臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：圖形簡化設計之視覺最佳化研究
作者：許峻誠 引用關係
作者(外文)：Chun Cheng Hsu
校院名稱：國立臺灣科技大學
系所名稱：設計研究所
指導教授：王韋堯
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2007
主題關鍵詞：圖形設計；簡化原則；完形心理學；物體辨識理論；視覺認知；設計操作；graphic design；law of simplicity；gestalt theory；object recognition theory；visual cognition；design operation
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(4) 博士論文(2) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:3
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:67
有些「圖形」容易被辨識、被偏好，有些圖形卻無法讓人喜好或理解，是什麼原因造成這樣的結果？在完形心理學（gestalt theory）、設計學、人因工程以及物體辨識理論有許多相關的探討。本研究旨在瞭解如何測量一個圖形是否容易被辨識以及一個「好的圖形」的設計建議。這方面的研究之所以重要的原因有三點：（1）它可以告訴我們一種測量「圖形簡化最佳值」的方式；（2）建立圖形設計量化描述的基礎以及（3）提供圖形簡化設計實作上參考。
第一階段，本研究以文獻分析與專家法進行現況調查，除了整理相關視覺理論外，也歸納出圖形簡化設計方法，主要可分成「整體形狀之萃取」和「部件特徵之萃取」兩種模式。前者可細分為：描繪外形輪廓、保留結構關係、平面化；後者又可細分為：強調視覺特徵、強調功能特徵、保留紋理與材質特徵。
第二階段，本研究以實驗法搭配設計實作的方式，試圖建構圖形量化描述的框架。利用迴歸分析，從外在圖形形狀之量化描述和內在簡化程度認知的評估，得到圖形簡化的操作型定義之方程式：圖形簡化程度＝1.276＋0.005（整體節點量）+0.131（部件元素量）。這個階段除了提出「整體形狀之萃取」和「部件特徵之萃取」兩種簡化設計操作與可測量性外，由其操作規則所產生的圖形也可以做為下一階段實驗的樣本，以改善過去研究在實驗圖形樣本操弄上的侷限，使統計結果更精準、設計規則的分析更明確。
第三階段以三因子實驗設計探討圖形「簡化手法組合、物體類別與受試者背景」三個自變項間對於視覺認知的影響，透過對「辨識正確率、反應時間、偏好」三個應變項的評估結果來瞭解「圖形簡化最佳值」。變異數分析結果發現：圖形「辨識正確率」分別受「簡化手法組合」和「物體類別」主效應的影響顯著，同時也受「簡化手法組合和物體類別」的交互作用影響。「辨識反應時間」分別受「簡化手法組合」和「受試者背景」的影響顯著，同時也受「簡化手法組合和物體類別」的交互作用影響。圖形「偏好」受「簡化手法組合」的主效應影響顯著，同時也受「簡化手法組合和受試者背景」的交互作用影響。
經過各階段的研究，有幾點發現：第一，雖然圖形的細節有助於提昇圖形的辨識正確率和反應時間，但當細節的量達到某一閾值後，即使再增加圖形的細節，也無助於提昇圖形的辨識正確率或反應時間，對具有設計背景人士而言，甚至會降低偏好度。基本上，圖形「整體節點量」達到25個或者「部件元素量」在3個以上，在圖形辨識上就會有較快的反應時間以及80%左右的正確率。另外，我們建議設計師在簡化圖形時，必須特別注意「物體類別」對於辨識正確率和反應時間的影響，尤其是自然物不適合部件減少的簡化模式。第二，雖然設計和非設計背景人士在辨識正確率上無差異，但是對於圖形簡化程度之偏好卻不同，設計人士的偏好與簡化程度呈現「倒U型」曲線關係；非設計人士則呈現直線之正相關。設計者必需特別注意此點差異。
本研究物體圖形設計的操作可從兩個角度來說明，由整體形狀來看，利用Attneave的圖形量化理論計算「節點量」；從部件元素的角度，利用RBC理論的幾何子（geons）計算「部件元素量」。通過本研究所歸納的一些簡單計算公式可以預測圖形辨識正確率、反應時間、偏好和簡化程度認知的評估值。圖形簡化設計手法的應用很廣泛，包括商標、公共標誌、造形設計以及各種相關電腦介面與圖示設計等等。設計師常憑感性與直覺處理圖形，本研究提出明確的設計操作規則與數值並不試圖取代設計的創意性，而是希望彌補設計師直覺之不足，或讓設計初學者有規則可循，透過這些預測方法提供設計師評估圖形簡化時的參考與建議。此外，研究希望能作為未來電腦輔助圖形應用以及各種圖形設計手法量化描述的基礎。
Some graphics can be easily distinguished and desired, while some cannot be desired or comprehended by the general public. What are the causes behind such outcomes? Relevant investigations in great deal have been found in the gestalt theory, design discipline, ergonomics, and object recognition theory. The purposes of this study are centered on understanding the means of measuring whether a graphic can be easily recognized and proposing a “Good Graphic” design. The three critical factors presented for the study in this field are: (1) Revelation of a method of measuring the most optimal graphic simplification value and, (2) establishment of the basis of quantitative description for graphic design (3) provision of reference for the clinical graphic simplification design.
