簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 鄭澗鎧
Yosua - Wiranata Tedja
論文名稱： 水音景聽覺感知
Water Soundscape and Listening Impression
指導教授： 蔡欣君
Lucky Shin-Jyun Tsaih
口試委員: 江維華
Wei-Hwa Chiang
施宣光
Shen-Guan Shih
陳嘉萍
Julie Chen
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 設計學院 - 建築系
Department of Architecture
論文出版年： 2016
畢業學年度： 104
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 84
中文關鍵詞： Water 、Soundscape 、Listening impression
外文關鍵詞： Water, Soundscape, Listening impression
相關次數： 點閱：240  下載：31 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  •  上一筆

    • This research presents evidence for the preference of a water soundscape through listening evaluation. As a form of meditation, listening to water sounds is a tool often used to provide positive emotional and psychological restoration. 20 water soundscape samples based on natural and man-made sounds were chosen and varied by their sound in relation to architecture and material. A semantic differential questionnaire was created with nine pairs of contractual sound qualities. 66 young adults and 29 elderly subjects participated in this listening evaluation. The objective of the research is to discern which water soundscape sample is preferred by the participants for a stress-free acoustic environment.
    The results are divided into a young adult group and an elderly group. 92% of the young adults and 78% of the elderly participants had a positive impression of a soft, quiet, and mid frequency sound of a gentle stream and aquarium water, respectively. On the contrary, 77% of a young adults and 78% of the elderly participants had a negative impression of a loud, intense, and broadband sound for rain on a glass roof sound and a toilet flush sound, respectively. Water soundscapes in a free sound field open space were more preferred over water soundscapes in an enclosed room with reverberant space, like a bathroom. Based on principal component analysis, attractiveness, serenity, and water movement contributed the most to the positive and negative impressions. A gentle stream can be used for an outdoor stress-free acoustic environment and a desktop aquarium can be placed inside a room for indoor stress-free environment purposes. Stiff roofing materials should be avoided if a quieter listening environment is required and bathrooms should be designed to absorb and isolate toilet flushing sounds for quietness and adjacent space conditions.

    This research presents evidence for the preference of a water soundscape through listening evaluation. As a form of meditation, listening to water sounds is a tool often used to provide positive emotional and psychological restoration. 20 water soundscape samples based on natural and man-made sounds were chosen and varied by their sound in relation to architecture and material. A semantic differential questionnaire was created with nine pairs of contractual sound qualities. 66 young adults and 29 elderly subjects participated in this listening evaluation. The objective of the research is to discern which water soundscape sample is preferred by the participants for a stress-free acoustic environment.
    The results are divided into a young adult group and an elderly group. 92% of the young adults and 78% of the elderly participants had a positive impression of a soft, quiet, and mid frequency sound of a gentle stream and aquarium water, respectively. On the contrary, 77% of a young adults and 78% of the elderly participants had a negative impression of a loud, intense, and broadband sound for rain on a glass roof sound and a toilet flush sound, respectively. Water soundscapes in a free sound field open space were more preferred over water soundscapes in an enclosed room with reverberant space, like a bathroom. Based on principal component analysis, attractiveness, serenity, and water movement contributed the most to the positive and negative impressions. A gentle stream can be used for an outdoor stress-free acoustic environment and a desktop aquarium can be placed inside a room for indoor stress-free environment purposes. Stiff roofing materials should be avoided if a quieter listening environment is required and bathrooms should be designed to absorb and isolate toilet flushing sounds for quietness and adjacent space conditions.

    ABSTRACT 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 LIST OF FIGURES 4 LIST OF TABLES 8 INTRODUCTION 10 LITERATURE REVIEW 13 2.1 Stress and the Modern Living Environment 14 2.2 Biophilia Hypothesis 14 2.3 Restorative Environment 15 2.4 Green Building and Human Health 16 2.5 Soundscapes 17 2.6 Aural Architecture 19 2.7 Awareness as a Composite of Emotions and Perceptions 20 2.8 Auditory Stimuli and Human Emotion 22 2.9 Brain Structure Involved in Music-Evoked Emotion 22 METHODS 25 3.1 Listening Evaluations 25 3.2 Data Analysis 25 3.3 Participants 27 3.4 Playback Condition and Device 27 3.5 Water Soundscape Sample 28 3.6 Water Soundscape Playback List 31 3.7 Questionnaire 32 DATA ANALYSES AND RESULTS 34 4.1 Mean Values 34 4.1.1 Young Adult Mean Values 34 4.1.2 Elderly Mean Values 35 4.1.3 Mean Value Summary 35 4.2 Overall Impressions 36 4.2.1 Young Adult Overall Impressions 36 4.2.2 Elderly Overall Impressions 37 4.2.3 Overall Impression Summary 38 4.3 Correlation between Water Soundscapes and Listening Impressions 39 4.4 The Most and Least Preferred Water Soundscapes and Their Contributed Components 40 4.5 Acoustic Analysis 42 4.5.1 Young Adult Acoustic Analysis 42 4.5.2 Elderly Acoustic Analysis 44 4.5.3 Acoustic Analysis Summary 46 4.6 Rain on Different Materials 47 4.7 Water Drip and Suikinkutsu Comparison 49 4.8 Water Movement 52 4.9 Physical Properties Analysis 52 4.9.1 The Three Most and Least Preferred Sound Physical Properties 53 4.9.2 Rain on Different Materials Physical Properties 57 4.9.3 Physical Properties Summary 57 4.10 Design Implementations 58 CONCLUSIONS 61 FUTURE STUDIES 62 APPENDICES WATER SOUNDSCAPE SOURCE YOUTUBE LINK 63 MEAN VALUE OF EACH SOUND SAMPLE AND EACH IMPRESSION 64 SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL (SD) GRAPHS 66 GOOD SUIKINKUTSU DESIGN 71 MIXED GROUP ANALYSES 72 E.1 Mann-Whitney U-Test Result 72 E.2 Gentler Stream U-Test 73 E.3 Mean Value Analysis 73 E.4 Ranking Analysis 74 E.5 Acoustic Analysis 76 E.6 Summary 77 LIST OF REFERENCES 78 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 81

