190 likes | 269 Views
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.
E N D
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
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.
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
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
Experimental design Beamer Eyetracker Subject
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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).
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%
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.
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?
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.
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!