As the preliminary stage, this study has adopted the literature review and expert interview to conduct the survey on the current state. In addition to the compilation of relevant visual theories, this study has deduced the following graphic simplification design methods. The methods are mainly categorized into two models: “Extraction of the Overall Conformation” and “Extraction of Partial Features”. The former can be further divided into the sketch of outlines, preservation of structural relationship, and stylization. The later can be divided into the emphasis on visual features, emphasis on functional features, preservation of texture, and material characteristics.
The second stage of the study attempted to construct the frame of the quantitative graphic description through the discipline of experiment in combination with the clinical design operation. By utilizing the regression analysis, the quantitative description of the external graphic shapes and the assessment of the degree of internal simplification cognition would yield the formula defined by the graphic simplification operation as: Graphic Simplification Degree＝1.276＋0.005(Overall Node Quantity)+0.131(Partial Element Quantity). This stage, in addition to the proposition of the simplicity design operation and measurability for the “Extraction of the Overall Conformation” and “Extraction of Partial Features,” graphics generated from the operation rules can also be used as the samples for the next experiment stage. Such would improve the limitations found in the manipulation of the experimental graphic samples in the previous studies for rendering the statistical results much more accurate and the analysis of design rules much more clarified.
The third stage was characterized by the tri-factor experiment design to investigate the effect of the three independent variables – simplification combination, object category, and participant profile- on the visual recognition. Based on the evaluation results generated from the three dependent variables – recognition accuracy, reaction time, and preference, and then “the most optimal graphic simplification values” could be comprehended. Analysis results of the ANOVA for total scores indicated that the “graphic recognition accuracy” was significantly correlated with the main effects of the simplification combination and the object category, and their interaction. The reaction time was individually influenced by the simplification combination and the participant profile at a significant degree while being simultaneously impacted by the interactions between the simplification combination and the object category. The graphic preference was significantly impacted by the main effect of the simplification combination and was simultaneously influenced by the interactions between the simplification combination and the participant profile.
After the conduction of the study at various stages, a number of findings were achieved. First of all, the graphic details were conducive to facilitate the promotion of the graphic recognition accuracy and reaction time; however, when the detail quantity is reaching a certain threshold value, the graphic recognition accuracy and reaction time could no longer be enhanced, even with an increase in the graphic details. For individuals with the design background, the degree of preference might be even decreased. Fundamentally, when the overall graphic node quantity exceeds 25 or more or the partial element quantity exceeds 3 or more, a faster reaction time and an approximately 80% accuracy can be achieved for the graphic recognition. We would recommend the designers pay exceptional attention to the effects exerted by the object category on the recognition accuracy and reaction time when simplifying the design, especially the simplification model for the elimination of unsuitable nature object parts. Second, even though the designers and non-designers exhibit no variations in the recognition accuracy, differential preferences over the degree of graphic simplification are discovered. Designers’ preference and degree of simplification present an inverted U curve relationship, while non-designers exhibit the positive linear correlation. Designers must exercise due attention to this variation.
