(3.236.6.6) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/23 22:06
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:鍾雨蓁
研究生(外文):Chung, Yu-Jen
論文名稱:曖昧語意產品的設計特徵與不同語意距離的認知反應
論文名稱(外文):The design features of ambiguous semantic products and objective cognitive responses of different semantic distance in an emotional sense
指導教授:王靜儀王靜儀引用關係劉芃均劉芃均引用關係
指導教授(外文):Wang, Ching-YiLiu, Peng-Jyun
口試委員:王靜儀劉芃均詹孝中黃巧慧
口試委員(外文):Wang, Ching-YiLiu, Peng-JyunChan, Shaio-ChungHuang, Chiao-Huei
口試日期:2016-05-18
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:亞洲大學
系所名稱:創意商品設計學系
學門:設計學門
學類:產品設計學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2016
畢業學年度:104
語文別:中文
論文頁數:58
中文關鍵詞:語意差異法曖昧語意產品設計事件相關腦電位N400
外文關鍵詞:semantic differential methodcontradictory semanticsproduct designEvent-related Potentials
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:631
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:51
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
在設計研究中,調查人們對產品造形感受時,研究者通常會使用雙極形容詞的語意差異法,如「現代的vs.傳統的」、「簡單的vs.複雜的」。然而,許多產品設計案例明顯傳達曖昧語意的感覺,如復古車兼具傳統與現代的外觀,同時隱含曖昧語意。目前對於量測產品語意感受的研究多為主觀性的問卷量測,對於客觀性的量測非常缺乏。因此,本研究選用感性度、新奇性、現代感及複雜度的四個語意向度,嘗試運用語意差異法的「標準差」篩選不同語意距離的產品圖片。再透過腦電波儀器紀錄「事件相關腦電位」(Event-related Potentials, ERPs),偵測不同語意距離的刺激物,包括「一致的」、「曖昧的」和「不一致的」配對組合,並量測具有語意觸發效果的N400成分,紀錄大腦的反應次數、反應時間,及振幅大小。研究結果顯示,在行為反應方面,「一致的」反應次數略高於「不一致的」,而「不一致的」和「曖昧的」反應次數接近;「一致的」反應時間比「不一致的」還要快,而「曖昧的」和「一致的」反應同樣快速。腦波方面,「不一致的」組合(即為典型的N400操弄手法),如預期中可以在右後腦的部位發現N400效果;「曖昧的」組合僅在左後腦區出現微幅的N400效果;而「一致的」組合沒有出現N400效果。「不一致的」和「曖昧的」雖皆出現N400效果,但兩者的語意處理機制在大腦中是不同的。本研究推測「不一致的」N400效果是對刺激物前後脈絡的「否定」;而「曖昧的」N400效果則是在語意之間產生雙向的「肯定」。從以上結果可知,過去的問卷調查是量測人們的「主觀」感受;而腦波可以「客觀」地偵測到人們心理的直覺反應。因此,在未來量測產品的曖昧語意上,腦波或許可做為研究的輔助量測工具。
In design research, researchers usually use the semantic differential of bipolar type adjectives to investigate people’s feelings in the process of shaping products, for example, modern versus traditional and simple versus complex. However, many cases of design products obviously convey feelings with ambiguous meanings. For example, vintage car’s appearance may include traditional and modern aspects, implying ambiguous meanings at the same time. Most research surveying the feelings related to products employ subjective questionnaire surveys at present; there is a distinct lack of objective surveys. Therefore, our research uses four semantic dimensions: sensibility, novelty, contemporaneity and complexity. The aim was to use the standard deviation of semantic differential to sieve the products’ photos for different semantic distance. With electroencephalography, we recorded Event-related Potentials and detected stimuli of different semantic distance, including: consistent, ambiguous, and inconsistent paired combination. Moreover, we surveyed the N400 element’s effect of semantic priming and recorded reaction times of the brain as well as amplitude. The results of our research reveal that the reaction times of consistent are greater than they are for inconsistent in the aspect of behavior reaction; reaction times are close between ambiguous and inconsistent; reaction time of consistent is much quicker than it is for inconsistent; and the reaction time of ambiguous is as fast as it is for consistent. For brainwaves, the N400 effect prospectively in the hindbrain right side can be found for the combination of inconsistent; the combination of consistent has less N4000 effect in the hindbrain left side, and doesn’t show the N400 effect. Although combination of inconsistent and ambiguous do show the N400 effect, their semantic sublexical processing differs in the brain. In our research, we presume that the N400 effect of inconsistent acts as a stimulus toward the negative before and after the choroid, and the effect of ambiguous is two-way positive within the semantic realm. From the above consequence, we can know that while questionnaires in the past surveyed people’s subjective feelings, physiological brainwaves can detect people’s mental feelings objectively. Therefore, in order to survey products’ ambiguous semantics in the future, we can use brainwaves as our objective accessibility to people’s semantic reactions.
