How Do People Evaluate the Designed Artefacts?

  • Emika OkumuraEmail author
  • Toshimasa Yamanaka


Design artefacts can give us several impressions when we evaluate them. How do we evaluate and judge them? Research on artworks and design artefacts has been carried out to investigate the people’s feelings during an evaluation of objects for many centuries. Research on design artefacts is getting an increase in the aspect of design development process and the product evaluation. In this chapter, we present two studies related to the evaluation of the design artefacts: (1) a study on the evaluation of dot patterns compositions to investigate the people’s subtle feelings towards abstract stimuli by measuring physiological activities and (2) a framework of sense of visual dynamics towards structural designed artefacts to propose a concept and address the issues.



This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 15H02765Z and 18J10168. We appreciate icons made by Iconnice (desk icon) and Freepik (chair and face icon) from (Fig. 10.4).


  1. 1.
    Cahn SM, Meskin A (2008) Aesthetics: a comprehensive anthology. Blackwell, Malden, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pappas N (2017) Plato’s Aesthetics. In: Zalta EN (ed). The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition). (27 Sep 2018)
  3. 3.
    Harris MS (1930) Beauty and the good. Philos Rev 39(5):479–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kosman A (2010) Beauty and the good: situating the Kalon. Classical Philol 105(4):341–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kant I (2011 [1764]) Observations on the feeling of the beautiful and sublime and other writings. In: Patrick F, Guyer P (eds) Cambridge University Press, p 246Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacobsen T (2006) Bridging the arts and sciences: a framework for the psychology of aesthetics. Leonardo 39:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kanizsa G (1979) Organization in vision: essays on Gestalt perception. Praeger PublishersGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sekuler R, Blake R (1985) Perception. Alfred A. Kopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wolfe JM, Kluender KR, Levi DM, Bartoshuk LM, Herz RS, Klatzky RL, Merfeld DM (2012) Sensation & perception, 3rd edn. Sinauer, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blijlevens J, Thurgood C, Hekkert P, Chen LL, Leder H, Whitfield TW (2017) The Aesthetic pleasure in design scale: the development of a scale to measure aesthetic pleasure for designed artifacts. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts 11(1):86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Okumura E, Shutoh F, Yamanaka T (2018) Investigation of physiological measurements during evaluation of pattern goodness. International conference on Kansei engineering & emotion research. Springer, Singapore, pp 389–398Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tschacher W, Greenwood S, Kirchberg V, Wintzerith S, van den Berg K, Tröndle M (2012) Physiological correlates of aesthetic perception of artworks in a museum. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts 6(1):96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kawabata H, Zeki S (2004) Correlates of beauty. J Neurophysiol 91(4):1699–1705. NeuralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leder H, Tinio PP, Bar M (2011) Emotional valence modulates the preference for curved objects. Perception 40(6):649–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garner WR, Clement DE (1963) Goodness of pattern and pattern uncertainty. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 2(5–6):446–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chipman SF (1977) Complexity and structure in visual patterns. J Exp Psychol Gen 106(3):269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ichikawa S (1985) Quantitative and structural factors in the judgment of pattern complexity. Percept Psychophys 38(2):101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kodama Y, Miura K (2011) Pattern goodness and perceptual organization. The Japanese J Psychol 82(3):277–282 (In Japanese with English abstract.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Öhman A, Soares JJ (1994) “ Unconscious anxiety”: Phobic responses to masked stimuli. J Abnorm Psychol 103(2):231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Flykt A, Esteves F, Öhman A (2007) Skin conductance responses to masked conditioned stimuli: phylogenetic/ontogenetic factors versus direction of threat? Biol Psychol 74(3):328–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lang PJ, Greenwald MK, Bradley MM, Hamm A (1993) Looking at pictures: affective, facial, visceral, and behavioural reactions. Psychophysiology 30:261–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Critchley HD, Elliott R, Mathias CJ, Dolan RJ (2000) Neural activity relating to generation and representation of galvanic skin conductance responses: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. The J Neurosci 20(8):3033–3040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bradley MM, Cuthbert BN, Lang PJ (1996) Picture media and emotion: effects of a sustained affective context. Psychophysiology 33(6):662–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walla P, Brenner G, Koller M (2011) Objective measures of emotion related to brand attitude: a new way to quantify emotion-related aspects relevant to marketing. PLoS ONE 6(11):e26782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ohira H, Hirao N (2015) Analysis of skin conductance response during evaluation of preferences for cosmetic products. Front Psychol 6Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Okumura E, Shutoh F, Yamanaka T (2017) How different patterns affect in feelings of goodness. Inter J Affect Eng 17(2):119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Figner B, Murphy RO (2011) Using skin conductance in judgment and decision-making research. A handbook of process tracing methods for decision research, pp 163–184Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gyoba J, Seto I (1985) Problems on the rating of pattern goodness: an analysis by the semantic differential method and its correspondence to Imai’s transformation structure theory. The Jpn J Psychol 56(2):111–115 (In Japanese with English abstract.