1 / 33

Perceptual tuning of a Simple box

Perceptual tuning of a Simple box. Space Syntax Symposium 8 Santiago Chile 2012. Sonit Bafna Anna Losonczi John Peponis Georgia Institute of Technology College of Architecture, Atlanta Georgia. Proposition.

jon
Download Presentation

Perceptual tuning of a Simple box

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Perceptual tuning of a Simple box Space Syntax Symposium 8 Santiago Chile 2012 Sonit Bafna Anna Losonczi John Peponis Georgia Institute of Technology College of Architecture, Atlanta Georgia

  2. Proposition

  3. Architectural interest is aroused when a setting is able to inspire a richness and variety of percepts and alternative visual and spatial interpretations. In a carefully designed space, even subtle changes in location can lead to a rich and meaningful variation in perception.

  4. Case Pulitzer Foundation for the Arts St. Louis, Missouri

  5. Richard Serra, Joe Tadao Ando, Pulitzer Foundation for the Arts, St Louis, Missouri

  6. Tadao Ando, Pulitzer Foundation for the Arts, St Louis, Missouri

  7. Tadao Ando, Pulitzer Foundation for the Arts, St Louis, Missouri

  8. The Experimental Set-Up

  9. Hypothesis The same space visualized from a set of photographs taken from different vantage points will be described in different ways depending on the vantage points.

  10. Selection of vantage points

  11. 1 2 Paths A 135 B 145 C 235 D 245 3 4 Views from the five vantage points were combined to produce four paths, each made of a combination of three views. 5

  12. Paths A 135 B 145 C 235 D 245

  13. Selection of Subjects Three categorical variables (2 control) Path: A / B / C / D Sex: Female (F) / Male (M) Background: Design (V) / Non-Design (N) (4 X 4) + 2 = 18 subjects / path 4 path (A, B, C, D) 18 X 4 path = 72 subjects 72 subjects X 5 = 360 sentences

  14. Data

  15. Subject response sheet

  16. Subjects’ verbal responses were restricted to a specific format offering a choice of four verbs; each response contained at least one prepositional phrase relating the verb to an element or area within the given view.

  17. Sample of compiled data with some basic analysis

  18. Sample of coded data showing counts of relations between elements (used for result #2 below)

  19. Numbers of prepositions appearing in sentences for each path 1 2 3 4 5

  20. Results

  21. 1. Prepositional phrases per sentence The subjects assigned to path D produced sentences with more prepositional phrases compared to those assigned other paths. (For instance: I am standing in the middle of the pathway along the window that I am looking through and I see the water surrounding.) 1 2 3 4 F=7.57 N=360 P < 0.001 5

  22. 2. Diffuse versus focal attention In comparison to other paths, B elicited many more sentences with diffuse attention; diffuse attention is determined by the presence ofprepositional phrases that take as objects broad spatial areas, rather than specific objects. 1 2 3 4 F=3.06 N=360 P = 0.0283 5

  23. 3. Distribution of attention across field Path D is associated with better distributed attention across the entire perceptual field; subjects assigned to path D picked out objects across field of view in a higher proportion of sentences 1 2 3 4 F=3.65 N=360 P =0.0168 5

  24. Discussion

  25. What seems to have distinguished the paths is not so much the overall geometry of the paths, but the difference in the overall complexity of the spatial map that each path supported. It is not just the information present in each view by itself, but rather the relation between the information provided in each view that influences which element will primarily earn the viewer’s attention; the elements reported in each view carried differential informational content…

  26. 1 2 … Given that so little discernible detail is available of the window and pool behind it, from vantage point 2, we hypothesized that subjects on path D (vantage points 2 and 4) would tend to report the window and pool much more than those on path B (vantage points 1 and 4). On path D (245) 17 subjects out of 18 reported the water and window, whereas only 10 subjects of the 18 assigned to path B (145), reported these elements. 3 4 5

  27. First, our experiments have thrown some light on how cognition is contingent upon a structure of experience; or, put differently, how the structure of a retrieved description is contingent upon the spatial structure of experience within a constant objective structure of space. Second, we have perhaps found some insight into how subtle design can activate alternative modes of experience and attention, leading to rich descriptions. Sonit Bafna Anna Losonczi John Peponis Georgia Institute of Technology College of Architecture, Atlanta Georgia

More Related