臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

歸功於虛擬實境(VR)技術的發展，使得虛擬實境可以逐漸應用在現 實生活當中。近幾年來，博物館一直嘗試應用虛擬實境的特性來增強參訪者的 體驗，目前也有許多研究工作著重在為博物館中的文物建模，但可惜的是與虛 擬實境可為博物館展覽帶來的效果之相關研究相對較少。因此，在本研究中， 我們用 S—O—R 的研究模型，並針對不同的文物類型:器物類、書畫類、書 法類，探討虛擬實境的系統設計特性對使用者體驗的影響。
本研究的研究方法是採用問卷形式，參訪者會實際體驗故宮博物院展覽
的虛擬實境。問卷分析後的結果顯示，虛擬實境的系統設計對使用者體驗及未
來的參訪意圖有很大的相關性。本研究比較也針對不同的文物類型做比較，結
果表示不同的文物類型適合的系統設計是不同的。最後也根據問卷結果對不同
的文物類型提供了未來系統設計的建議，可以作為未來設計相關博物館展覽虛
擬實境的參考。

Virtual reality (VR) technology has already reached the level of maturity allowing it to be introduced into real-life applications. Recently, museums have been trying to apply it to enhance visitors’ experience and significant research efforts have also been made toward modeling relics in VR. However, there have been few studies on the real effects of VR exhibitions.
In this study, we draw upon the stimulus–organism–response framework to theorize how system design feature stimuli affect the visitors’ experience of the VR exhibition at the National Palace Museum (NPM) and how the experience of VR impacts the visit intention. Furthermore, the study compares the VR effects across different kinds of relics (artifact, painting, and calligraphy). We create four empirical models: Model 0 does not consider the differences among relics, Model 1 focuses on artifacts, Model 2 focuses on paintings, and Model 3 focuses on calligraphies.
A comparison of the different models shows that in Model 0, design features affect the VR experience, which in turn, impacts the visitors’ visit intention. The VR experiences were characterized by two dimensions: immersion and involvement. The former emphasized the visitors passively immersed in the VR and the latter referred to visitor initiative. Comparing Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3, all the design features have impact on the immersion level for all relic types. In case of calligraphy, the vividness impacts the involvement level and in case of artifacts, the interactivity impacts the involvement level.
Based on the analysis, we also propose an improvement for the NPM’s present VR exhibition. The findings of this study can be referenced when designing new VR exhibitions for different relics.

TABLE OF CONTENTS I
LIST OF TABLES III
LIST OF FIGURES IV
摘要 1
ABSTRACT 2
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 VIRTUAL REALITY IN MUSEUM EXHIBITION 7
2.2 STIMULUS-ORGANISM-RESPONSE (S–O–R) FRAMEWORK 8
2.2.1 The design features as stimulus (S) 9
2.2.2 The visitors’ NPM’s VR experience as organismic(O)
11
2.2.3 The visit intention as responses (R) 14
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES 15
3.1 STIMULUS-ORGANISM 15
3.1.1 Effects of interactivity 15
3.1.2 Effects of vividness 16
3.1.3 Effects of realism 16
3.2 ORGANISM-RESPONSE 17
3.2.1 Effect of immersion 17
3.2.2 Effect of involvement 18
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHOD 19
4.1 THE CASE OF NPM’S EXHIBITION VR 19
4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN 21
4.3 DEVELOPMENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE 22
4.4 DATA COLLECTION 25
CHAPTER 5: MODEL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 27
5.1 MEASUREMENT MODEL ANALYSIS 27
5.2 STRUCTURE MODEL ANALYSIS 30
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION 32
6.1 DISCUSSION 32
6.2 THE RESULT OF FINDINGS 37
6.2.1 Design features to immersion of VR experience 37
6.2.2 Design features to involvement of VR experience 37
6.2.3 VR experience to visit intention 39
6.2.4 The lists of findings 39
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION 42
REFERENCES 43
APPENDIX A 49
APPENDIX B 51