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matsuda T (1978) Judgments of pattern goodness and intra-configurational transformation structures: an examination of Imai’s theory. The Jpn J Psychol 49:207–214 (In Japanese with English abstract.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Otsuka Y (1984) The role of geometrical transformation in the cognitive judgements of patterns. The Jpn J Psychol 55(2):67–74 (In Japanese with English abstract.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Takahashi J, Kawachi Y, Gyoba J (2012) Internal criteria underlying affective responses to visual patterns. Gestalt Theory 34:67–80Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Itō C (1898) Hōryūji kenchikuron. Imperial University of Tokyo. (written in Japanese)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nakanishi M (2011) A study of the design element on interior chairs. The research bulletin of Nagoya University of Arts and Sciences Junior College (7), 35–48, 2010-03 (written in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Arnheim, R. (1977). The dynamics of architectural form. University of California PressGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Architectural Institute of Japan (2014) Architectural form and mechanical kansei. Maruzen shuppan (written in Japanese)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Asano T, Iwai S (2003) Educational effects of visualized structural mechanical phenomena. Jpn Soc Eng Educ 51(5):4–10. (written in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nishimura T Takayama M (2008) A study on mechanical sensibility of students to structures—in the strength contest of light weight structures. KIT progress: Kanazawa Inst Technol 14:155–164. (written in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yamanaka T (2017) An approach through Kansei science. In: Jeon M (ed) Emotions and affect in human factors and human-computer interaction. Academic Press, London, pp 195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Frings M (2002) The golden section in architectural theory. Nexus Netw J 4(1):9–32MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gombrich EH (1980) The sense of order. A study in the psychology of decorative artGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Reich Y (1993) A model of aesthetic judgment in design. Artif Intell Eng 8(2):141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Barelli M, White J, Billington DP (2006) History and aesthetics of the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge. J Bridge Eng 11(2):230–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Billington DP (1997) Robert Maillart. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kandinsky W, Rebay H (1979) Point and line to plane. Courier CorporationGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Moholy-Nagy L (1932) The new vision: from material to architecture (trans: Daphne M. Hoffman) (New York: Wittenborn and Co., 1946), 23Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhu L (2016) Outline of a theory of visual tension. Art Percept 4(1–2):127–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Okamoto M Amano K lShii N (1998) A study on visual stability of shapes by psychological experiment. J Struct Eng 44A:575–580. (written in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tomizawa A, Kodaka N, Taremichi I, (2014) 2036 Kouzougourisei to Kansei nikansuru Kisotekikenkyuu: Keishyakeitai wo mochiita Ankeitochousa. In: Proceeding of the architectural research meetings, Kanto Chapter, Architectural Institute of Japan. 84(I), 437–440, 2014-02-20. (written in Japanese)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ogura T, Kodaka N, Taremichi I (2012) 2045 Rikigakutekikansei ni chakumokushita Choukousoukenchikubutu no Keitai nikansuru Kousatsu. In Proceeding of the architectural research meetings, Kanto Chapter, Architectural Institute of Japan. 82(1), 369–372. (written in Japanese)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Matsui T Sasaki Y (2012) A basic study of evaluation structure to visual design of neo-functionalism bridges. J Jpn Soc Civil Eng, Ser. D1. Architecture of Infrastructure and Environment. 68:1–12. (written in Japanese with English abstract)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Akalin A, Yildirim K, Wilson C, Kilicoglu O (2009) Architecture and engineering students’ evaluations of house façades: preference, complexity and impressiveness. J Environ Psychol 29(1):124–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Thompson P, Papadopoulou G, Vassiliou E (2007) The origins of entasis: illusion, aesthetics or engineering? Spat Vis 20(6):531–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    MIYATA K. (2010). The relation between undergraduate students’ recognition of forces and applying rules in mechanics. The Jpn J Psychol Teach Learn 6(2):53–60. (written in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Clement J (1993) Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. J Res Sci Teach 30(10):1241–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ishii N (1998) Explication of a sense of dynamism of a structure’s form applying cognitive science. University of Tokyo. Ph.D. thesis. (written in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Perry CJ, Fallah M (2014) Feature integration and object representations along the dorsal stream visual hierarchy. Front Comput Neurosci 8:284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Leder H, Nadal M (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode—developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. Br J Psychol (London, England: 1953), 105(4):443–464Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kansei, Behavioural and Brain Sciences, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human SciencesUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of Art and DesignUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations