發泡橡膠為日常生活中常見的材料，透過發泡技術改變橡膠原有的物理特性。目前發泡橡膠多用在鞋底、隔熱墊等產品，然而隨著生活品質提升，對於產品需求不在只是功能，心理上的滿足亦不可或缺。過去材料研究多注重物理層面，對於材料的感性特質研究較缺乏。故本研究將探討發泡橡膠材料之感性意象為目的，解析其構成要素（加工製程、泡體大小與硬度程度），並進一步分析意象上的認知與差異。
研究目的如下：
（１）篩選感性意象語彙：收集相關文獻與橡膠相關書籍，並委請專業設計師以焦點團體法歸納出相關感性語彙。
（２）材料感性意象分析：分析數據結果建立整體意象與構成要素輪廓圖，並以t檢定與ANVOA分析探討構成要素的意象推移。
（３）感覺評價意象差異：透過主成份分析發泡橡較感性意象因子，並比較受測者在不同感覺上的意象差異。
（４）構成要素與感性意象之權重關係：利用數量化I類分析發泡橡膠之感性語彙對應其構成要素的權重關係。
研究結果發現，發泡橡膠感性意象可歸納為三個主要因素：「氣質格調之心理因素」、「自然量感之物理因素」與「品味潮流之時間因素」。泡體大小對於感性意象呈現全面影響是最關鍵之構成要素。而視覺、觸覺與視觸覺不同感覺情況下，意象的評價也顯然不同，說明單靠一種感覺是無法全面瞭解發泡橡膠的意象。本研究之成果可提供產業界與設計師在產品設計與運用材質時能有更明確溝通的參考依據，利用正確的構成要素來營造符合消費者的內心需求，以感性的力量為產品營造觸動人心的關鍵。

Sponge rubber is a type of commonly seen materials that transforms rubber’s original physical property. Its current use is mostly for products such as shoe soles and insulation cushions. However, as our living quality improves, people expect products for not only their functionality but also mental fulfillment. In the past, R＆D in materials is more focused on the physical perspectives rather than sensory characteristics. Hence, this research will discuss the purpose of sponge rubber’s sensory image and furthermore analyze its sensory perception and differences.
Its research purpose is in the following:
(1) Screen sensory image’s vocabularies: Gather relevant documents and rubber relative books, and invite professional designers to summarize relevant sensory vocabularies using Focus Group method;
(2) Conduct material sensory image analysis: Analyze data result, establish overall image and constructed element profile diagram, and using T-test and ANOVA analysis to review constructed element’s image transition;
(3) Evaluate image differences based on feelings: Using major ingredients to analyze sponge rubber’s sensory image factors and compare testing object’s image differences for different feelings;
(4) Conduct weighted relationship of constructed elements and sensory images: Using quantized type I analysis method to analyze the weighted relationship of sponge rubber’s sensory vocabularies and their corresponding constructed elements.
The research result shows that sponge rubber’s sensory image can be summarized into three major factors: “classy style psychological factors”, “natural quantization physical factors”, and “trendy taste time-associate factors”. However, due to different feelings incurred from the sense of sight, sense of touch, and sense of sight and touch, it also produces different image evaluation. This explains that relying on only one kind of feelings can not have a thorough understanding of sponge rubber’s images. This research result can also provide a reference for the industry and designers to be able to more accurately communicate regarding product design and material utilization. Using correct constructed factors, it helps construct products that match customers’ intrinsic demands; and, using sensitivity as the strength to create products is the key to moving people’s heart.

