Effects of reflecting water on viewers’ visual attention, spatial perception, and emotional responses: a case study in Chinese heritage garden
Source abstract
Abstract
Water is considered one of the most important elements in landscape design. Studies claim that water expands perceived spatial dimension. In classic Chinese gardens, water is usually used to expand limited garden spaces. However, this information is mostly experience-based. Therefore, this exploratory study compared the differences in characteristics of the observer’s visual and cognitive processing using a typical classic Chinese garden scenery picture with and without water through experiment (repeated measures design). A total of 64 participants were asked to randomly view two pictures respectively. The results showed that water reflection attracts more visual attention than pavement. Moreover, reflections can reduce the proportion of visual attention of a reflected substance and lower its visual attractiveness. The estimation of the actual area size showed that water was not effective for people’s spatial perception. However, participants felt a greater sense of spaciousness when viewing scenes that included water. These results suggest that reflecting on the water enhanced people’s appreciation of the scene.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Color perception and design · Urban Green Space and Health · Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (72)
Show source-provided references
1. Xie Q., Lee C., Lu Z., Yuan X. Interactions with artificial water features: a scoping review of health-related outcomes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 215, 104191 (2021).10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104191 ↗
2. Whalley, J. M. Water in the landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 16, 145–162 (1988).10.1016/0169-2046(88)90040-0 ↗
3. Moore C. W., Lidz J. Water and Architecture Vol. 224 (Thames and Hudson, 1994).
4. R. Burton Litton R. J. T. Water and Landscape: An Aesthetic Overview of the Role of Water in the Landscape. (Water Information Center, 1974).
5. de Givry J., Néraudau J. P. Versailles: The Spirit of the Park, Vol. 148 (Editions Sous le Vent/Vilo, 1985).
6. Nasar, J. L. & Li, M. Landscape mirror: the attractiveness of reflecting water. Landsc. Urban Plan. 66, 233–238 (2004).10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00113-0 ↗
7. Li C., Yuan Y., Sun C., Sun M. The perceived restorative quality of viewing various types of urban and rural scenes: based on psychological and physiological responses. Sustainability (Switzerland) 14, 3799 (2022).10.3390/su14073799 ↗
8. Zhou, X., Cen, Q. & Qiu, H. Effects of urban waterfront park landscape elements on visual behavior and public preference: evidence from eye-tracking experiments. Urban Urban Green. 82, 127889 (2023).10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127889 ↗
9. Han Z. Shanshui Chunquan Ji. (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Press, 1985).
10. Wen Z. Chang Wu Zhi. (Nanjing: Jiangsu Literature and Art Publishing House, 2015).
11. Liu D. Classic Gardens of Suzhou. (Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 1979).
12. Peng Y. Analysis Of The Traditional Chinese Garden. (Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 1986).
13. Murck A., Fong W. A Chinese garden court: the astor court at the metropolitan museum of art. Met. Museum Art 138, 3 (1980).10.2307/3269268 ↗
14. Porteous J. D. Environmental Aesthetics: Ideas, Politics and Planning. 1st edn, Vol. 308 (Routledge, 2013).10.4324/9780203437322 ↗
15. Sun, M. & Dong, L. Impact of the classic chinese garden soundscape with focus on physiological and psychological effects, tested through eye-tracking, and subjective evaluation. Front Psychol. 13, 1–10 (2022).
16. Elsadek, M., Sun, M., Sugiyama, R. & Fujii, E. Cross-cultural comparison of physiological and psychological responses to different garden styles. Urban. Urban Green. 38, 74–83 (2019).10.1016/j.ufug.2018.11.007 ↗
17. Sun, M. et al. Changes in visual interaction: viewing a Japanese garden directly, through glass or as a projected image. J. Environ. Psychol. 60, 116–121 (2018).10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.10.009 ↗
18. Snowden, R. J., O’Farrell, K. R., Burley, D., Erichsen, J. T., Newton, N. V. & Gray, N. S. The pupil’s response to affective pictures: role of image duration, habituation, and viewing mode. Psychophysiology 53, 1217–1223 (2016).10.1111/psyp.12668 ↗
19. Zhu, N., Tu, Y., Wang, L., Gao, X. & Shi, Y. 44.3: Effect of luminance on visual comfort under different illuminations. SID Symp. Dig. Tech. Pap. 54, 310–313, https://doi.org/10.1002/sdtp.16290 (2023).10.1002/sdtp.16290 ↗
20. Dupont, L., Ooms, K., Antrop, M. & Van Eetvelde, V. Comparing saliency maps and eye-tracking focus maps: the potential use in visual impact assessment based on landscape photographs. Landsc. Urban Plan. 148, 17–26, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2015.12.007 (2016).10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2015.12.007 ↗
21. McConkie, G. W. & Zola, D. Is visual information integrated across successive fixations in reading? Percept. Psychophys. 25, 221–224, https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202990 (1979).10.3758/bf03202990 ↗
22. Li, C., Sun, C., Sun, M., Yuan, Y. & Li, P. Effects of brightness levels on stress recovery when viewing a virtual reality forest with simulated natural light. Urban. Urban Green. 56, 126865, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UFUG.2020.126865 (2020).10.1016/J.UFUG.2020.126865 ↗
23. De Lucio, J. V., Mohamadian, M., Ruiz, J. P., Banayas, J. & Bernaldez, F. G. Visual landscape exploration as revealed by eye movement tracking. Landsc. Urban Plan. 34, 135–142, https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(95)00208-1 (1996).10.1016/0169-2046(95)00208-1 ↗
24. Nordh, H., Hagerhall, C. M. & Holmqvist, K. Tracking restorative components: patterns in eye movements as a consequence of a restorative rating task. Landsc. Res. 38, 101–116, https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.691468 (2013).10.1080/01426397.2012.691468 ↗
25. Franěk, M., Petružálek, J. & Šefara, D. Eye movements in viewing urban images and natural images in diverse vegetation periods. Urban. Urban Green. 46, 126477, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UFUG.2019.126477 (2019).10.1016/J.UFUG.2019.126477 ↗
26. Baker M. A., Loeb M. Implications of measurement of eye fixations for a psychophysics of form perception. Percep. Psycophys. 13, 185–1921973.10.3758/BF03214125 ↗
27. Underwood, G. & Foulsham, T. Visual saliency and semantic incongruency influence eye movements when inspecting pictures. Quart. J. Exp. Psychol. 59, 1931–1949, https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210500416342 (2006).10.1080/17470210500416342 ↗
28. Duchowski A. Visual attention. In Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice. 3–13 (Springer, London, 2007).10.1007/978-1-84628-609-4_1 ↗
29. Underwood, G., Templeman, E., Lamming, L. & Foulsham, T. Is attention necessary for object identification? Evidence from eye movements during the inspection of real-world scenes. Conscious Cogn. 17, 159–170, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONCOG.2006.11.008 (2008).10.1016/J.CONCOG.2006.11.008 ↗
30. Berto, R. The role of nature in coping with psycho-physiological stress: a literature review on restorativeness. Behav. Sci. (Basel, Switz.) 4, 394–409, https://doi.org/10.3390/bs4040394 (2014).10.3390/bs4040394 ↗
31. Valtchanov, D. & Ellard, C. G. Cognitive and affective responses to natural scenes: Effects of low level visual properties on preference, cognitive load and eye-movements. J. Environ. Psychol. 43, 184–195, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2015.07.001 (2015).10.1016/J.JENVP.2015.07.001 ↗
32. Borji, A., Sihite, D. N. & Itti, L. What stands out in a scene? a study of human explicit saliency judgment. Vis. Res. 91, 62–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.VISRES.2013.07.016 (2013).10.1016/J.VISRES.2013.07.016 ↗
33. Ploder A., Eder A. Semantic Differential. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition (WRIGHT & James D. eds.) 563–571 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2015).10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03231-1 ↗
34. Bizer G. Y. Attitudes. Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (Spielberger, C. D.) 245–249 (Academic Press Inc, 2004).10.1016/B0-12-657410-3/00559-6 ↗
35. Li, Z., Sun, X., Zhao, S. & Zuo, H. Integrating eye-movement analysis and the semantic differential method to analyze the visual effect of a traditional commercial block in Hefei, China. Front. Archit. Res. 10, 317–331, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOAR.2021.01.002 (2021).10.1016/J.FOAR.2021.01.002 ↗
36. Elsadek, M., Sun, M. & Fujii, E. Psycho-physiological responses to plant variegation as measured through eye movement, self-reported emotion and cerebral activity. Indoor Built Environ. 26, 758–770, https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X16638711 (2017).10.1177/1420326X16638711 ↗
37. Sun, M., Fujii, E., Hamano, Y. & Goto, S. Eye-movement characters and physiological responses of latter-stage elderly to Japanese garden. Nippon Teien Gakkaishi 2018, 32_17–32_24, https://doi.org/10.5982/jgarden.2018.32_17 (2018).10.5982/jgarden.2018.32_17 ↗
38. Półrolniczak, M. & Kolendowicz, L. The influence of weather and level of observer expertise on suburban landscape perception. Build Environ. 202, 108016, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2021.108016 (2021).10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2021.108016 ↗
39. Kang, T., Luo, S., Wang, P. & Tang, T. Influence of figure information on attention distribution in Chinese landscape painting. Heliyon 9, e15036, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HELIYON.2023.E15036 (2023).10.1016/J.HELIYON.2023.E15036 ↗
40. Yuan, G., Wang, H., Wang, M. & Lin, M. Visual attention and ethnic landscape perception: a case of three cities in the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao greater bay area. Appl. Geogr. 147, 102781 (2022).10.1016/j.apgeog.2022.102781 ↗
41. Amati, M., Ghanbari Parmehr, E., McCarthy, C. & Sita, J. How eye-catching are natural features when walking through a park? Eye-tracking responses to videos of walks. Urban. Urban Green. 31, 67–78 (2018).10.1016/j.ufug.2017.12.013 ↗
42. Yiyan, C., Zheng, C. & Ming, D. Designing attention–research on landscape experience through eye tracking in nanjing road pedestrian mall (Street) in Shanghai. Landsc. Archit. Front. 10, 52 (2022).10.15302/J-LAF-1-020064 ↗
43. Luo, J., Zhao, T., Cao, L. & Biljecki, F. Water view imagery: perception and evaluation of urban waterscapes worldwide. Ecol. Indic. 145, 109615 (2022).10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109615 ↗
44. Rothkegel, L. O. M., Trukenbrod, H. A., Schütt, H. H., Wichmann, F. A. & Engbert, R. Temporal evolution of the central fixation bias in scene viewing. J. Vis. 17, 1–18 (2017).10.1167/17.13.3 ↗
45. Loftus, G. R. & Mackworth, N. H. Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 4, 565–572 (1978).10.1037/0096-1523.4.4.565 ↗
46. Inhoff A. W., Radach R., Starr M., Greenberg S. Allocation of visuo-spatial attention and saccade programming during reading. Read. Percept. Process 2000, 221–246. (2000).10.1016/B978-008043642-5/50012-7 ↗
47. Underwood G., Binns A., Walker S. Attentional demands on the processing of neighbouring words. Read. Percept. Process. 2000, 247–268 (2000).10.1016/B978-008043642-5/50013-9 ↗
48. Dupont, L. et al. Investigating the visual exploration of the rural-urban gradient using eye-tracking. Spat. Cogn. Comput. 17, 65–88 (2017).10.1080/13875868.2016.1226837 ↗
49. Wohlwill, J. F. Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Percept. Psychophys. 4, 307–312 (1968).10.3758/BF03210521 ↗
50. Day, H. Evaluations of subjective complexity, pleasingness and interestingness for a series of random polygons varying in complexity. Percept. Psychophys. 2, 281–286 (1967).10.3758/BF03211042 ↗
51. Goto, S. et al. The power of traditional design techniques: the effects of viewing a Japanese garden on individuals with cognitive impairment. Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 10, 74–86 (2017).
