Psychological Interpretation of Human Behavior to Atypical Architectural Shape

  • Young Lim Lee
  • Yun Gil LeeEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1026)


The aim of this study was to investigate the psychological effects of users’ behaviors toward atypical architectural forms. The users’ behaviors were interpreted from a psychological perspective that has been studied previously and is related to visual perception, active touch, equilibrium sense, poor shape perception, ecological psychology, canonical neurons, and affordances. The results theoretically stated that the users’ different behaviors, when in atypical buildings, may have been caused by psychological actions. The ultimate purpose of this study was to develop a computerized tool to perform user simulations in the atypical architectural design process. The results of this study can be used as theoretical knowledge for developing advanced intelligence of the agent.


Human factors Human behavior Psychological interpretation Atypical architectural shape Affordance 



This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (NRF-2018R1A2B6005827).


  1. 1.
    Gibson, J.J.: Observations on active touch. Psychol. Rev. 69(6), 477–491 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldstrin, B.E.: Sensation and Perception, 9th edn. Cengage Learning, Mason (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schönhammer, R.: Einführung in die Wahrnehmungspsychologie: Sinne, Körper, Bewegung. UTB GmbH, Stuttgart (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arnheim, R.: A plea for visual thinking. Crit. Inq. 6(3), 489–497 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee, Y., Crabtree, C.E., Norman, J.F., Bingham, G.P.: Poor shape perception is the reason reaches-to-grasp are visually guided online. Percept. Psychophys. 70(6), 1032–1046 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gibson, J.J.: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, classic edn. Psychology Press, London (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Philbeck, J.W., Loomis, J.M.: Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 23(1), 72–85 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Todd, J.T., Norman, J.F.: The visual perception of 3-D shape from multiple cues: are observers capable of perceiving metric shape? Percept. Psychophys. 65(1), 31–47 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Land, M., Lee, D.: Where we look when we steer. Nature 369, 742–744 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology and PsychotherapyDankook UniversityCheonan-siRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of ArchitectureHoseo UniversityAsan-siRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations