photographs as an environment presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management, 11(1), 61-76.
65. Stamps, A. E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14(2), 155-175.
66. Svobodova, K., Sklenicka, P., Molnarova, K., & Vojar, J. (2014). Does the composition of landscape photographs affect visual preferences? The rule of the golden section and the position of the horizon. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 143-152.
67. Tatler, B. W. (2007). The central fixation bias in scene viewing: Selecting an optimal viewing position independently of motor biases and image feature distributions. Journal of Vision, 7(14):4, 1-17
68. ’t Hart, B. M., Vockeroth, J., Schumann, F., Bartl, K., Schneider, E., Konig, P., & Einhauser, W. (2009). Gaze allocation in natural stimuli: Comparing free exploration to head-fixed viewing conditions. Visual Cognition, 17(6-7), 1132-1158.
69. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34(4), 273-286.
70. Tseng, P. H., Carmi, R., Cameron, I. G., Munoz, D. P., & Itti, L. (2009). Quantifying center bias of observers in free viewing of dynamic natural scenes. Journal of Vision, 9(7):4, 1-16.
71. Van Essen, D. C., Anderson, C. H., & Felleman, D. J. (1992). Information processing in the primate visual system: an integrated systems perspective. Science, 255(5043), 419-423.
72. Wierwille, W. W., & Connor, S. A. (1983). Evaluation of 20 workload measures using a psychomotor task in a moving-base aircraft simulator. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 25(1), 1-16.
73. Wohlwill, J. F. (1968). Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Perception & Psychophysics, 4(5), 307-312.
74. Wu, D. W.-L., Anderson, N. C., Bischof, W. F., & Kingstone, A. (2014). Temporal dynamics of eye movements are related to differences in scene complexity and clutter. Journal of Vision, 14(9):8, 1-14.
75. Young, L. R., & Sheena, D. (1975). Survey of eye movement recording methods. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 7(5), 397-429.
76. Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9(1), 1-33.
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/51494-
dc.description.abstract人們對景觀的理解與記憶與其觀看之處息息相關,因此瞭解人類的觀景行為變得重要,瞳位追蹤技術為最客觀且直接量測人眼觀看位置的儀器,因此本研究以瞳位追蹤技術探討人類景觀中的觀景行為。藉由文獻回顧,發現近來與景觀有關之瞳位追蹤研究仍多為探索性之初步研究,大致分為由上至下及由下至上兩種理論,由上至下多欲以認知模式進行連結探討,由下至上發展出醒目圖來預測凝視。然而,到目前為止醒目圖還無法準確預測凝視停留之位置。有鑑於此,本研究欲以由上至下之偏好以及由下至上之景觀屬性兩種方面著手以探討人類之觀景行為。本研究之主要目的在探討景觀偏好、景觀屬性及觀景行為之間的關係。首先透過專家法選出山景、水景、開闊景觀及樹林景觀之四種景觀的照片各24張,其中各4張作為測試照片,再透過ImageJ軟體將餘下80張自然景觀照片轉換為CIE L*a*b*之色彩空間,得出L*、a*、b*之平均値及標準差,並計算出彩度值;Benoit 1.31軟體計算出碎形維度值。此過程得出8個景觀屬性變項,分別為色彩組成7項、複雜度1項。各變項分別計算出相對值及差異值以便進行組間的比較。瞳位追蹤實驗將4張同類型的景觀照片組合成2×2的組圖,20組試驗隨機排序播放10秒,中間夾有2秒之校正十字,瞳位追蹤實驗後再重新播放15秒並給予1至10分的偏好評分,一張試驗內評分不可重複,研究共收集45份有效樣本。瞳位追蹤指標包含總凝視次數、總凝視時間、平均凝視時間、觀看次數及瞳孔直徑,瞳位追蹤指標及景觀偏好同景觀屬性計算出相對值及差異值。結果顯示在景觀屬性對景觀偏好之影響方面,紅綠變化大、黃藍變化大、彩度高及複雜度低的景觀之景觀偏好會高。在景觀屬性對觀景行為之影響方面,紅綠變化大及彩度高之景觀會吸引視覺注意力、黃藍變化大的景觀促使視覺探索性。在景觀偏好與觀景行為之關係方面,發現偏好高之景觀會促使人觀看。研究同時將凝視移動建立成凝視移轉機率矩陣,發現在第一次凝視時人們會偏向觀看左上方之景觀,接下來跳視多為水平移動、次為垂直移動,並有繼續由左上方、右上方、右下方到左下方之順序觀看,但當景觀之偏好高、彩度高時會凝視會停留更多次。