No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Adding Implicit Measurement Methods to Interactive Optimizations in Industrial Design - A Concept, First Tests, and Comparison Using Two Simple Case Studies
Part of:
Knowledge-based Engineering
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2019
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
In this article, a new approach to interactive optimization in industrial design is presented in which, for the first time, implicit preference acquisition methods are integrated. Suitable methods for preference acquisition will be selected, adapted and combined with an own PSO-inspired algorithm. The application of implicit preferences as well as the combined application of implicit and explicit preferences in an interactive optimization represents the main novelty of this contribution since this has not yet been carried out according to the current state of knowledge.Two case studies will be used to test this new approach with regard to convergence and acceptance, and a comparison will be made between the three different kind of optimization (implicit, explicit as well as a combination of both) in terms of their results.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 2447 - 2456
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- © The Author(s) 2019
References
Berlyne, D.E. (1971), Aesthetics and psychobiology, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.Google Scholar
Breitmeyer, B.G. and Ogmen, H. (2000), “Recent models and findings in visual backward masking: A comparison, review, and update”, Perception & Psychophysics, Vol. 62 No. 8, pp. 1572–1595.Google Scholar
Carbon, C.-C. (2018), “Empirical Aesthetics: In Quest of a Clear Terminology and Valid Methodology”, in Kapoula, Z., Volle, E., Renoult, J. and Andreatta, M. (Eds.), Exploring Transdisciplinarity in Art and Sciences, Vol. 139, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 107–119.Google Scholar
Carbon, C.-C., Mchedlidze, T., Raab, M.H. and Wächter, H. (2018), “The Power of Shape: How Shape of Node-Link Diagrams Impacts Aesthetic Appreciation and Triggers Interest”, i-Perception, Vol. 9 No. 5, 204166951879685.Google Scholar
Cluzel, F., Yannou, B. and Dihlmann, M. (2010), “Evolutive design of car silhouettes using an interactive genetic algorithm”.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, L.S. and Dirks, D.D. (1995), “Reliability and sensitivity of paired comparisons and category rating in children”, Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, Vol. 38 No. 5,Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1993), “A psychometric investigation of a scale for the evaluation of the aesthetic element in consumer durable goods”.Google Scholar
Felkner, J., Chatzi, E. and Kotnik, T. (2015), “Interactive truss design using Particle Swarm Optimization and NURBS curves”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 60–74.Google Scholar
Graf, L.K.M. and Landwehr, J.R. (2015), “A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: the pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking”, Personality and social psychology review an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 395–410.Google Scholar
Greb, F., Elvers, P. and Fischinger, T. (2016), “Trends in Empirical Aesthetics”, Empirical Studies of the Arts, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A.G., McGhee, D.E. and Schwartz, J.L.K. (1998), “Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test”, Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 1464–1480.Google Scholar
Hassan, R., Cohanim, B. and Weck, O.D. “A copmarison of particle swarm optimization and the genetic algorithm”.Google Scholar
Hekkert, P. and Leder, H. (2008), “Product aesthetics”, in Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Hekkert, P. (Eds.), Product experience, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 259–285.Google Scholar
Karpinski, A. and Steinman, R.B. (2006), “The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition”, Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 16–32.Google Scholar
Kelly, J.C. (2008), “Interactive genetic algorithms for shape preference assessment in engineering design”, Michigan, 2008.Google Scholar
Kohler, T.C. (2003), “Wirkungen des Produktdesigns: Analyse und Messung am Beispiel Automobildesign”, Gabler Edition Wissenschaft Forschungsgruppe Konsum und Verhalten, Vol. 1. Aufl., Dt. Univ.-Verl., Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Krettek, J. (2012), “Ein multikriterieller evolutionärer algorithmus mit interaktiver präferenzintegration – angewendet zur optimierung von hydraulikventilreglern”, Vol. 3 December.Google Scholar
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A. and Augustin, D. (2004), “A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments”, British journal of psychology (London, England 1953), Vol. 95 No. Pt 4Google Scholar
Liss, P. (1968), “Does backward masking by visual noise stop stimulus processing?”, Perception & Psychophysics, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 328–330.Google Scholar
Neath, I. and Surprenant, A.M. (2007), Human memory: An introduction to research, data, and theory, 2nd ed., [repr.], Thomson/Wadsworth, Belmont, Calif.Google Scholar
Nordin, A. (2015), Reconciling form and function through generative design, Division of Machine Design, Department of Design Sciences, Faculty of Engineering LTH, Lund University, 15/1030, Division of Machine Design, Department of Design Sciences, Faculty of Engineering LTH, Lund University, Lund.Google Scholar
Norman, D.A. (2005), Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Payne, B.K., Cheng, C.M., Govorun, O. and Stewart, B.D. (2005), “An inkblot for attitudes: affect misattribution as implicit measurement”, Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 277–293.Google Scholar
Petiot, J.-F., Cervantes Chávez, F.J. and Boivin, L., “An interactive genetic algorithm product semantics”, International Conference on Kansei Engineering and Emotion Research, pp. 1067–1080.Google Scholar
Poli, R., Kennedy, J. and Blackwell, T. (2007), “Particle swarm optimization”, Swarm Intelligence, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 33–57.Google Scholar
Takagi, H. (2001), “Interactive evolutionary computation: fusion of the capabilities of EC optimization and human evaluation”, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 89 No. 9, pp. 1275–1296.Google Scholar
Turvey, M.T. (1973), “On peripheral and central processes in vision: Inferences from an information-processing analysis of masking with patterned stimuli”, Psychological Review, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. (2011), “Design. Creation of Artifacts in society”, University of Pennsylvania, 2011.Google Scholar
Wiesner, M. and Vajna, S. (2018), “Conception of a crowdsourcing tool to support industrial design decisions”, in Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference, May, 21-24, 2018, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, Croatia; The Design Society, Glasgow, UK, pp. 511–522.Google Scholar
Yanagisawa, H. and Fukuda, S. (2004), “Development of Interactive Industrial Design Support System Considering Customer's Evaluation”, JSME International Journal Series C, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 762–769.Google Scholar
Zeh, N. (2010), Erfolgsfaktor Produktdesign, Beiträge zum Produkt-Marketing, Vol. 45, Förderges. Produkt-Marketing, Köln.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access