    1. Frumkin, H. (2001). Beyond toxicity: Human health and the natural environment. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20(3), 234-240.
    2. Stilgoe, J. R. (2001). Gone barefoot lately?. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20 (3).
    3. Rosch, P. J. Hans Selye: Birth of stress. The American Institute of Stress. Retrieved December 7, 2015 from http://www.stress.org/about/hans-selye-birth-of-stress/
    4. Oxford Learner’s Dictionary. Stress. Retrieved December 7, 2015 from http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/stress_1
    5. Kaplan, S. (1995). The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework. Michigan: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
    6. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F, Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A. & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-203.
    7. Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Journal of Science, 224, 420-421.
    8. Alvarsson, J. (2010). Stress recovery during exposure to natural sounds and environmental noise. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(3), 1036-1046.
    9. Li, Q. (2010). Effect of forest bathing trips on human immune function. Journal of Environmental Health Preventive Medicine, 15, 9-17.
    10. Koga, K., & Iwasaki, Y. (2013). Psychological and physiological effect in humans of touching plant foliage – using the semantic differential method and cerebral activity as indicators. Journal of Physiological Anthropology, 32, 7.
    11. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambrige: Harvard University Press.
    12. Pallasmaa, J., (2000). Hapticity and time. EMAP Architecture. Retrieved December 6, 2015 from http://iris.nyit.edu/~rcody/Thesis/Readings/Pallasmaa%20-%20Hapticity%20and%20Time.pdf
    13. Carles, J. L., Barrio, I. L. & de Lucio, J. V. (1999). Sound influence on landscape values. Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning, 43, 191 – 200.
    14. Kang, J., & Zhang, M. (2009). Semantic differential analysis of the soundscape in urban open public spaces. Journal of Building and Environment, 45, 150-157.
    15. Blesser, B., & Salter, L. R. (2007). Spaces Speak, Are You Listening?. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
    16. Heerwagen J. H. & Orians, G. H. (1986). Adaptations to windowless: The use of visual décor in windowed and windowless offices. Journal of Environment and Behavior, 18(5), 623-629.
    17. Rogers, K. (2015). Biophilia hypothesis. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved January 5, 2016, from http://www.britannica.com/science/biophilia-hypothesis.
    18. Beatley, T. (2010). Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning. Washington: Island Press.
    19. Kaplan, R. (1983). The role of nature in the urban context. Journal of Behavior and the Natural Environment, 6, 127-161.
    20. Heerwagen, J. H. (2009). Biophilia, health, and well-being. Campbell, Lindsay, Wiens, Anne, eds. Restorative commons: creating health and well-being through urban landscape. Gen. Tech Rep. NRS-P-39. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 38-57.
    21. U. S. Green Building Council. (2014). Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design: Reference guide for building design and construction V4. Washington: U. S. Green Building Council.
    22. International Standard. (2014). ISO 12913-1 Acoustic soundscape.
    23. Schafer, R. M. (1994). The soundscape: our sonic environment and the tuning of the world. Rochester, Vt.: Destiny Books.
    24. Slawson, D. (1987). Secret Teachings in the Art of Japanese Gardens: Design Principles and Aesthetic Values. Tokyo: Kondansha International.
    25. Eich, E. E., Kihlstrom, J. F., Bower, G. H., Forgas, J. P., & Niedenthal, P. (2000). Cognition and emotion. New York: Oxford University Press.
    26. Williamson, V. (2014). Music, emotion and the brain. Retrieved December 8, 2015 from http://musicpsychology.co.uk/music-emotion-and-the-brain/
    27. Koelsch, S. (2014). Brain correlates of music-evoked emotions. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15, 170-180.
    28. Sescousse, G., Caldu, X., Segura, B. & Dreher, J. C. (2013). Processing of primary and secondary rewards: a quantitative meta-analysis and review of human functional neuroimaging studies. Journal of Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Review, 37, 681-696.
    29. Jacobson, L. & Sapolsky, R. (1991). The role of the hippocampus in feedback regulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis. Journal of Endocrine Review, 12, 118-134.
    30. O’Mara, S. (2005). The subiculum: what it does, what it might do and what neuroanatomy has yet to tell us. Journal of Anatomy, 207, 271-282.
    31. Zhang, M. & Kang, J. (2007). Towards the evaluation, description and creation of soundscape in urban open spaces. Journal of Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34, 68-86.
    32. Osgood, C. (1952). The Nature and Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois. Psychological Bulletin, 49(3).
    33. Watanabe, Y. (2004). Analytical study of acoustic mechanism of “suikinkutsu”. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 43(9A), 6429-6443.
    34. Hagman, F (2010). Emotional response to sound (master’s thesis). Chalmers University of Technology. Goteborg.

    QR CODE