1 / 19

ARCHITRACK Evaluating architectural preferences via eyetracker

ARCHITRACK Evaluating architectural preferences via eyetracker. Keul, A.G. ¹ ³ , Hutzler, F. ² , Frauscher, G. ¹ & Voigt, A. ³ ¹ Salzburg University, ²Free University Berlin, ³ Vienna University of Technology. ARCHITRACK.

giolla
Download Presentation

ARCHITRACK Evaluating architectural preferences via eyetracker

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. ARCHITRACKEvaluating architectural preferencesvia eyetracker Keul, A.G.¹ ³, Hutzler, F.², Frauscher, G.¹ & Voigt, A.³ ¹Salzburg University, ²Free University Berlin, ³Vienna University of Technology

  2. ARCHITRACK Typical E&B research on verbal descriptions of space – where are the behavioral data ? Pilot study & diploma thesis on architectural perception using eyetracker technology, triangulation of verbal and eyetracker data Project goal: What can behavioral data on eye movements contribute to the understanding of visual exploration of architectural stimuli? Earlier papers: Janssens 1984, Lengyel 1988, Kei et al. 2000; IAPS 2004 – Weber paper.

  3. Eye movements & measurements • Automatic, unconscious eye movements – accomodation, pupil reflex, convergence, nystagms (saccades, pursuit), fixations • Fixation meansinput and processing of visual information – interest-based preference • Measurement techniques – electrooculography, coil, electromyography, infrared reflection oculography (eyetracker) • Eyetracker widely used in clinical, reading, traffic safety, advertising, software research

  4. Experimental design Salzburg • Targets: 6 Global Architecture (GA) images (above; housing US/CAN; 3 outdoor, 3 indoor), 10 city/rural (CR) images, wall-projection on silver screen via beamer • Subjects: 15 persons – 5 male architects and 10 laypeople (5 women, 5 men) • ISCAN RK-726PCI 50 Hz infrared reflection eyetracker with head-rest

  5. Experimental design Beamer Eyetracker Subject

  6. Experimental run • Briefing, no special instruction, „just look“ • 6 GA images set A test round* • 10 CR images set B test round* * 10 sec projection time; sequence variation; eyetracking every20 msec; calibration in-between targets • 6 GA images set A verbal description round • Debriefing, comments

  7. Fixation protocol samples

  8. Eye movement film sample

  9. Eye movement analysis • Number of fixations (count) • Fixation locations (thematic areas) • F. durations (msec; singular, cumulative) • F. succession (first eye contact, sequential/repetitive contacts) • Group differences (architects/lay people, gender) • Triangulation – eyetracker vs. verbal data(here: thematic word count) • Large differences between stimuli and subjects – every picture actually a single case study

  10. Experimental results Means, image 1 GA architects, lay male, female fixations fixation duration duration per fixation 23.5 6116 msec 257.7 msec 19.2 5050 msec 276.9 msec 23.5 4101 msec 172.8 msec fix.archit.-landsc.-furnit. dur.archit.-landsc.-furnit. 13 6.4 1 3168 1908 200 5.6 3 4.4 2000 584 1320 9 2.8 2.8 1760 484 504

  11. Experimental results Group differences- professional focus hypothesis (architects show more building fixations) not conclusive – only 4 significant Mann-Whitney differences for 31 thematic areas of the 5 GA pictures. Tendency for experts to prefer facade, for laypeople to visually prefer furnitures. Gender differences – not true for fixations, no significant general effect. Succession analysisimage GA 1 & 5: No group differences experts – laypeople. Same general pattern of repetitive contacts and fixation series.

  12. Triangulation example 1 Sums image 1 GA architects Image area words fixations total dur. (msec) architecture 116 114 15840 tree 38 3 400 landscape 36 32 9540 terrace 5 1 300 furniture 6 5 1000 sky 0 0 3500 Sums image 1 GA laypeople female Image area words fixations total dur. (msec) architecture 88 45 8800 tree 30 7 780 landscape 53 14 2420 terrace 0 4 420 furniture 11 14 2520 sky 20 35 5580

  13. Triangulation example 2 Sums image 5 GA architects Image area words fixations total dur. (msec) gallery 112 22 4540 walls 0 23 5200 window 10 22 5750 furniture 23 39 10100 floor 0 4 940 Sums image 5 GA laypeople female Image area words fixations total dur. (msec) gallery 42 254660 walls 0 23 3980 window 19 15 3020 furniture 13 28 4860 floor 0 19 4300

  14. Experimental results Triangulation: Thematic fixations, their duration and word counts were consistent for picture 1, but inconsistent for picture 5 (above) – visual-verbal gap. No group effects (experts, gender).

  15. Experimental results PART 2 – Ten city/rural (CR) images (A.Voigt) containing urban gestalt factors of F.Moser. „Gate“ and „vegetation“ images shown above. Testing UGF for attraction (is it a visual focus?) True for „gate“, „vegetation“, „vanishing line/point“ – mean percentages of fixations in images : „gate“ experts 50.8% lay (m) 35.6% „vegetation“ experts 28.6%lay (m) 38.4%

  16. Experimental results C C Possibility to test for visual distraction: „Building corner“ (C) of left upper image consumed 14.8% expert and 24.2% lay (m) fixation time. With distraction (upper right), C only took 5.8%/12.4%, whereas the persons drew 18.2%/16.4% of the attention time.

  17. Conclusions • Eyetracking produces behavioral, objective data, attractive to planners who show high expectations, but tracker is no easy „test“. • Simple hypotheses (expert, gender focus) not confirmed – first explorative behavior seems to be similar for different onlookers. • Eyetracking demonstrates gaps between visual attraction and verbal behavior (as is known from advertising research). • Eyetracker is a good means to test for a planned attention focus – does it work?

  18. References Duchowski, A.T. (2003). Eye tracking methodology. London: Springer. Frauscher, G. (2003). Architekturwahrnehmung und –beschreibung. Diplomarbeit, Universität Salzburg. Janssens, J. (1984). The effect of professional education and experience on the perception of building exteriors. IAPS 8, West-Berlin (Germany), 25-29 July. Kei, A., Akagi, T., Oku, T. & Kusaka, M. (2000). How persons with dementia and developmental disability can avoid barriers on their way? IAPS 16, Paris (France), 4-7 July. Lengyel, S. (1988). Do we only see what we already know? IAPS 10, Delft (Netherlands), 5-8 July. Moser, F., Frei, W.D. & Voigt, A. (1988). Wohnbau im Ortsbild. Wien: Picus. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of information. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422. Weber, R. (2004). Applications of simulation procedures to experimental aesthetics and to design decisions in architecture. IAPS 18, Vienna (Austria), 7-9 July.

  19. Contact Dr.Alexander G. Keul, Associate Professor, Psychology Department, Salzburg University, Hellbrunnerstr.34, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria, Europe Phone+fax 0043 (0)662 8044 5127 E-Mail alexander.keul@sbg.ac.at http://www.sbg.ac.at/psy/people/keul.htm Thank you for your interest!

More Related