1. Burcaw, G. E. (1997). Introduction to museum work. Rowman Altamira.
2. Buxbaum, O. (2016). Mental Processes Are Neuro-mental Processes. In Key Insights into Basic Mechanisms of Mental Activity (pp. 11-31). Springer International Publishing.
3. Bohil, C. J., Alicea, B., & Biocca, F. A. (2011). Virtual reality in neuroscience research and therapy. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 12(12), 752.
4. Chou, Cindy H. (2007) Legal protection and art licensing of cultural creative industries in Taiwan-case study on national palace museum (Master’s thesis, National Cheng Chi University, Taipei).
5. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 39-50.
6. Freeman, J., Avons, S. E., Meddis, R., Pearson, D. E., & IJsselsteijn, W. (2000). Using behavioral realism to estimate presence: A study of the utility of postural responses to motion stimuli. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual
environments, 9(2), 149-164.
7. Glynn, M. A., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Rao, H. (1996). Art museum membership and cultural distinction: Relating members' perceptions of prestige to benefit usage. Poetics, 24(2-4), 259-274.
8. Götz, O., Liehr-Gobbers, K., & Krafft, M. (2010). Evaluation of structural equation models using the partial least squares (PLS) approach. In Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 691-711). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
9. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information systems, 16(1), 5.
10. Gutierrez-Maldonado, J., Gutierrez-Martinez, O., Loreto, D., Peñaloza, C., & Nieto, R. (2010). Presence, involvement and efficacy of a virtual reality intervention on pain. Stud. Health Technol. Inform, 154, 97-101.
11. Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 1(2), 262-271.
12. Herbelin, B., Salomon, R., Serino, A., & Blanke, O. (2016). 5 Neural Mechanisms of Bodily Self-Consciousness and the Experience of Presence in Virtual Reality. Human Computer Confluence Transforming Human Experience Through Symbiotic Technologies, 80.
13. Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
14. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic management journal, 195- 204.
15. International Council of Museums. Museum definition: ICOM. Accessed at http://icom.museum/the-vision/museum-definition/
16. Jyun Syong, Ciou. (2002). Framework and implementation of an integrated digital museum information system (Master’s thesis, National Chi Nan University, Nantou).
17. Jennett, C., Cox, A. L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijs, T., & Walton, A. (2008). Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in
games. International journal of human-computer studies, 66(9), 641-661.
18. Chou, K. (2010). National Palace Museum 2010 Annual Report.
19. Kalawsky, R. S. (2000, March). The validity of presence as a reliable human performance metric in immersive environments. In proceedings of the Presence Workshop'00.
20. Kang, M., & Gretzel, U. (2012). Perceptions of museum podcast tours: Effects of consumer innovativeness, Internet familiarity and podcasting affinity on performance expectancies. Tourism Management Perspectives, 4, 155-163.
21. Li Zheng, Lu. (1998). Preface of museum exhibition [Electronic version]. National Museum of Prehistory, 6, 1-6.
22. Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 3(2), 0-0.
23. Laurel, B. (1991). Computers as theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
24. Lombard, M. (2000). Resources for the study of presence: Presence
explication. Retrieved September, 3, 2000.
25. MacDonald, G. F., & Alsford, S. (1997). The digital museum. Civilization. ca.
26. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. the MIT Press.
27. Naimark, M. (1990). Realness and interactivity. In B. Laurel (Ed.), The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design, (pp. 455-459). Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
28. Numally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill (2nd).
29. North, M., North, S., & Coble, J. (1998). Virtual reality therapy: an effective treatment for phobias in virtual environments. Clinical Psychology and Neuroscience, IOS Press, Amsterdam.
30. O'dell, T. (2007). Tourist experiences and academic junctures. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), 34-45.
31. Reeves, B. (1991). Being there: Television as symbolic versus natural experience. Unpublished manuscript, Institute for Communication Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
32. Park, D. H., Lee, J., & Han, I. (2007). The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of
involvement. International journal of electronic commerce, 11(4), 125-148.
33. Rheingold, H. R. (1991). Virtual reality. New York: Summit Books.
34. Regenbrecht, H. T., Schubert, T. W., & Friedmann, F. (1998). Measuring the sense of presence and its relations to fear of heights in virtual
environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 10(3), 233-249.
35. Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of communication, 42(4), 73-93.
36. 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.
37. Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, 6(6), 603-616.
38. Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 1(1), 120-126.
39. Slater, M., Lotto, B., Arnold, M. M., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2009). How we experience immersive virtual environments: the concept of presence and its measurement. Anuario de psicología, 40(2).
40. Stamboulis, Y., & Skayannis, P. (2003). Innovation strategies and technology for experience-based tourism. Tourism management, 24(1), 35-43.
41. Smith, J. K., & Wolf, L. F. (1996). Museum visitor preferences and intentions in constructing aesthetic experience. Poetics, 24(2-4), 219-238.
42. Slater, M., Sadagic, A., Usoh, M., & Schroeder, R. (2000). Small-group behavior in a virtual and real environment: A comparative study. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, 9(1), 37-51.
43. Steed, A., Slater, M., Sadagic, A., Bullock, A., & Tromp, J. (1999, March). Leadership and collaboration in shared virtual environments. In Virtual Reality, 1999. Proceedings., IEEE (pp. 112-115). IEEE.
44. Tsapatori, M. (2003). ORION Research Roadmap for the European archaeological museums’ sector (Final Edition). June 2003.
45. Virtual reality. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved August 10, 2017 from Dictionary.com website http://www.dictionary.com/browse/virtual-reality
46. Visitor Figures 2015: Exhibition & Museum Attendance Survey (2016, April). London: The Art Newspaper. Special Report, No. 278. Retrieved from http://www.museus.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Visitor-Figures-2015- LO.pdf
47. Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude–behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental ethics, 19(2), 169-194.
48. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, 7(3), 225-240.
49. Welch, R. B., Blackmon, T. T., Liu, A., Mellers, B. A., & Stark, L. W. (1996). The effects of pictorial realism, delay of visual feedback, and observer interactivity on the subjective sense of presence. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 5(3), 263-273.
50. Wojciechowski, R., Walczak, K., White, M., & Cellary, W. (2004, April). Building virtual and augmented reality museum exhibitions. In Proceedings of the ninth international conference on 3D Web technology (pp. 135-144). ACM.
51. Witmer, B. G., Jerome, C. J., & Singer, M. J. (2005). The factor structure of the presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and
VirtualEnvironments, 14(3), 298-312.
52. Welch, R. B. (1999). How can we determine if the sense of presence affects task performance? Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(5), 574-577.
53. Zeltzer, D. (1992). Autonomy, interaction, and presence. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 1(1), 127-132.
54. Zhang, H., Lu, Y., Wang, B., & Wu, S. (2015). The impacts of technological environments and co-creation experiences on customer
participation. Information & Management, 52(4), 468-482.