Advertisement

Kansei Knowledge Extraction as Measure of Structural Heterogeneity

Conference paper
First Online:
  • 360 Downloads
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 949)

Abstract

Representative measurements way of affective attributes is the Semantic Differential (SD) method in Kansei evaluation experiments. Structural heterogeneity of the subjective evaluations indicates the heterogeneous evaluation structure of each evaluator, which is presented individually by the specific selected factors. The objective of the structural heterogeneity modeling is not only to extract the general trends but also to identify the diverse individual evaluation structure. In this paper, we propose a Hierarchical Bayes Regression model with Heterogeneous Variable Selection (HBRwHVS), which simultaneously analyses the individual models and identifies the influential explanatory variables based on the framework of the Hierarchical Bayes Regression Modeling. The results offer the relational data between the evaluators and the selected items as carefully chosen explanatory variables. We apply the proposed method to the analysis of sensibility subjective evaluation data on traditional craft and show its effectiveness. After obtaining the estimated values of model parameters, cluster analysis is performed on subjects with the similar evaluation structures as another example of its applications.

Keywords

Semantic Differential method Structural heterogeneity HBRwHVS Clustering Traditional craft 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work is supported by JSPS Grand-in-Aid for Scientific Research(B)18H00904.

References

  1. 1.
    Chou, J.R.: A kansei evaluation approach based on the technique of computing with words. Adv. Eng. Inform. 30(1), 1–15 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dhillon, I.S.: Co-clustering documents and words using bipartite spectral graph partitioning. In: Proceedings of the Seventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. pp. 269–274. ACM (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Florez-Lopez, R., Ramon-Jeronimo, J.M.: Managing logistics customer service under uncertainty: an integrative fuzzy Kano framework. Inf. Sci. 202, 41–57 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geman, S., Geman, D.: Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions, and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 6, 721–741 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    George, E.I., McCulloch, R.E.: Variable selection via Gibbs sampling. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 88(423), 881–889 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    George, E.I., McCulloch, R.E.: Approaches for Bayesian variable selection. Statistica Sinica 7, 339–373 (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gilbride, T.J., Allenby, G.M., Brazell, J.D.: Models for heterogeneous variable selection. J. Mark. Res. 43(3), 420–430 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hsu, S.H., Chuang, M.C., Chang, C.C.: A semantic differential study of designers’ and users’ product form perception. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 25(4), 375–391 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang, Y., Chen, C.H., Wang, I.H.C., Khoo, L.P.: A product configuration analysis method for emotional design using a personal construct theory. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 44(1), 120–130 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khalid, H.M.: Embracing diversity in user needs for affective design. Appl. Ergon. 37(4), 409–418 (2006). Special Issue: Meeting Diversity in ErgonomicsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McLachlan, G., Peel, D.: Finite Mixture Models. Willey Series in Probability and Statistics (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nagamachi, M.: Kansei engineering: a new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 15(1), 3–11 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., Tannenbaum, P.H.: The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press (1964)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petiot, J.F., Yannou, B.: Measuring consumer perceptions for a better comprehension, specification and assessment of product semantics. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 33(6), 507–525 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rossi, P.E., Allenby, G.M., McCulloch, R.: Bayesian Statistics and Marketing. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schütte, S.: Engineering emotional values in product design: Kansei engineering in development. Ph.D. thesis, Institutionen för konstruktions-och produktionsteknik (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tibshirani, R.: Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J. R. Stat. Soc. 58(1), 267–288 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang, W., Li, Z., Tian, Z., Wang, J., Cheng, M.: Extracting and summarizing affective features and responses from online product descriptions and reviews: a Kansei text mining approach. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 73, 149–162 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhai, L.Y., Khoo, L.P., Zhong, Z.W.: A rough set based decision support approach to improving consumer affective satisfaction in product design. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 39(2), 295–302 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zikopoulos, P., Eaton, C., et al.: Understanding Big Data: Analytics for Enterprise Class Hadoop and Streaming Data. McGraw-Hill Osborne Media, New York (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business SciencesUniversity of TsukubaTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options