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractWhat we comprehend and recollect in a landscape is closely related to where we look, therefore attention is required for the understanding of human viewing behaviour. Eye tracking technology is an objective and first-hand observation of human visual perception; thus we employ eye tracking technology as a means of understanding visual perception in the landscape. Studies have shown that eye tracking studies on landscape were mostly exploratory, and can roughly be categorized into top-down and bottom-up approaches. Top-down approaches usually employ the cognitive method of landscape perception, bottom-up approaches can be seen using computer generated salience maps to predict fixations, yet so far they have not matched humans’ ability to predict fixation locations. As a result, we employ both top-down and bottom-up approaches in examining viewing behavior. The objectives of our research is aimed at finding the relationship between landscape properties, landscape preference, and viewing behaviour. First, we employed expert approach to select 24 photographs out of four landscape categories, including mountain landscape, aquatic landscape, open landscape and forest landscape, 4 photos in each category were used as a filler. The remaining 80 photographs were converted into CIE L*a*b* color space, and were measured the mean and standard deviation of L*, a*, b* respectively using ImageJ, then calculated the chroma value. We also computed the fractal dimension value of each photographs using Benoit 1.31. This process resulted in 8 landscape property variables, 7 color composition variables and 1 complexity variable. All variables were converted into relative values and difference values in order to make comparisons between groups. All photographs were arranged in a 2 by 2 across display, resulting in a total of 20 trials and 4 fillers. In the eye tracking experiment, every trial was presented for 10 seconds, with a 2-second calibration display in between. Trails were displayed again for 15 seconds while landscape preference was tested. Participants were asked to rate each landscape photograph a preference rating from 1 to 10, without giving the same score in one trial. Our study collected 45 valid samples. Eye tracking metrics includes total fixation duration, total fixation count, average fixation duration, gaze count and pupil diameter. Landscape preference scores and eye tracking metrics were both being calculated relative and difference values accordingly.
With regard to landscape properties and landscape preference relationship, high red-green variation, high yellow-blue variation and high chroma lead to high landscape preference. With regard to landscape properties and viewing behaviour, high red-green variation and high chroma lead to visual attention, high yellow-blue variation lead to visual exploration. In respect of landscape preference and viewing behaviour, high landscape preference is associated with strong visual activity. Our study also established a fixation transition matrix; results suggested that people tend to direct their first fixation to the upper left landscape, followed by horizontal saccades and vertical saccades. Gaze sequence tend to initiate in the upper left, followed by the upper right, the lower right to the lower left in a counterclockwise manner, but will fixate more in a landscape when the preference or chroma is higher.