The operation of object graphic designs in this study can be illustrated from two perspectives. From the perspective of overall form, the Attneave Graphic Quantification Theory can be applied to compute the number of nodes. From the perspective of the partial elements, the geons presented by the RBC Theory can be used for calculating the partial element quantity. A number of simple computation formulas deduced by the study can predict the evaluation values of the graphic recognition accuracy, reaction time, preference, and cognition of simplification degree. The scope of the graphic simplification design method application is comprehensive, including the trademark, public signs, style design, and various computer-related interface and illustration designs. Designers frequently process the graphics based on sensuality and intuition. The study has proposed clear design operation guidelines and numerical values while not attempting to replace the originality of the design. It is, however, intended to compensate the insufficiency in the designer’s intuition or to enable the design beginners with the rules to follow. Through these prediction methods, references and recommendations can then be provided to the designers when assessing the graphics. Moreover, the study is desired to be established as the fundamentals for the quantitative descriptions of the computer-aided graphic applications and various graphic design methods in the future.
外文部分
Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual Thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of The Creative Eye.Berkeley: University of California Press.
Attneave, F. (1954). Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psychological Review, 61, 183-193.
Aynsley, J. (2001). A century of graphic design. N.Y.: Hauppauge.
Babbie, E. (2002) The Basics of Social Research (2 Ed.), CA: Wadsworth.
Babbie, E. (2004) The Practice of Social Research (10th Ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.
Berlyne, D. E. (Ed.). (1974). Studies in The New Experimental Aesthetics: Steps Toward An Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation. New York: Halsted.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-By-Components: A Theory of Human Image Understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
Biederman, I., & Ju, G. (1988). Surface Versus Edge-Based Determinants of Visual Recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 38-64.
Biederman, I., Beiring, E., Ju, G., & Blickle, T. (1985). A comparison of the perception of partial vs. Degraded objects.Unpublished manuscript, Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Boas, F.(1951). Primitive Art. The Capitol Publishing.
Boersema, T., Zwaga, H.J.G. & Adams, A.S. (1989). Conspicuity in realistic scenes: An eye-movement measure. Applied Ergonomics, 20(4), 267-273.
Brems, D. a. W., W. In. (1987). Learning and preference for icon-based interfaces. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, CA.
Brugger, C. (1990). Advances in The International Standardization of Public Information Symbols. Information Design Journal, 6(1), 79-88.
Bruyas, M.-P., Le Breton, B., & Pauzié, A. (1998). Ergonomic Guidelines for The Design Of Pictorial Information. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics(21), 407-413.
Burford, B., Briggs, P., & Eakins, J. P. (2003). A Taxonomy of The Image: on The Classification of Content for Image Retrieval. Visual Communication, 2(2), 123-163.
Byrne, K. (1990). A 'Semantics' of Visual Design: The Care and Feeding of Studio Projects Within A Communication-Theory Context. Design Studies, 11(3), 141-163.
Caplin, S. (2001). Icon Design. London: Cassell & Co.
Chan, C. S. (1994). Operational Definitions of Style. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design, 21(2), 223-246.
Chan, C. S. (2000). Can Style Be Measured? Design Studies, 21(3), 277-291.
Chuang, M. C., & Shiau, K. A. (1998). A Study of Style Recognition And The Operation of Products in Which Ming-Style Chairs Are Used As Examples. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25(6), 837- 848.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003) Business Research Methods (8 Ed.), Taipei: Mcgraw Hill.
Decarlo, D., & Santella, A. (2002). Stylization and Abstraction of Photographs. Paper Presented At The SIGGRAPH 2002.
Decarlo, D., Finkelstein, A., Rusinkiewicz, S., & Santella, A. (2003). Suggestive Contours for Conveying Shape. Paper Presented At The SIGGRAPH 2003.
Dreyfuss, H. (1972). Symbol sourcebook. New York: Mcgraw- Hill.
Easterby, R., & Zwaga, H. (Eds.). (1984). Information design: The design and evaluation of signs and printed material. London: John Wiley and Sons.
Eysenck, M. (Ed.). (1998). Psychology: An Integrated Approach. England: Prentice-Hall.
Eysenck, M. W. (1993). Principles of Cognitive Psychology.UK: Taylor & Francis.
Eysenck, M., & Keane, M. (2005). Cognitive Psychology-A Student's Handbook (5 Ed.). UK: Psychology Press.
Federico, T. (1994). Carme torras: Interference detection between non-convex polyhedra revisited with a practical aim. ICRA 1994. 587-594.
Feldman, J., & Singh, M. (2005). Bayesian estimation of the shape skeleton. Psychological Review(112), 243-252.
