대한건축학회논문집 (Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea)

  • 제37권2호
  • /
  • Pages.35-42
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 2733-6239(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-6247(eISSN)
대한건축학회 (Architectural Institute of Korea)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

VR과 EEG를 이용한 천장 높이와 공간 체류 시간에 관한 연구

A Study on Stimulation of Ceiling Height and Duration of Stay using VR & EEG

  • 염상훈 (연세대학교 건축공학과) ;
  • 이전윤 (연세대학교 건축공학과) ;
  • 최유림 (연세대학교 실내건축학과)
  • 투고 : 2020.11.09
  • 심사 : 2021.02.03
  • 발행 : 2021.02.28
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This study examines the brainwave changes with the increase of ceiling height using VR and EEG devices. Specifically, It takes into consideration the duration of time the user spends in a space. The study attempts to determine as a preliminary study whether the architectural element of the ceiling height as a spatial stimulus can show a significant difference of EEG data in the physiological responses of occupants. In order to quantitatively measure the occupant's responses with the increase in ceiling height, a VR space was built, and EEG data were acquired while increasing the ceiling height. Also, to examine the characteristics of brainwave changes concerning the amount of time spent in space, cumulative segments of EEG data were analyzed in 1-second intervals throughout the overall exposure time. Results indicate that when the ceiling height increased from 3m to 9m, there is a relative decrease in the low-frequency brainwaves and an increase in the high-frequency brainwaves. Specifically, this study found a significant change in brainwave activity for the first 5-10 seconds of exposure to ceiling height stimuli. This study demonstrates that VR and EEG can quantifiably identify the temporal effect's physiological response according to the increase in the ceiling's height, thus expanding the possibility of quantitative research of architectural qualities that can be used to assist the architect's design and experience.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Banaei M., Javad H., Abbas Y., & Klaus G. (2017). Walking through Architectural Spaces: The Impact of Interior Forms on Human Brain Dynamics. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017; 11. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00477.
  2. Cernea D., Kerren A., & Ebert A. (2011). Detecting insight and emotion in visualization applications with a commercial EEG headset. Proc. SIGRAD Linkoping Electronic Conference. Stockholm, Sweden. 2011.
  3. Cha, S., Koo, C., Kim, T., & Hong, T. (2019). Spatial perception of ceiling height and type variation in immersive virtual environments. Build Environ. 2019; 163: 106-285.
  4. Debener S., Minow F., Emkes R., Gandras K., & De Vos M. (2012). How about taking a low-cost, small, and wireless EEG for a walk? Psychophysiology. 2012; 49: 1617-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01471.x
  5. Erkan, I. (2018). Examining wayfinding behaviors in architectural spaces using brain imaging with electroencephalography (EEG). ASR. 2018; 61(6): 410-28.
  6. Hollander J., & Foster V. (2016). Brain responses to architecture and planning: a preliminary neuro-assessment of the pedestrian experience in Boston, Massachusetts. ASR. 2016; 59(6): 474-81.
  7. Hong, T., Lee, M., Yeo, S., & Jeong, K. (2019). Occupant responses on satisfaction with window size in physical and virtual built environments. Building and Environment. 2019; 166: 106409 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106409
  8. Interrante V., Ries B., & Anderson L. (2006). Distance Perception in Immersive Virtual Environments, Revisited. Paper presented at the IEEE Virtual Reality Conference (VR 2006), USA. 2006.
  9. James W. (2006) Biological Psychology. Wadsworth Publishing; 2006.
  10. Kuliga S., Thrash T., Dalton R., & Holscherab C. (2015). Virtual reality as an empirical research tool - Exploring user experience in a real building and a corresponding virtual model. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 2015; 54: 363-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.09.006
  11. Laxtha. (2019). EG studies Quick Guide. Accessed January 2019. http://www.laxtha.com/SiteView.asp?x=7&y=32&z=33&infid=155
  12. Maruhn P., Schneider S., & Bengler K. (2019). Measuring egocentric distance perception in virtual reality: Influence of methodologies, locomotion and translation gains. PLoS ONE 14(10): e0224651. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224651
  13. Neale C., Aspinall P., Roe J., Tilley S., Mavros P., Cinderby S., Coyne R., Thin N., Bennett G., & Thompson C. (2017). The Aging Urban Brain: Analyzing Outdoor Physical Activity Using the Emotiv Affectiv Suite in Older People. J Urban Health. 2017; 94: 869-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-017-0191-9
  14. Peer A., & Ponto K. (2017). Evaluating perceived distance measures in room-scale spaces using consumer-grade head mounted displays, 2017 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), Los Angeles, CA, 2017; 83-86, doi: 10.1109/3DUI.2017.7893321.
  15. Queensland Brain Institute. (2019). Lobes of the brain. Accessed January 2019. https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-anatomy/lobes-brain
  16. Ruta N., Mastandrea S., Penacchio O., Lamaddalena S, & Bove G. (2019). Comparison between preference judgments of curvature and sharpness in architectural facades. ASR. 2019; 62(2):171-81.
  17. Shemesh A., Talmon R., Karp O., Amir I., Bar M., & Grobman Y. (2017). Affective response to architecture - investigating human reaction to spaces with different geometry. ASR. 2017; 60(2): 116-25.
  18. Vartanian O., Navarrete G., Chatterjee A., Fich L., Gonzalez-Mora J., Leder H., Modrono C., Nadal M., Rostrup N., & Skov M. (2015). Architectural design and the brain: Effects of ceiling height and perceived enclosure on beauty judgments and approach-avoidance decisions. J Environ Psychol. 2015; 41: 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.006