審定書 I
誌謝 II
中文摘要 III
Abstract IV
目錄 V
表目錄 VII
圖目錄 VIII
一、 研究背景與動機 1
1.1 研究目的 2
1.2 研究範圍與限制 2
1.3 研究貢獻與重要性 2
1.4 研究架構與流程 3
二、 文獻探討 5
2.1 曖昧定義與相關文獻探討 5
2.1.1 曖昧語意的定義 5
2.1.2 曖昧語意的量測方式 5
2.2 視覺曖昧的錯覺反應 7
2.3 曖昧圖形的視覺辨識機制 9
2.4 腦波基本觀念與相關文獻探討 12
2.4.1 腦波事件相關電位概述 12
2.4.2 N400成分與特性 13
2.4.3 語意不一致(semantic incongruity)的N400研究 13
2.4.4 語意曖昧(semantic ambiguity)的N400研究 17
2.5 文獻總結 20
三、 研究方法 21
3.1 卡片分類法 21
3.2 腦電波實驗 22
3.2.1 實驗設備 22
3.2.2 腦波資料擷取與分析 24
四、 實驗一:卡片分類語意偏左、曖昧、偏右距離的椅子樣本 25
4.1 研究目的 25
4.2 樣本 25
4.3 受試者 26
4.4 實驗程序 26
4.5 資料分析 27
4.6 實驗一結果與討論 28
4.7 實驗一討論 36
五、 實驗二:腦波實驗檢測語意偏左、曖昧、偏右距離的椅子之N400效果 37
5.1 研究目的 37
5.2 受試者 37
5.3 樣本 37
5.4 實驗程序 40
5.5 資料分析 41
5.5.1 行為資料 41
5.5.2 腦波資料 43
5.6 實驗二結果 44
5.6.1. 行為反應 44
5.6.2. N400 (300~500ms)效果 47
5.7 實驗二討論 50
5.7.1. 不同語意距離的行為反應 50
5.7.2. 不同語意距離的N400效果 50
六、 結論與建議 51
參考文獻 53
英文部分 53
中文部分 58

表 目 錄
表 1語言誤謬與視錯覺的比較 6
表 2語意觸發效果:受試者對語意相關比語意不相關的配對組合的反應還要快 12
表 3語言曖昧的文字配對 16
表 4語意距離分成偏左、曖昧、偏右語意3個階段 25
表 5依照分類結果挑選代表性樣本之條件 26
表 6感性度(理性VS.感性) 27
表 7新奇性(典型VS.獨特) 28
表 8現代感(傳統VS.現代) 29
表 9複雜度(複雜VS.簡單) 30
表 10不同背景的人對感性度語意曖昧的椅子有顯著差異的案例 31
表 11不同背景的人對新奇性語意曖昧的椅子有顯著差異的案例 32
表 12不同背景的人對現代感語意曖昧的椅子有顯著差異的案例 33
表 13不同背景的人對複雜度語意曖昧的椅子有顯著差異的案例 34
表 14受試者對文圖的相配反應有三種組合 41
表 15受試者對語意配對反應出「不一致的」、「曖昧的」,以及「一致的」反應次數和反應時間之行為結果 43
表 16 T檢定「不一致的」、「曖昧的」,以及「一致的」語意配對的反應次數 44
表 17 T檢定「不一致的」、「曖昧的」,以及「一致的」的語意配對反應時間 45
表 18「不一致的」、「曖昧的」,以及「一致的」相配反應的N400平均振幅結果 47
表 19「不一致的」、「曖昧的」,以及「一致的」兩兩相配反應比較之T檢定結果 48

圖 目 錄
圖1產品曖昧語意案例「冰塊燈」:此產品是溫暖的還是冰冷的? 1
圖2兩年研究規劃之流程圖 3
圖3三種假設的曖昧語意分配模式之範例 5
圖4曖昧圖形的辨識與搜索歷程 9
圖5圖形的衍生特性:「斜線+正L型」組合圖形(C上圖)有衍生特性;「斜線+倒L型」組合圖形(C下圖)則沒有 10
圖6 N400的振幅大小與語意背離的程度有關 13
圖7分類任務的圖組比較 15
圖8 N400效果 15
圖9在曖昧的腦波實驗中使用刺激物的例子 18
圖10卡片分類實驗情境:「圖片分群」方式進行9個尺度的語意偏左、曖昧、偏右分類 20
圖11實驗室內受試者頭戴電極帽坐於螢幕前 21
圖12受試者臉部黏貼電極的參考點及眼動校正位置 22
圖13測試用樣本圖卡範例 24
圖14感性度、新奇性、現代感及複雜度的語意之範例圖卡 38
圖15腦波實驗程序 39
圖16腦波資料擷取27顆電極的振幅,並劃分為9個腦區域 42
圖17受試者對語意配對反應出「不一致的」、「曖昧的」,以及「一致的」反應次數 44
圖18受試者對語意配對反應出「不一致的」、「曖昧的」,以及「一致的」反應時間 45
圖19「不一致的」、「曖昧的」,以及「一致的」相配反應在F5、FZ、F6、C5、CZ、C6、P5、PZ和P6電極 46


英文部分
[1] Andreassi, J. L. (2000). Psychophysiology: Human Behavior and Physiological Response, New Jersey: Lawrence ErlbraumAssociates.
[2] Barsalou, L.W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency and frequency of instantiation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11, 629-654.
[3] Barsalou, L.W. (1987). The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[4] Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding, Psychological Review, 94(2), 115-117.
[5] Bobes, M. A., Lei, M. A., Ibáñez, S., Yi, H., & Valdes-Sosa, M. (1996). Semantic matching of pictures in schizophrenia: A cross-cultural ERP study. Biological Psychiatry, 40, 189-202.
[6] Breckler, S. J. (1994). A comparison of numerical indexes for measuring attitude ambivalence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 350-365.
[7] Chong, C. L., & Siew, N. M. (2014). Fostering Students’ Creativity through Van Hiele’s 5 phase-Based Tangram Activities. Journal of Education and Learning, 3(2), 66-80.
[8] Coles, M., & Rugg, M. D. (1996). Event-related brain potentials: an introduction. In Rugg, M. D., & Coles, M.(Eds.) Electrophysiology of Mind. Oxyford University Press.
[9] Collins, A. M., & Quillian. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240-247.
[10] Dyck, M., & Brodeur, M. B. (2015). ERP evidence for the influence of scene context on the recognition of ambiguous and unambiguous objects. Neuropsychologia, 72, 43-51.
[11] Eddy, M. D., & Holcomb, P. J. (2009). Electrophysiological evidence for size invariance in masked picture repetition priming. Brain and Cognition, 71, 397-409.
[12] Eddy, M. D., Schmid, A, & Holcomb, P. J. (2006). Masked repetition priming and event-related brain potentials: A new approach for tracking the time-course of object perception. Psychophysiology, 43, 564-568.