摘要 i
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Research Purpose 3
1.3 Research Scope and Limitation 4
1.4 Conceptual Framework 5

CHAPTER 2 Literature Review 7
2.1 Sponge Rubber 7
2.1.1 Rubber formula 8
2.1.2 Sponge rubber processing 8
2.1.3 Preliminary Summary 10
2.2 Material and Cognition 10
2.2.1 Material and Texture 11
2.2.2 Preliminary Summary 12
2.2.3 Vision, Tactile and Visual-tactile 12
2.2.4 Preliminary Summary 17
2.3 Kansei 17
2.3.1 Kansei image 18
2.3.2 Kansei Engineering 19
2.3.3 Preliminary Summary 19
2.4 Experimental Methods and Statistical Analysis 19
2.4.1 Focus Group 19
2.4.2 Semantic Differential 20
2.4.3 Paired Sample T-test 20
2.4.4 ANOVA 21
2.4.5 Quantification theory type I 21
2.5 Summary 22

CHAPTER 3 Experimental Methods and Procedure 23
3.1 Experimental procedure 23
3.2 Experimental planning 24
3.2.1 Experimental subject 25
3.2.2 Experimental sample constructed elements 25
3.2.3 Research and preparation of sponge rubber image 28
3.2.4 Preparation and physical properties of sponge rubber 28
3.2.5 Questionnaire 29
3.2.6 Experimental process 30

CHAPTER 4 Research Findings 33
4.1 Screening of sponge rubber Kansei vocabulary 33
4.2 Sponge rubber overall image 34
4.3 Discussion on sponge rubber and Kansei image 35
4.4 Sponge rubber image profile 36
4.4.1 Big foaming sponge rubber image profile 37
4.4.2 Small foaming sponge rubber image profile 37
4.4.3 No foaming sponge rubber image profile 38
4.5 Relationship between constructed factors of sponge rubber and Kansei image 38
4.5.1 T-test of processing perspective 38
4.5.2 T-test of hardness perspective 39
4.5.3 ANOVA of size of foams perspective 40
4.6 Tactile, visual, visual-tactile in evaluating the image perception factors 42
4.6.1 Kansei image major ingredient analysis 42
4.6.2 Naming for Sponge Rubber Sensory Image Factors 43
4.6.3 Analysis the structure of Kansei Imagery of three senses 44
4.7 Analysis on Differences of Sensory Images amongst tactile, visual and visual-tactile 45
4.8 Establishing Weighting Combination of Sensory Images for Constructed Factors 46
4.8.1 Analysis on Constructed Factors and Kansei Images Association 46
4.8.2 Making Constructed Factors Weighting Table 48
4.9 Weighting Analysis of Tactile, Visual, visual-tactile and Kansei Images 49
4.9.1 Tactile 49
4.9.2 Visual 50
4.9.3 Visual-tactile 50
4.9.4 Summary 51

CHAPTER 5 Discussion 53
5.1 Overall images of sponge rubber 53
5.2 Sponge Rubber’s Constructed Factors and Change of Images 54
5.3 Differences and Operation of Tactile, Visual, and Visual-tactile Images 57
5.4 Kansei Image Factors and Constructed Factors Weighting Relationship 58

CHAPTER 6 Conclusion and Implication 62
6.1 Research Result 62
6.1.1 Establishes Kansei images of sponge rubber and profile image 63
6.1.2 Control elements will affect the image of the evolve 63
6.1.3 The Kansei image differences in tactile, visual, and visual-tactile 64
6.1.4 Establish the weighted table for Kansei images 65
6.2 Research Review and Future Prospects 66
6.2.1 The weighted table is used for validation of the product 66

BIBLIOGRAPHIES 67
中文文獻 67
英文文獻 70
Appendix A Sample 72
Appendix B Questionnaire 73
Appendix C Relationship between constructed factors of sponge rubber and Kansei image 75
Appendix D Differences in tactile, visual and visual-tactile 82
Appendix E Quantification theory type I 85
Appendix F 中文精簡版 86

小林重順.（1991）.造形構成の心理.（邱永福譯）。臺北市：藝風堂。（原作1978年出版）
王嘉明.（1995）.探究視覺宇宙的脈搏─視覺語言. 臺北:藝術家。
呂明泉.（2002）.觸覺與視覺對意象差異研究-以塑膠材質咬花為例. (碩士) . 臺南市：國立成功大學。
呂清夫.（1991）.為人生而藝術-細說工藝. 臺灣工藝展-從傳統到創新. 臺中市： 臺灣省立美術館。
周君瑞, 陳鴻源, 劉家成, 陳國祥, 管倖生, 鄧怡莘, ＆ 張育銘.（2000）.電動刮鬍刀產品造形與感性之關聯性研究.　89 年技術與教學研討會. 臺北市：明志科技大學。
林東龍, ＆ 張文裕.（2005）.混合材質在視觸上之差異性研究. 高雄師大學報： 自然科學與科技類(19), 1-15。
林家瑋.（2013）.耐觸性研究. (碩士) . 臺南市：國立成功大學, 1-47.
林振陽.（1990）.設計材料.　臺北市：六合。
林寶蓮.（2002）.造形之視覺與觸覺意象研究─ 以塑膠容器形態為例. (碩士) . 臺北市：銘傳大學。
長町三生.（1995）.感性工学のおはなし. 日本：日本規格協会.pp.43-48。
柯超茗.（1997）.材料視覺與觸覺質感意象的研究.（未出版之碩士論文）. 雲林縣：國立雲林科技大學。
洪志成, ＆ 廖梅花.（2003）. 焦點團體訪談. 嘉義：濤石文化。
范振誠.（2014）. 2014石化產業年鑑. 新竹縣：財團法人工業技術研究院產業經濟與趨勢研究中心。
馬永川.（1998）.產品意象語彙與造形呈現對應關係之研究. 新竹縣：國立交通大學。
張世明.（2004）.傳統產業轉型升級之研究-以豐泰企業產品研發為例. (碩士) .臺中市：逢甲大學。
張育銘, 陳鴻源, 林可欣, ＆ 洪子琄.（2005）.材質表面屬性與振動屬性對觸覺感性意象影響之探討. 設計學報. 10(1), 73-87。
張春興.（1995）.張氏心理學辭典 (二版). 臺北市：東華。
張舜智.（2009）.傳統橡膠中小企業導入網路行銷對營運績效之影響-以 K 公司為例. (碩士) .高雄市：高雄大學。
張輝煌.（1989）.實用多變量分析. 臺北市: 建興文化事業有限公司。
莊青遠.（2010）.不同握持動作對橡膠紋路造形之觸覺意象研究. (碩士) .臺南市：成功大學, 1-76。
郭泓伶.（2011）.以擬態語彙探討材質視觸感性意象之研究. (碩士) .臺南市：成功大學, 1-126。
陳又甄.（2012）.視覺引起之誘觸性研究. (碩士). 臺南市：成功大學。
陳安君.（2010）.產品視觸複合之感性意象研究. (碩士) . 臺南市：成功大學,1-68。
陳采青.（2001）. 質感之象徵意象在視覺傳達設計創作之研究. (碩士) . 臺北市：臺灣師範大學。
陳俊宏.（1988）. 色彩嗜好與色彩意象之調查分析:為商業設計之色彩計劃而做的研究, 臺北市: 藝風堂。
陳國祥, 管倖生, 鄧怡莘, ＆ 張育銘.(2001). 感性工學-將感性予以理性化的手法. 工業設計, 第二十九卷(1),1- 6。
傅祖康.(1984). 橡膠配方設計概論. 臺北市: 臺灣區橡膠工業研究試驗中心.1-83。
朝倉直已.(1985). 藝術設計的平面構成. 臺北: 梵谷設計叢書。
黃霆升. (2008). 因應綠色指令之創新網絡分析-以橡膠發泡業為例. (碩士) . 臺南市：成功大學。
黑川雅之.(2010). 素材與身體性. 臺北：天地圖書。
管倖生, ＆ 林彥呈.(2002). 以感性工學程序建構網頁設計系統之研究. 設計學報, 7(1), 59-74。
蔡承諭.(2004).視、觸覺之形態與材質對產品意象影響研究. (碩士) .雲林縣：雲林科技大學.
鄭瑞傑.(2011). 合成皮革在視覺與視觸共覺上之感性研究. (碩士) .臺南市：成功大學, 1-108。
蕭舒駿.(2010) .感官經驗統合之設計創作. 臺北市：臺灣科技大學。
賴百興,(2003) .透明塑膠材質之不同表面處理對產品意象之影響-以口紅設計為例. (碩士) .臺北市：大同大學。
賴景昌, ＆ 林國仕.(2004) .知識經濟. 科學發展月刊 (377), 58-63。
謝俊雄 (2011). 石化工業對台灣經濟奇蹟的貢獻,化工技術，第五卷（9），71-75。
Barlow, J., ＆ Maul, D. (2000). Emotional value: Creating strong bonds with your customers. Barrett-Koehler Pub, San Francisco, 35.
Case-Smith, J., Case-Smith, J., ＆ O’Brien, J. (2010). Foundational knowledge for occupational therapy for children. Occupational therapy for children, 1-21.
Choi, K., ＆ Jun, C. (2007). A systematic approach to the Kansei factors of tactile sense regarding the surface roughness. Applied Ergonomics, 38(1), 53-63.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., ＆ Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal of marketing research, 307-319.
Elder, R. S., ＆ Krishna, A. (2012). The “visual depiction effect in advertising: Facilitating embodied mental simulation through product orientation. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 988-1003.
Hamilton, R. W., ＆ Thompson, D. V. (2007). Is there a substitute for direct experience? Comparing consumers' preferences after direct and indirect product experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 546-555.
Johnson, K., Langdon, P., ＆ Ashby, M. (2002). Grouping materials and processes for the designer: an application of cluster analysis. Materials ＆ design, 23(1), 1-10.
Karana, E., Hekkert, P., ＆ Kandachar, P. (2008). Material considerations in product design: A survey on crucial material aspects used by product designers. Materials ＆ design, 29(6), 1081-1089.
Kepes, G. (1995). Language of vision: Courier Corporation.
Klatzky, R. L., ＆ Lederman, S. J. (1992). Stages of manual exploration in haptic object identification. Perception ＆ Psychophysics, 52(6), 661-670.
Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., ＆ Metzger, V. A. (1985). Identifying objects by touch: An “expert system. Attention, Perception, ＆ Psychophysics, 37(4), 299-302.
Kritikos, A., ＆ Brasch, C. (2008). Visual and tactile integration in action comprehension and execution. Brain research, 1242, 73-86.
Lévy, P., Nakamori, S., ＆ Yamanaka, T. (2008). Explaining Kansei Design Studies. Paper presented at the Design and Emotion Conference 2008.
Ludden, G. D., Schifferstein, H. N., ＆ Hekkert, P. (2008). Surprise as a design strategy. Design Issues, 24(2), 28-38.
Lupton, E. (2002). Skin: New Design Organics. Skin: Surface, Substance and Design. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
McCabe, D. B., ＆ Nowlis, S. M. (2003). The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 431-439.
Nagamachi, M. (1995). Kansei engineering: a new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. International Journal of industrial ergonomics, 15(1), 3-11.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., ＆ Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). Percy H. Tannenbaum. The measurement of meaning.
Peck, J., ＆ Childers, T. L. (2003). Individual differences in haptic information processing: The “need for touch scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 430-442.
Peck, J., ＆ Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434-447.
Révész, G. (1950). Psychology and art of the blind.
Schultz, L. M., ＆ Petersik, J. T. (1994). Visual-haptic relations in a two-dimensional size-matching task. Perceptual and motor skills, 78(2), 395-402.
Spence, C., ＆ Driver, J. (2004). Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention: Oxford University Press.
Stadtlander, L. M., ＆ Murdoch, L. D. (2000). Frequency of occurrence and rankings for touch-related adjectives. Behavior Research Methods, 32(4), 579-587.
Stehr, J. (2015). Chemical blowing agents in the rubber industry. Past–present–and future? Gummi Fasern Kunststoffe, 68(12), 812-819.
Szczesniak, A. S. (2002). Texture is a sensory property. Food quality and preference, 13(4), 215-225.
Whitaker, T. A., Simões-Franklin, C., ＆ Newell, F. N. (2008). Vision and touch: Independent or integrated systems for the perception of texture? Brain research, 1242, 59-72.