Feldman, Jacob & Singh, Manish (2005). Information Along Contours and Object Boundaries Psychological Review, 112(1), 243–252
Forsythe, A., Sheehy, N., & Sawey, M. (2003). Measuring Icon Complexity: An Automated Analysis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(2), 334-342.
Foster, J. J. (1994). Evaluating The Effectiveness of Public Information Symbols. Information Design Journal, 7(3), 183-202.
Gaffan, D., & Heywood, A. (1993). A spurious category-specific visual agnosia for living things in normal humans and nonhuman primates. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience(5), 118-128.
Garner, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Potomac MD: Erlbaum.
Gerrig, R. J., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2002). Psychology And Life.
Gibson, E. (1969). Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Gibson, J. J. (1971). The Information Available in Pictures. Leonardo, 4, 27-35.
Goldstein, B. (2002). Sensation And Perception (6 Ed.). CA: Wadsworth-Thomson Learing.
Goldstein, B. (2005). Sensation And Perception (7 Ed.). CA: Wadsworth-Thomson Learing.
Gombrich, E. H. (1969). Art and Illusion: A Study in The Psychology of Pictorial Representation.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Gombrich, E. H. (1982). The Image & The Eye. London: Phaidon Press Ltd.
Gombrich, E. H. (1984). The Sense of Order. London : Phaidon Press
Gooch, B., Reinhard, E., & Gooch, A. (2004). Human Facial Illustrations: Creation and Psychophysical Evaluation. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 23(1), 27-44.
Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of Art: An Approach To A Theory of Symbols (2 Ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett.
Goodwin, C. J. (1995). Research in Psychology: Methods and Design:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Goonetilleke, R. S., Shih, H. M., On, H. K., & Fritsch, J. (2001). Effects of Training and Representational Characteristics in Icon Design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55(5), 741 - 760.
Gross, M. D. (1996). Elements That Follow Your Rules: Constraint Based Cad Layout. Paper Presented At The Proceedings of Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA), Tuscon, AZ.
Hagen, M. A. (1980). The Perception Of Pictures (Volume2).New York: Academic Press.
Hayward, W. G. (1998). Effects of Outline Shape in Object Recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception And Performance(24), 427-440.
Helbing, K. G., Jenkins, J., Kim, Y. S., & Miller, M. E. (1993). Influence of Icon Detail, Color, and Perspective on Preference, Recognition Time, and Search Time. Paper Presented At The The Proceedings of Interface '93.
Herman, I., & Duke, D. J. (2001). Minimal graphics. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(6), 18-21.
Hoffman, D. D., & Richards, W. (1985). Parts of Recognition. Cognition, 18, 65-96.
Hollis, R. (1994). Graphic Design: A Concise History.NY:Thames and Hudson.
Horton, W. (1994). The icon book: Visual symbol for computer systems and document. New York: John Wiley.
Hayward, W. G. (1998). Effects of outline shape on object. Recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(2), 427-440.
Huang, S.-M., Shieh, K.-K., & Chi, C.-F. (2002). Factors Affecting The Design Of Computer Icons. International Journal Of Industrial Ergonomics.
Humphrey, G. K., & Jolicoeur, P. (1988). Visual Object Identification: Some Effects of Image Foreshortening and Monocular Depth Cues. In Z. W. Pylyshyn (Ed.), Computational Processes in Human Vision: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (Pp. 371-428). Norwood: NJ: Ablex.
Jones, J. C. (1992). Design Methods (2 Ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Karb, P. (1973). A Primer Of Visual Literacy.Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: The MIT Press.
Kemmis, S., & Mctaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988). The Action Research Planner (3 Ed.). Victoria: Deakin University.
Kennedy, J. M. (1974). A Psychology of Picture Perception.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kirsch, R., & Kirsch, J. (1986). The Structure of Paintings: Formal Grammar and Design. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 13, 163-176.
Knapp, B. G. (1984). Scaling military symbols - a comparison of techniques to derive associative meaning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 28th Annual Meeting.
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design.London; New York: Routledge.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2002). Colour As A Semiotic Mode: Notes for A Grammar of Colour. Visual Communication, 1(3), 343-368.
Langer, S. K. (1953). Feeling And Form: A Theory of Art Developed From Philosophy in A New Key. NY: Scribner.
Lester, P. M. (2003). Visual Communication Images With Messages. CA: Wadsworth, Belmont.
