基于康采恩工程学的不同风格实木家具观赏时的情感反应差异

IF 1.3 4区 农林科学 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, PAPER & WOOD Bioresources Pub Date : 2023-12-11 DOI:10.15376/biores.19.1.805-822
Qiuli Lin, Jun Cai, Yisi Xue
{"title":"基于康采恩工程学的不同风格实木家具观赏时的情感反应差异","authors":"Qiuli Lin, Jun Cai, Yisi Xue","doi":"10.15376/biores.19.1.805-822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Homogeneity of products is a serious problem in China’s solid wood furniture market, especially reflected in the fact that the furniture form cannot meet the individualized demand of consumers. To explore the differences of consumers’ affective response for different styles of solid wood furniture, this study used Kansei engineering to perform perceptual semantic experiments on Ming-style, Qing-style, and modern Chinese-style furniture. The perceptual images of three styles of solid wood chairs were compared by single factor variance. Additionally, it deconstructed the morphological elements of solid wood seats using morphological analysis and established a mapping model between morphological elements and affective response by quantification theory type-I and multivariable linear regression model. The results show that there are differences in affective response between Ming-style, Qing-style, and modern Chinese style solid wood furniture. Qing-style solid wood furniture tends to be “ornate” and “personalized”. Modern Chinese-style solid wood furniture tends to be “modern” and “streamlined”, Ming-style solid wood furniture is in between the two styles. This study can provide furniture designers with a way to compare the differences in affective responses of different products, and the resulting relationship between affective responses and morphological elements can assist in designing products.","PeriodicalId":9172,"journal":{"name":"Bioresources","volume":"11 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Affective response difference to the viewing of different styles of solid wood furniture based on Kansei engineering\",\"authors\":\"Qiuli Lin, Jun Cai, Yisi Xue\",\"doi\":\"10.15376/biores.19.1.805-822\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Homogeneity of products is a serious problem in China’s solid wood furniture market, especially reflected in the fact that the furniture form cannot meet the individualized demand of consumers. To explore the differences of consumers’ affective response for different styles of solid wood furniture, this study used Kansei engineering to perform perceptual semantic experiments on Ming-style, Qing-style, and modern Chinese-style furniture. The perceptual images of three styles of solid wood chairs were compared by single factor variance. Additionally, it deconstructed the morphological elements of solid wood seats using morphological analysis and established a mapping model between morphological elements and affective response by quantification theory type-I and multivariable linear regression model. The results show that there are differences in affective response between Ming-style, Qing-style, and modern Chinese style solid wood furniture. Qing-style solid wood furniture tends to be “ornate” and “personalized”. Modern Chinese-style solid wood furniture tends to be “modern” and “streamlined”, Ming-style solid wood furniture is in between the two styles. This study can provide furniture designers with a way to compare the differences in affective responses of different products, and the resulting relationship between affective responses and morphological elements can assist in designing products.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9172,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioresources\",\"volume\":\"11 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioresources\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"88\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.19.1.805-822\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, PAPER & WOOD\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioresources","FirstCategoryId":"88","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.19.1.805-822","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, PAPER & WOOD","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

产品同质化是中国实木家具市场存在的一个严重问题,尤其体现在家具形式无法满足消费者的个性化需求。为探究消费者对不同风格实木家具的情感反应差异,本研究利用康成工程学对明式家具、清式家具和现代中式家具进行了感知语义实验。通过单因素方差比较了三种风格实木椅的感知图像。此外,还利用形态分析法解构了实木座椅的形态要素,并通过量化理论Ⅰ型和多元线性回归模型建立了形态要素与情感反应之间的映射模型。结果表明,明式实木家具、清式实木家具和现代中式实木家具的情感反应存在差异。清式实木家具倾向于 "华丽 "和 "个性化"。现代中式实木家具倾向于 "现代 "和 "流线型",明式实木家具介于这两种风格之间。这项研究可以为家具设计师提供一种比较不同产品情感反应差异的方法,而由此得出的情感反应与形态元素之间的关系可以为产品设计提供帮助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Affective response difference to the viewing of different styles of solid wood furniture based on Kansei engineering
Homogeneity of products is a serious problem in China’s solid wood furniture market, especially reflected in the fact that the furniture form cannot meet the individualized demand of consumers. To explore the differences of consumers’ affective response for different styles of solid wood furniture, this study used Kansei engineering to perform perceptual semantic experiments on Ming-style, Qing-style, and modern Chinese-style furniture. The perceptual images of three styles of solid wood chairs were compared by single factor variance. Additionally, it deconstructed the morphological elements of solid wood seats using morphological analysis and established a mapping model between morphological elements and affective response by quantification theory type-I and multivariable linear regression model. The results show that there are differences in affective response between Ming-style, Qing-style, and modern Chinese style solid wood furniture. Qing-style solid wood furniture tends to be “ornate” and “personalized”. Modern Chinese-style solid wood furniture tends to be “modern” and “streamlined”, Ming-style solid wood furniture is in between the two styles. This study can provide furniture designers with a way to compare the differences in affective responses of different products, and the resulting relationship between affective responses and morphological elements can assist in designing products.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bioresources
Bioresources 工程技术-材料科学:纸与木材
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
13.30%
发文量
397
审稿时长
2.3 months
期刊介绍: The purpose of BioResources is to promote scientific discourse and to foster scientific developments related to sustainable manufacture involving lignocellulosic or woody biomass resources, including wood and agricultural residues. BioResources will focus on advances in science and technology. Emphasis will be placed on bioproducts, bioenergy, papermaking technology, wood products, new manufacturing materials, composite structures, and chemicals derived from lignocellulosic biomass.
期刊最新文献
Solid-state fermentation for gossypol detoxification and nutritive enrichment of cottonseed cake: A scale-up of batch fermentation process Crystallinity and chemical structure of Amazon wood species in a log yard after natural degradation Aquatic aerobic biodegradation of commonly flushed materials in aerobic wastewater treatment plant solids Mechanical and thermo-mechanical behaviors of snake grass fiber-reinforced epoxy composite Lignin-derived lithiophilic nitrogen-doped three-dimensional porous carbon as lithium growth guiding layers for lithium-metal batteries
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1