[13] Ellis, A. E., & Nelson, C. A. (1999). Category prototypicality judgments in adults and children: Behavioral and electrophysiological correlates. Developmental Neuropsychology, 15, 193-211.
[14] Federmeier, K.D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: longterm memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 469-495.
[15] Fiell, C., & Fiell, P. (1997). 1000 Chairs. Kolin, New York : Taschen.
[16] Gardner, P. L. (1987). Measuring ambivalence to science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(3), 241-247.
[17] Gerlach, C., Law, I., and Paulson, O. B., 2006, Shape configuration and category-specificity. Neuropsychologia, 44, 1247-1260.
[18] Goodman, J., Clarke, S., Langdon, P., & Clarkson, J. P. (2007). Designers’ Perceptions of Methods of Involving and Understanding Users. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4554, 127-136.
[19] Gregory, R. L. (1997). Eye and brain: The psychology of seeing. Hillsdale, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[20] Guerra, S., Ibanez, A., Martin, M., Bobes, M. A., Reyes, A., Mendoza, R., Bravo, T., Dominguez, M. & Sosa, M. V. (2009). N400 deficits from semantic matching of pictures in probands and first-degree relatives from multiplex schizophrenia families, Brain and Cognition, 70(2), 221-230.
[21] Hamm, J. P, Johnson, B. W., & Kirk, I. J. (2002).Comparison of the N300 and N400 ERPs to picture stimuli in congruent and incongruent contexts. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113, 1339-1350.
[22] Hekkert, P., & Wieringen, P. C. W. (1996). The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. Acta Psychologica, 94, 117-131.
[23] Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & Van Wieringen, P. C. W. (2003). Most advanced, yet acceptable: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 111-124.
[24] Hemachandra, R. (2008). 500 chairs: Celebrating traditional and innovative designs. New York: Lark Books.
[25] Hsiao, K. A., & Chen, L. L. (2006). Fundamental dimensions of affective responses to product shapes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36, 553-564.
[26] Huang, H. W., Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2010). Imagine that! ERPs provide evidence for distinct hemispheric contributions to the processing of concrete and abstract concepts. Neuroimage, 49(1), 1116-1123.
[27] Juottonen, K., and Revonsuo, A., & Lang, H. (1996). Dissimilar age influences on two ERP waveforms (LPC and N400) reflecting semantic context effect. Cognitive Brain Research, 4, 99-107.
[28] Juottonen, K., Revonsuo, A., & Lang, H. (1996). Dissimilar age influences on two ERP waveforms (LPC and N400) reflecting semantic context effect. Cognitive Brain Research, 4, 99-107.
[29] Kiefer, M. (2001). Perceptual and semantic sources of category-specific effects: Event-related potentials during picture and word categorization. Memory and Cognition, 29(1), 100-116.
[30] Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203-205.
[31] Lin, C. P., Shao, Y. J., Wong, L. H., Li, Y. J., & Niramitranon, J. (2011a). The impact of using synchronous collaborative virtual tangram in children’s geometric. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 250-258.
[32] Lin, M .H., Wang, C. Y., Cheng, S. K., & Cheng, S. H. (2011a). An event-related potential study of semantic style-match judgments of artistic furniture. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 82, 188-195.
[33] Lin, M. H., Fang, Y. M., & Wang, C. Y. (2011b). A preliminary study of applying ERP on users’ reactions to web pages with different presentation formats. The Science of Design, 57(5), 89-98.
[34] Luck, S. J. (2005). An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[35] Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
[36] Mathalon, D. H., Roach, B. J., and Ford, J. M. (2010) Automatic semantic priming abnormalities in schizophrenia. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 75, 157-166.
[37] Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 90, 227-234.
[38] Nodine, C. F., & Kundel, H. L.(1987). Perception and display in diagnostic imaging. Radio Graphs, 7, 1241-1250.
[39] Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
[40] Paivio, A. (2007). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. Mahwah, N. J., L. Erlbaum Associates.