Lin, R. (1992). An Application of The Semantic Differential to Icon Design. Paper Presented At The Proceedings of The Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting.
Lin, R. (1994). A Study of Visual Features For Icon Design. Design Studies, 15(2), 185-197.
Lippard, L. R. (1985). Pop art. New York: Thames and Hudson.
Lohse, G. (1991). Classifying graphical information. Behaviour and Information technology, 10(5), 419-436.
Mackworth, A., & Mokhtarian, F. (1988). The renormalized curvature scale space and the evolution properties of planar curves. Paper presented at the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision.San Francisco: Freeman.
Marr, D., & Nishihara, H. K. (1978). Representation and Recognition of Three Dimensional Shapes. Paper Presented At The Proceedings of The Royal Society Of London, Series B.
Mayer, R. (1981). A Dictionary of Art Terms And Techniques. NY: Happer & Row.
Mcburney, D. H. (2001). Research Methods. Australia: Wadsworth.
McCloud, S. (1993). Understanding comics: The invisible art. Northampton, MA: Tundra.
Mcdougall, S. J. P., De Bruijn, O., & Curry, M. B. (2000). Exploring The Effects of Icon Characteristics on User Performance: The Role of Icon Concreteness, Complexity, and Distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6(4), 291-306.
Meggs, P. (Ed.). (1997). Six Chapters In Design: Saul Bass, Ivan Chermayeff, Milton Glaser, Paul Rand, Ikko Tanaka, Henryk Tomaszewski. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.
Meggs, P. B. (1998). A History of Graphic Design (3 Ed.). N.Y.: Thames And Hudson.
Meyer, P., & Laveson, I. (1981). An Experience Judgement Approach to Tactical Flight Trainning. Paper Presented At The Proceedings of The Human Factors Society-25th Annual Meeting.
Meyer-Eppler, W. (1959). Grundlagen und anwendungen der informationstheorie. Kommunikation und kybernetik in einzeldarstellungen. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity For Processing Information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
Miller, G. A. (1991). The Science of Words.New York: Freeman.
Mitchell, W. J. T. (1986). Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Modley, R. (1976). Handbook of Pictorial Symbols.New York: Dover Press.
Mullet, K. S., D. (1995). Designing visual interfaces. America: A Prentice- Hall.
Munari, B. (1989) Da Cose Nasce Cose (物生物)(Zeng, Y. & Hong J. D.Trans.), Taipei: Bo Yuan Press Ltd.
Nadi, M. (1988). Interface Design And Evaluation- Semiotic Implications. In R. A. H. Hartson, D. (Ed.), Advances In Human- Computer Interaction (Vol. 2, Pp. 45-100).
Norman, D. A. (1998). The Design of Everyday Things.New York.: Basic Books.
Osborne, H. (1979). Abstraction and Artifice in Twentieth-Century Art.New York: Oxford University Press.
Palmer, S., Rosch, E., and Chase, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In J. L. a. A. Baddeley (Ed.), International symposium on attention and performance(attention and performance ix) (pp. 135-151). N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Peirce, C. S. (1958). Peirce on signs: Writings on semiotic.(ed. by James Hoopes) Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Peirce, C. S.(1933). Collected papers of charles sanders peirce(Hartshorne, C., & Weiss, P. (Eds.)). Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Read, H. A. (1985). A century of modern painting. New York: Universe Books.
Restle, F. (1979). Coding theory of the perception of motion configurations. Psychological Review, 86, 1-24.
Rookes, P., & Willson, J. (2000). Perception: Theory, Development and Organization: Routledge.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. in E. Rosch, Lloyd B. (Ed.), Cognition and categorization. N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328~350.
Rosch, E. H. (1975). Family Resemblances: Studies in The Internal Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573~605.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic Objects in Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology(8), 382-439.
Roukes, N. (1995). 設計的表現形式 (Design Synectics- Stimulating Creativity in Design).台北市: 六合出版社.
Ryan, T. A., & Schwartz, C. B. (1956). Speed of Perception As A Function of Mode of Representation. The American Journal of Psychology, 69, 60-69.
Salasoo, A. (1990). Towards usable icon sets: A case study from telecommunications engineering. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human factors Society 34th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, California.
Santella, A., & Decarlo, D. (2002). Abstracted Painterly Renderings Using Eye-Tracking Data. Paper Presented At The The International Symposium on Non Photorealistic Animation And Rendering (NPAR).