en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T13:36:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
ntu-105-R02628303-1.pdf: 11927428 bytes, checksum: 85a3b3d57d4fd60228931e423c192d5e (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2016
en
dc.description.tableofcontents口試委員審定書 i
謝誌 iii
中文摘要 v
Abstract vii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究緣起 1
第二節 研究目的與內容 3
第三節 研究流程 4
第二章 文獻回顧 7
第一節 瞳位追蹤理論與相關研究 7
壹、瞳位運動理論 7
貳、瞳位追蹤技術方法與發展 11
參、瞳位追蹤相關研究 19
肆、小結 32
第二節 景觀美質評估理論及相關研究 37
壹、景觀美質評估基本理論 37
貳、景觀美質評估之相關研究及應用 39
參、小結 43
第三章 研究方法 45
第一節 研究架構與假設 45
第二節 研究設計 48
壹、景觀照片選取與呈現 48
貳、實驗操作與進行 50
第三節 研究變項測量與分析方式 53
壹、變項定義與測量 53
貳、變項資料處理與分析 64
第四章 研究結果與討論 67
第一節 受測者背景資料分析 67
壹、受測者基本資料 67
貳、受測者偏好程度評值 67
參、景觀類型各變項數值分析結果 68
肆、瞳位追蹤資料之數值 75
第二節 景觀屬性與景觀偏好之關係 78
壹、景觀屬性與景觀偏好之相關性分析 78
貳、各類型景觀屬性與景觀偏好之相關性分析 80
第三節 景觀屬性與觀景行為之關係 83
壹、景觀屬性與觀景行為之相關性分析 83
貳、各類型景觀屬性與觀景行為之相關性分析 86
第四節 景觀偏好與觀景行為之關係 96
壹、景觀偏好與觀景行為之相關性分析 96
貳、各類型景觀偏好與觀景行為之相關性分析 97
第五節 熱點分析圖及凝視次數之探討 101
壹、單一景觀之熱點分析圖 101
貳、各試驗之熱點分析圖 112
第六節 景觀屬性差異與凝視次數移轉機率之關係 129
壹、第一次凝視移轉機率 130
貳、凝視移轉機率 132
參、凝視移轉模型 137
第五章 結論與建議 145
第一節 結論 145
第二節 後續研究建議 149
參考文獻 151
附錄一 本研究照片及各變項數值 157
附錄二 研究調查問卷 161
dc.language.isozh-TW
dc.subject景觀偏好zh_TW
dc.subject瞳位追蹤zh_TW
dc.subject凝視移轉機率zh_TW
dc.subject複雜度zh_TW
dc.subject色彩組成zh_TW
dc.subject凝視移轉機率zh_TW
dc.subject複雜度zh_TW
dc.subject色彩組成zh_TW
dc.subject景觀偏好zh_TW
dc.subject瞳位追蹤zh_TW
dc.subjectcolor compositionen
dc.subjectfixation transition matrixen
dc.subjectcomplexityen
dc.subjectcolor compositionen
dc.subjectlandscape preferenceen
dc.subjecteye trackingen
dc.subjectfixation transition matrixen
dc.subjectlandscape preferenceen
dc.subjectcomplexityen
dc.subjecteye trackingen
dc.title景觀屬性對觀景行為之影響zh_TW
dc.titleThe Effect of Landscape Properties on Viewing Behaviouren
dc.typeThesis
dc.date.schoolyear104-1
dc.description.degree碩士
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee李素馨(Su-Hsin Lee),張俊彥(Chun-Yen Chang),顏宏旭(Hung-Hsu Yen),鄭佳昆(Chia-Kuen Cheng)
dc.subject.keyword瞳位追蹤,景觀偏好,色彩組成,複雜度,凝視移轉機率,zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordeye tracking,landscape preference,color composition,complexity,fixation transition matrix,en
dc.relation.page162
dc.rights.note有償授權
dc.date.accepted2016-01-27
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
Appears in Collections:園藝暨景觀學系

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
ntu-105-1.pdf
  Restricted Access
11.65 MBAdobe PDF
Show simple item record


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

社群連結
聯絡資訊
10617臺北市大安區羅斯福路四段1號
No.1 Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. 106
Tel: (02)33662353
Email: ntuetds@ntu.edu.tw
意見箱
相關連結
館藏目錄
國內圖書館整合查詢 MetaCat
臺大學術典藏 NTU Scholars
臺大圖書館數位典藏館
本站聲明
© NTU Library All Rights Reserved