[41] Palmer, S. E. (1975).The effects of contextual scenes on the identification of objects. Memory Cognition, 3, 519-526.
[42] Passmore, J. (1985). Recent philosophers: A supplement to a hundred years of philosophy. Duckworth Publishing, New York, USA.
[43] Paz-Caballero, D., Cuetos, F., & Dobarro, A. (2006). Electrophysiological evidence for a natural/artifactual dissociation. Brain Research, 1067, 189-200.
[44] Pexman, P. M., Hargreaves, I. S., Siakaluk, P. D., Bodner, G. E., & Pope, J. (2008). There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition. Psych on. Bull. Rev. 15, 161-167.
[45] Pomerantz, J. R., Sager, L. C., & Stoever, R. J. (1977). Perception of wholes and of their component parts: Some configural superiority effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(3), 422-435.
[46] Pomerantz, J.R. (1981). Perceptual organization in information processing. In M. Kubovy & J. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual organization (pp. 141-180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[47] Pritchard, W. S., Shappell, S. A., & Brandt, M. W. (1991). Psychophysiology of N200/N400: A review and classification scheme. Advances in psychophysiology, 4, 43-106.
[48] Proverbio, A. M., Zotto M. D., & Zani, A. (2007). The emergence of semantic categorization in early visual processing: ERP indices of animal vs. artifact recognition. BMC Neuroscience, 8(24), 1-16.
[49] Rabovsky, M., Sommer, W., & Abdel Rahman, R. (2012). The time course of semantic richness effects in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(11), 1-9.
[50] Raichle, M. E. (1994). Images of the Mind: Studies with modern imageing techniques. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 333-356.
[51] Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 1975, 7, 573-605.
[52] Roth, E. M. & Shoben, E. J., (1983). The effect of context on the structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 346-378.
[53] Russell, J. A. (1978). Evidence of convergent validity on the dimensions of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1152-1168.
[54] Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161-1178.
[55] Semlitsch, H. V., Anderer, P., Schuster, P., & Presslich, O. (1986). A solution for reliable and valid reduction of ocular artifacts applied to the P300 ERP. Psychophysiology, 23, 695-703.
[56] Siew, N. M., Chong, C. L., Abdullah, M. R. (2013). Facilitating students’ geometric thinking through van hiele’s phase-based learning using tangram. Journal of Social Sciences, 9(3), 101-111.
[57] Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 120-136.
[58] Stuss, D. T., Picton, T. W., & Cerri, A. M. (1988). Electrophysiological manifestations of typicality judgments. Brain Langue. 33, 260-272.
[59] Suwa, M., Purcell, T. & Gero, J. S. (1998). Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers' cognitive actions. Design Studies 19: 455-483.
[60] Taler, V., Kousaie, S., & López Zunini, R. (2013). ERP measures of semantic richness: The case of multiple senses. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(5), 1-5.
[61] Thayer, R. E. (1989). The biopsychology of mood and activation. New York: Oxford University Press.
[62] Whissell, C. M. (1981). Pleasure and activation revisited: Dimensions underlying semantic responses to fifty randomly selected "emotional" words. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53, 871-874.


中文部分
[1] Gregory, R. L. (2009). 視覺心理學(Eye and brain)(瞿錦春、張芬芬譯)。台北市,五南。
[2] Koffka, K. (2000)。格式塔心理學原理(Principle of gestalt psychology)(黎煒譯)。台北:昭明。(原作1935 年出版)
[3] 林銘煌、王靜儀(2012)。以眼動路徑探討多義圖形的辨識歷程。設計學報,17(2),49-72。
[4] 洪偉肯、陳玲鈴(2010)。如何量測產品的曖昧語意。設計學報,15(4),41-58。
[5] 陳烜之(2007) 。認知心理學。台北市,五南。
[6] 鄭仕坤(2005)。事件相關腦電位在情節記憶的研究進展。應用心理研究,28 ,75-90。

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