Schenk, P. (1991). The Role of Drawing in The Graphic Design Process. Design Studies, 12(3), 168-181.
Snodgrass, J. G. & V, M. (1980), A Set of 260 Pictures: Norms for Naming Agreement, Image Agreement, Familiarity and Visual Complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174-215. ��
Solso, R. L. (1994). Cognition and The Visual Arts. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Stammers, R. B. (1990). Judged appropriateness of icons as a predictor of identification. Performance. Paper presented at the Contemporary Ergonomics 1990, Lovesey.
Stammers, R. B., & Hoffman, J. (1991). Ransfer between icon sets and ratings of icon concreteness and appropriateness. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting 1991.
Takahashi, S. (1995). Aesthetic Properties of Pictorial Perception. Psychological Review, 102(4), 671-683.
Tarr, M. J. (1995). Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study of the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2(1), 55-82.
Treisman, A. G., G. (1980). A Feature Integration Theory of Attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Tufte, E. R. (1997). Visual explanations. Connecticut: Graphics Press.
Vessel, E. A., & Biederman, I. (2000). Picture preference habituation of full color scenes. Paper presented at the OPAM conference (Poster), New Orleans, Louisiana
Wade, N. J., & Swanston, M. (1991). Visual Perception: an Introduction. N. Y: Chapman and Hall.
waga, H. J., & Boersema, T., Zwaga, H.J.G. & Adams, A.S. (1983). Evaluation of a set of graphic symbols. Applied Ergonomics, 14(1), 43-54.
Waltz, D. L. (Ed.). (1978). A model for low level vision. N.Y: Academic Press.
Wang, M. Y. (1997). The Evaluation of Perceptual and Semantic Characteristics For A Set of Object Contour Pictures. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 39(2), 157-172.
Wang, M. Y., & Huang, J.T. (2002). The effect of global diagnosticity and complexity on object recognition. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 44, 189-210.
Warrington, E. K., & McCarthy, R. A. (1994). Multiple meaning systems in the brain: A case for visual semantics. Neuropsychologia, 32(12), 1465-1473.
Wickens, C. D., & Hollands, J. G. (1999). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance: Prentice Hall.
Wileman, R. E. (1993). Visual Communication.New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.
Worringer, W. (1953). Abstraction And Empathy: A Contribution To The Psychology of Style(Abstraktion Und Einfuhlung) (M. Bullock, Trans). N.Y.: International Universities Press.


中文部分
丁錦紅和林仲賢. (2002). 不同複述條件下命名難度對圖形記憶的影響. 心理學報(Acta Psychologica Sinica), 34(2), 135-140.
朱新明, & 李亦菲. (2001). 架設人與電腦的橋樑－西蒙的認知與管理心理學.台北市: 貓頭鷹出版社.
何懷碩. (1998). 苦澀的美感. 台北市: 立緒出版社.
何政廣主編. (1973). 畢卡索．畢卡索. 台北市: 雄獅出版社.
李澤厚，2003，美學三書(In 美學歷程)，天津社會科學院出版社，天津市.
林品章. (1998). 造形上之發想法的研究（五）－使用動物骨骼的造形開發. 1998設計論文研討會, 銘傳大學.
林品章. (1990). 基礎設計教育.台北市: 藝術家出版社.
邱皓政. (2006). 量化研究法(二)：統計原理與分析技術: 台北市：雙葉書廊.
哈羅德.奧斯本. (1988). 二十世紀藝術中的抽象與技巧. 成都: 四川美術出版社.
姚一葦 (1985)，美的範疇論，台灣開明書店，台北市.new window
孫世圃主編. (2000). 服飾圖案設計.北京: 中國紡織出版社.
徐書城. (1993). 繪畫美學.台北市: 五南出版社.
張文智和衛萬里. (2005). 應用聯合分析法於商標設計之最佳化研究－以羅昇企業設計個案為例. 設計學報, 10(4), 55-70.
張清芳、楊玉芳(2003)。影響圖畫命名時間的因素。心理學報，35(4)，447-454。
曹立人、朱祖祥. (1996). 規則多邊圖形的離散度、圖基過數及顯示條件的交互作用研究. 心理學報(Acta Psychologica Sinica), 28(3), 290-298.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：544（臺灣：537，外國：7） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1695817 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67490014
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上