52. Booth N. K. Basic Elements of Landscape Architectural Design Reissue edition, Vol. 315 (Elsevier; 1983).
53. Hubbard H. V., Hubbard T. K. An Introduction to the Study of Landscape Design, Vol. 361–381 (The Macmillan Company, 1917).10.5962/bhl.title.16901 ↗
54. Geisen E., Romano Bergstrom J. Developing the Usability Testing Protocol. Usability Testing for Survey Research Vol. 111–129 (Elsevier Inc, 2017).10.1016/B978-0-12-803656-3.00005-1 ↗
55. Velichkovsky B. M., Joos M., Helmert J. R., Pannasch S. Two visual systems and their eye movements: evidence from static and dynamic scene perception. Proc. XXVII Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2283–2288 (2005).
56. Tullis T., Albert B. Behavioral and Physiological Metrics. Measuring the User Experience 2nd edn, Vol. 163–186 (O'REILLY, 2013).10.1016/B978-0-12-415781-1.00007-8 ↗
57. Rosenbaum D. A. Looking. Human Motor Control 2nd edn, Vol. 528 (Academic Press Inc, 2010).10.1016/B978-0-12-374226-1.00006-1 ↗
58. Martínez-Soto, J., de la Fuente Suárez LA, Gonzáles-Santos, L. & Barrios, F. A. Observation of environments with different restorative potential results in differences in eye patron movements and pupillary size. IBRO Rep. 7, 52–58 (2019).10.1016/j.ibror.2019.07.1722 ↗
59. White, M. et al. Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 482–493 (2010).10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.004 ↗
60. Wang, X., Rodiek, S., Wu, C., Chen, Y. & Li, Y. Stress recovery and restorative effects of viewing different urban park scenes in Shanghai, China. Urban Urban Green. 15, 112–122 (2016).10.1016/j.ufug.2015.12.003 ↗
61. MacLachlan, C. & Howland, H. C. Normal values and standard deviations for pupil diameter and interpupillary distance in subjects aged 1 month to 19 years. Ophthalmic Physiological Opt. 22, 175–182 (2002).10.1046/j.1475-1313.2002.00023.x ↗
62. Watson, A. B. & Yellott, J. I. A unified formula for light-adapted pupil size. J. Vis. 12, 12 (2012).10.1167/12.10.12 ↗
63. Goffart L. Saccadic eye movements. Ency. Neurosci. 2009, 437–444 (2009).10.1016/B978-008045046-9.01101-3 ↗
64. Unema, P. J. A., Pannasch, S., Joos, M. & Velichkovsky, B. M. Time course of information processing during scene perception: the relationship between saccade amplitude and fixation duration. Vis. Cogn. 12, 473–494 (2005).10.1080/13506280444000409 ↗
65. Wu, C.-C. & Kowler, E. Timing of saccadic eye movements during visual search for multiple targets. J. Vis. 13, 11 (2013).10.1167/13.11.11 ↗
66. Castelhano, M. & Fernandes, S. The Foreground Bias: Initial scene representations dominated by foreground information. J. Vis. 18, 1240 (2018).10.1167/18.10.1240 ↗
67. Palumbo, L., Ogden, R., Makin, A. D. J. & Bertamini, M. Examining visual complexity and its influence on perceived duration. J. Vis. 14, 3, https://doi.org/10.1167/14.14.3 (2014).10.1167/14.14.3 ↗
68. Berlyne D. E. Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Percept. Psychophys. 8, 279–286 (1970).10.3758/BF03212593 ↗
69. Berlyne D. E. Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. (McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1960).10.1037/11164-000 ↗
70. Sun, Z. & Firestone, C. Curious objects: how visual complexity guides attention and engagement. Cogn. Sci. 45, e12933 (2021).10.1111/cogs.12933 ↗
71. Colby C. L. Perception of extrapersonal space: psychological and neural aspects. Int. Ency. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2001, 11205–11209 (2001).10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03501-4 ↗
72. Salama, S. W. Towards developing sustainable design standards for waterfront open spaces. City, Territ. Archit. 9, 26 (2022).10.1186/s40410-022-00172-3 ↗