Anda di halaman 1dari 11

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232394114

Relating material experience to technical


parameters: A case study on visual and tactile
warmth perception of indoor wall...
Article in Building and Environment January 2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.08.009

CITATIONS

READS

191

4 authors, including:
Rick Schifferstein

Ann Heylighen

Delft University of Technology

University of Leuven

143 PUBLICATIONS 3,306 CITATIONS

216 PUBLICATIONS 808 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Ine Wouters
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
71 PUBLICATIONS 140 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

How do disabled architects design? View project

Design-oriented ways to inform architects about people's spatial experience View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rick Schifferstein on 09 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached


copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Building and Environment 49 (2012) 359e367

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Building and Environment


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Relating material experience to technical parameters: A case study on visual


and tactile warmth perception of indoor wall materials
Lisa Wastiels a, *, Hendrik N.J. Schifferstein b, Ann Heylighen a, Ine Wouters c
a

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of Architecture, Urbanism & Planning, Kasteelpark Arenberg 1/2431, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
Delft University of Technology, Department of Industrial Design, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands
c
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Department of Architectural Engineering, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel, Belgium
b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 8 April 2011
Received in revised form
11 August 2011
Accepted 12 August 2011

Experiential aspects of materials are addressed rather intuitively by architects during the material
selection process for buildings. This paper explores the possibilities of relating material experience in
architecture to technical material parameters and uses the perceived warmth of indoor wall materials as
a case study. Various building materials were assessed technically and their perceived warmth was
evaluated by participants. As people experience a building and its materials through multiple senses, the
separate effects of vision and touch were considered.
Results show that the senses used for evaluation have a major impact on the perception of warmth,
and that a distinction should be made between the visual warmth and tactile warmth of a material. The
overall perception of warmth was shown to correspond to its visual perception. Furthermore, the
perception of material warmth was correlated with several technical material parameters, such as the
thermal effusivity, the surface gloss and the hue and saturation of the material color. The color study
suggested that the material color has a larger effect on the perceived warmth than other material
parameters. An indication of the relationships between the perceived material warmth and measurable
technical material parameters offers architects insights on how to change the experience of warmth by
changing specic technical parameters and thus allows to select materials in a better informed way.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Architecture
Building materials
Material experience
Material information
Perception
Warmth

1. Introduction
When choosing materials for a building, architects consider
aspects relating to structural performance, functional requirements
and experience [1,2]. While it seems evident that architects
consider experiences while selecting materials, the importance of
non-technical material considerations started to gain interest only
recently [3e5]. Research shows that experiential considerations are
important in architects material selection process [6,7], but they
are addressed rather intuitively and architects have trouble to
identify or name them [8]. This intuitive approach may work for
familiar materials, where the perceived qualities can be judged
based on previous experience. However, for new and unknown
materials few such references exists. The present research explores
whether aspects of material experience can be described and
related to the materials technical parameters. Making such links
improves our understanding of material experience and may
inform architects while selecting materials.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 32 16 32 13 34; fax: 32 16 32 19 84.
E-mail address: wastiels@post.harvard.edu (L. Wastiels).
0360-1323/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.08.009

Whereas the importance of material experience in architecture


has clearly been identied, the eld lacks substantial research on
the further understanding of material experience. Apart from
research on the effects of colors on peoples moods or the experience of a space (e.g. [9,10]), the study of the effects of material
aspects has been very limited.
The present study focuses on the experience of material
warmth. Warm is commonly used to describe the materiality of
building elements [11] and was identied as one of the environmental descriptors relevant and meaningful to non-architects in
describing physical environments [12]. The way a space feels is
related to its design and the feeling of warmth is one of the aspects
important to the experience of constructed environments [1].
Interviews and a focus group study showed that architects use
warm as a selection criterion while considering materials for the
buildings they design [8,13]. Whereas warm is clearly considered
as a relevant quality of a material and a concept being used by
architects as well as users, it is not that clear what exactly it refers
to. Warmth is used to describe the tactile behavior of materials
[14e16] but also involves a larger concept concerning an overall
experience [14,17].

Author's personal copy

360

L. Wastiels et al. / Building and Environment 49 (2012) 359e367

The main goal of the present study is to investigate to what


extent the experience of material warmth can be described in
relation to technical material parameters. More specically, we are
interested in the perception of the warmth of interior walls and
how it changes for wall materials with different technical parameters. An indoor wall is perceived visually, but also plays a tactile
role while building users stroke by, or lean up against it. Hence, the
perception of warmth of interior building materials is the result of
the composite percept of the visual, tactile, and possibly other
sensory characteristics. As people experience a building and its
materials through their senses, it is important for architects to be
aware of these different sensory inputs. Therefore, this study will
consider the contribution of vision and touch in the experience of
material warmth. Before elaborating on the design of the study, we
discuss the existing knowledge on material warmth at three
different levels: as a tactile experience, as a visual experience, and
as an overall experience.
1.1. Tactile experience of warmth
The sensory aspects of a material start to play a role when
considering the interaction between the material and a user. The
object temperature is detected through the stimulation of the
thermal receptors in the skin. According to Klatzky et al. [18] people
have specic exploratory movements for the perception of specic
tactual properties. Temperature is explored through static contact,
which means that the hand (or other part of the skin) touches the
surface without moving.
The materials tactile warmth describes how cold or warm
a material feels to touch [3]. On the one hand, the initial material
temperature inuences the tactile warmth: a brick at freezing
temperature feels colder than a brick at room temperature. In general,
the material temperature corresponds with the ambient temperature, which can vary extremely outdoors, but usually varies between
17 and 25 Celsius indoors. On the other hand, the tactile warmth is
also inuenced by the materials thermal behavior, which determines
how the material interacts with its surroundings: metal feels colder
than wood, even when both are at room temperature. A material feels
cold to the touch if it conducts heat away from the nger quickly and
feels warm if it does not [3]. Materials with low temperatureresistance are thus considered as cold (e.g., glass, metal) and those
with high temperature-resistance as warm (e.g., wood, plastic) at
room temperature [19]. This temperature-resistance refers to the
materials thermal conductivity k, which describes a materials ability
to transport heat. Materials with a high thermal conductivity, like
metals, transport heat more easily than those with a low thermal
conductivity, like woods, plasters or insulation materials [20].
Several authors studied the phenomenon of tactile warmth more
comprehensively from a physical point of view, representing the
problem as a model of two semi-innite bodies [21e24]. Based on
this model, the temperature one actually perceives upon touching
a surface is represented by the contact temperature Tc e also called
feeling or sensation temperature [23]. Besides the thermal
conductivity and initial material temperature, this contact temperature also takes into consideration the effect of the materials
density r and heat capacity c. Heat absorption describes the materials ability to absorb heat from its surroundings. Materials with
a low heat capacity, like metals, easily rise in temperature when
being heated compared to materials with a high heat capacity, like
woods [20]. Obata et al. [25] found a high and positive linear
correlation between the tactile warmth of wood and the logarithm
of the contact temperature. They also state that materials with
a lower thermal effusivity (krc)1/2 feel warmer than materials with
a higher one at room temperature. Ho and Jones [21] researched
peoples ability to identify materials based on real and simulated

thermal cues. For the materials tested in their study (copper,


stainless steel, granite, ABS, and foam), they found that the decrease
in skin temperature upon contact was consistent with the thermal
effusivity of the materials, which is in agreement with the predictions made by the semi-innite body model. Also, Ashby and
Johnson present (krc)1/2 as a measure of coldness of materials in the
context of architecture and product design [3]. The thermal effusivity of a material thus returns in a number of studies as a good
technical measure to describe the tactile warmth of a material
[23e25]. For material temperatures below 34  C, materials with
a higher thermal effusivity, like metals, will be perceived as colder
than materials with a lower thermal effusivity, like woods [26]. This
is mostly the case in an architectural context, where temperatures
typically only rise above 34  C for outdoor materials during summer.
It should be noted that the material geometry also has an effect
on the thermal perception: a thick bar will conduct heat away from
the nger more easily than a thin foil [26]. This is an effect that the
designer should take into consideration depending on the material
application. Furthermore, the surface geometry, like the roughness,
might also inuence the experience of warmth. The contact surface
between the material and the skin will be small for very rough
surfaces compared to smooth surfaces. No research was found,
however, on the possible relationship between roughness and
warmth perception.
1.2. Visual experience of warmth
Colors are attributed certain warmth. Although there are some
inconsistencies, most psychological research on colors indicates
that warm colors are ranging between yellow and red-violet on the
color circle (i.e. yellow, orange-yellow, red, and red-violet), and cold
colors range between blue-violet and yellow-green on the chromatic circle (i.e. blue-violet, blue, blue-green, yellow-green).
Research has shown that the perceived coldness between two
spaces that were painted blue-green and orange-red differed
3e4  C [27]. Wright [28] and Wright and Rainwater [29] showed
a clear effect of hue on the perception of the warmth of colored
squares, which was independent of the brightness and color saturation. They also found that the perceived warmth is higher for
colors that are darker and more saturated.
The perception of color warmth might change based on the
different colors that are placed next to each other. Yellow-green
appears colder if it is placed next to a warm color such as red,
and appears warmer if it is placed next to a cold blue [27]. This
effect should be taken into consideration by the designer when
choosing colors, but cannot be taken into consideration in the
general description of the perception of warmth of a specic color.
The warmth of a color also depends on the product context.
Fenko [17] found that perceived color warmth followed general
color theory for a breakfast tray but not for scarves. This implies
that the validity of the predictions of general color theory should be
veried within the context of use.
Surface gloss might also inuence the perception of warmth.
Walls with glossy paint or glazed tiles are experienced as being
hard, whereas the nely grained surface wall seems rather soft [11].
Thiis-Evensen argues that a space with smooth walls seems colder
than a comparable space with nely textured walls. He reasons that
a ne texture is associated with porosity and, thereby, with a warm
and protected space. The relation between warmth perception and
gloss or texture has not been researched in detail, however.
1.3. Overall experience of warmth
In the general assessment of warmth, a combination of factors
will inuence the experience. First of all, the different senses are

Author's personal copy

L. Wastiels et al. / Building and Environment 49 (2012) 359e367

used simultaneously and thus may inuence the overall perception. However, it remains to be established empirically to what
extent each sensory modality contributes to the overall experience
of warmth. Experimental studies in other domains than architecture have shown that the contributions of the sensory modalities
are product-dependent. For instance, smell completely dominates
the experienced freshness for soft drinks and for dishwashing
liquids, but not for scented candles where smell and color seem to
have equal impact [30]. Therefore, we wonder to what extent the
overall perception of warmth for indoor wall coverings is dependent on what people see and what they experience tactually.
Second, also personal associations or memory might inuence the
feeling of warmth that a material evokes in its observer. The
personal associations made with warmth and the different
meanings attributed to the warmth concept are numerous.
According to dictionary denitions warm relates to enthusiasm,
liveliness, excitement, friendliness, sincerity, loving, passion,
excitement, or arousal [31]. Warmth may also be associated with
affection and tenderness, comfort and coziness, sexuality, anger
and so on [17]. In terms of associations Heschong [32] states that
things that were once alive and warm themselves, like the fur of
a polar bear rug, or the leather of a chair may carry an association
with previous life and, therefore, seem even warmer. In addition,
materials that keep our bodies warm, like a woolen or eece scarf,
are associated with warmth [17].
1.4. Research on perception and experience
The relationship between peoples perceptions and the technical
properties of a material or surface have been studied primarily in
the eld of psychophysics. The methods used in these studies often
combine two types of data collection: (1) physical measurements
characterizing the materials (stimuli) in terms of their technical
parameters and (2) peoples judgments of sensory intensity. The
evaluations can be recorded by letting participants order the
different stimuli according to the perceived quality of interest, by
rating stimulus intensity on structured category scales or line
scales, by assigning a number relative to a designated reference
sample, and so on [33]. Relationships between the technical data
and participant responses are mostly established through regression and correlation analyses.
Stimuli in these studies are often designed to vary in one
specic aspect (e.g. roughness) in order to study its isolated
effect. Unfortunately, the need for experimental control often
prevents the use of commercially available materials as stimuli,
which limits the studys external validity [34]. In addition, these
studies often limit themselves to a single sensory modality. After
years of conducting research on a sense-by-sense approach,
researchers across different disciplines in psychology now
recognize that perception is fundamentally a multisensory
experience. Instead of only focusing on how the individual senses
contribute to specic experiences, research investigating interactions between two or more modalities has recently gained
substantial research interest [35].
In the eld of product design the relation between peoples
perception of materials and the materials physical parameters has
been studied from a more practical point of view. For instance,
Karana et al. tried to identify the sensory properties of materials
which designers nd decisive for creating expressive meanings like
aggressive or professional [14]. Participants were asked to evaluate
the materials of a given product in an interview and rated a list of
sensorial properties using 5-point rating scales. Furthermore, Chen
et al. studied the relationships between the physical properties and
peoples sensory and affective judgments (such as softehard and
playfulenot playful) of 37 packaging materials experienced through

361

the sense of touch [36]. Participants felt the samples in a wooden box
covered by a white curtain. Fenko et al. studied the contribution of
two different sensory modalities (vision and olfaction) to the
experience of freshness [30]. They combined fresh and non-fresh
smells and colors in soft drinks, dishwashing liquids, and scented
candles, and asked participants to assess the freshness of these
products. In the present study, we also want to investigate the
contribution of different senses to multisensory experiences, while
linking technical and sensory attributes to experiential attributes.
We used the studies cited above as references for our research,
because we have no knowledge of similar studies within the eld of
architecture.

1.5. The present study


In the present study we aimed to gain more insight in the
perception of material warmth in an architectural context and
investigate the extent to which the experience of warmth for a set
of building materials can be linked to technical material parameters. First of all, we assessed technical parameters for several
building materials. In addition, participants were asked to evaluate
the various building materials on bipolar rating scales. Whereas
the use of real building materials prevented us from scrutinizing
one-to-one relationships between a specic technical parameter
and the perception of warmth, it allowed us to maintain a better
link with the reality of how actual materials are perceived.
Because a distinction can be made between visual warmth and
tactile warmth e even though architecture is experienced intrinsically in a multisensory way [4] e we also considered the separate contributions of the individual sensory modalities (vision and
touch).
The study was divided into three parts, each dealing with
a different research question:
a. To what extent do the senses of vision and touch contribute to
the perception of warmth for building materials?
b. Which relationships can be found between material warmth
and technical material parameters?
c. What is the effect of non-color material parameters on warmth
perception, compared to the effect of the material color?
First, we investigated the effect of the different sensory
modalities (vision and touch) on the experience of warmth. Is the
experience of warmth different when seeing compared to feeling
a material? How does the overall experience vary from the visual
and tactile experiences? Is there a dominant sense for experiencing
material warmth? To examine these differences, participants were
asked to evaluate the building materials in different sensory
conditions.
Second, we explored the relation between material warmth and
technical material parameters. Does the perception of warmth
change in relation to the roughness, gloss, or thermal behavior of
the material? To establish the effects of technical material parameters, physical measurements were correlated with the perceptual
data.
Third, we studied the effect of the material color in comparison
to non-color material parameters. Most building materials have
a typical and intrinsic material color, which makes it difcult to
separate the color effects from the non-color effects. Is material
perceived as being warm mainly because of its color? Or are other
material aspects playing a larger role? The creation of specic
colored dummy samples allowed us to lter out the color effects
and provided insights in the effect of the non-color material aspects
on the researched attribute warm.

Author's personal copy

362

L. Wastiels et al. / Building and Environment 49 (2012) 359e367

2. Method
2.1. Participants
One hundred and sixteen unpaid volunteers, 60 female and 56
male, undergraduate and graduate students in Architectural Engineering of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) participated in the
experiment. Ages ranged from 17 to 25 with a mean age of 21.
2.2. Study design
Participants were asked to evaluate building materials either
visually (VIS), by touch (TAC), or by a combination of vision and
touch (GEN). Eleven different material samples were used for the
test. Six of them were original building materials (blue stone,
brickwork, concrete, white plaster, steel, wood).
In addition, a set of plaster control samples was created, which
were equivalent in color to the original building materials. These
ve colored plaster samples allowed us to separate the effects of
color and material on the perception of warmth.
The six original materials were evaluated in each of the three
test conditions (GEN, VIS, TAC). Because the tactile qualities of all
plaster samples were expected to be identical, the colored plaster
samples were only included in the general and visual test conditions (GEN, VIS) and not in the tactile test condition (TAC).
2.3. Stimuli
The selected building materials are frequently used in architecture projects and differ from each other in terms of material
properties and appearance. Several technical parameters that
might be related to a materials perceived warmth are included in
Table 1 for each material. Values for the thermal conductivity, the
specic heat, the density, and the thermal effusivity are based on
different sources [37e41].
The surface prole of the different materials was measured
using a Wyko NT2000 non-contact proler. For each sample, the
arithmetical mean roughness Ra and the root-mean square roughness
Rq were averaged over ve locations (Table 1). The roughness
characterizes the irregularities of the surface. Ra corresponds to the
average height of the bumps of a surface. Rq is the root mean square
average of the height deviations. Both measures are useful for
detecting general variations in the overall prole height [42].
Gloss describes the amount of light that is reected by a surface.
It is represented on a scale from 0 to 100 gloss units (GU) and
determines whether the surface has a mat, shiny, lustrous, or
metallic appearance [43]. Gloss was measured according to the ISO
2813 standard, using a BYK-Gardner Micro-Tri-Glossmeter with
20 /60 /85 geometry. The 60 -geometry is the universal standard

geometry. The 85 -geometry is more sensitive to differences in


gloss below 10 GU (at 60 ), and the 20 -geometry provides more
precise results for high gloss samples (above 70 GU at 60 ). Only the
steel sample provides correct measurements according to the
60 -geometry (Table 1). All other samples have a low gloss factor
(<10 GU) and should be interpreted according to the 85 -geometry.
Comparisons between materials can only be made within the same
geometry.
In the CIELAB color system a color is represented by three
coordinates (L*, a*, b*) [44]. L* is the lightness factor and varies
from black (0) to white (100). a* and b* are the chromaticity
coordinates: a* is the red direction, a* the green direction, b*
is the yellow direction, and b* the blue direction. The center is
achromatic and as a* and b* increase, the saturation of the color
(color intensity I*) increases [45]. A Minolta CR-310 colorimeter,
with a D/8 geometry and D65/10 illuminant, was used to determine the material samples colors. For each material sample, ten
different surface measurements were performed in order to even
out differences in color along the sample surfaces (Table 1).

2.4. Procedure
The experiment was conducted in an isolated test room at the
university under controlled lighting conditions. As the focus of the
study is on indoor wall applications, the materials were presented
vertically, at eye-height. The samples had a size of 0.4 m  0.4 m,
which implies that the whole hand could be used to touch the
surface while differences in surface appearance could be spotted
visually. The materials were xed in white mdf-cases in order to
provide a neutral and equal background for all samples. When
participants entered the room, all samples were covered with
a black cloth. Evaluation occurred for one material at a time;
participants were unable to see different materials simultaneously.
A written instruction explained how the participants should
evaluate the samples. They were asked to imagine the material to
cover a full indoor wall. Depending on the test condition, different
instructions for the way of interacting were provided. In the visual
condition the participants were not allowed to touch the materials
and were asked to look at the material from different angles while
staying behind the mark on the oor and without touching the
material. For the tactile test condition samples were covered and
the participants could only experience the materials by feeling
them with their hands. The instructions asked to feel the material
in different ways (e.g., rubbing, pressing, tapping, striking the
surface, .) while keeping the sample covered with the cloth. In
the general condition the interaction with the material samples was
free and unrestricted. Participants were asked to explore the
materials extensively by looking at them from different angles and
by touching their surface. Because people could be biased after

Table 1
Overview of the thermal properties and technical measurements of the test samples.

Thermal measures

Surface measures

Color measures

Thermal conductivity k
Specic heat c
Density r
Thermal effusivity h
Average roughness Ra
Mean square roughness Rq
Gloss (60 )
Gloss (85 )
Lightness L*
Red-Green value a*
Yellow-Blue value b*
Color intensity I*

[W/m K]
[J/kg K]
[kg/m3]
[J/m2 K s1/2]
[mm]
[mm]
[GU]
[GU]
[e]
[e]
[e]
[e]

Blue stone

Brickwork

Concrete

Plaster

Steel

Wood

2.70
850
2690
2485
1.26
1.74
(4.0)
36.0
33.35
0.39
0.19
0.43

0.60
860
1570
900
45.86
62.29
(0.4)
0.1
37.70
17.28
17.84
24.84

2.48
910
2080
2167
2.63
3.87
(1.9)
7.9
71.07
0.03
4.89
4.89

0.42
940
1400
743
12.61
15.59
(3.3)
7.8
93.63
0.49
0.59
0.77

48.64
500
7810
13782
0.92
1.30
46.5
(26.0)
79.79
1.70
0.15
1.71

0.15
1710
620
399
9.46
13.64
(3.5)
1.2
77.12
5.82
19.80
20.64

Author's personal copy

2.5. Data analysis


Coldewarm is the dependent variable in all our analyses.
Responses on the 9-point itemized rating scales were converted
into numbers and analyzed as interval variables. Missing values
(0.1%) were replaced by group means to allow statistical testing
without losing too many observations.
The dataset was analyzed using PASW17.0. The independent
variables used in the analyses were: Material (blue stone, brickwork, concrete, steel, wood, white plaster), Condition (GEN, VIS,
TAC), MaterialType (original, plasterwork), and Color (stone-blue,
brick-red, concrete-gray, steel-gray, wood-yellow). Initial analyses
showed that effects concerning participant Gender were not
statistically signicant for any of the analyses, so they were
omitted. TestOrder is included as an independent variable for all
analyses because this corrects the analyses for possible order
effects, but is not discussed in further detail.
3. Results
3.1. Material warmth and impact of the senses
To investigate the inuence of the different senses, we compared
the warm responses for the six original materials for the different
test conditions. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with
Material (blue stone, brickwork, concrete, steel, wood, white plaster)
and Condition (GEN, VIS, TAC) as independent variables. For this and
all subsequent analyses, the degrees of freedom were corrected with
the Greenhouse-Geisser 3 if 3 < 0.7, and the Greenhouse-Geisser and
Huynh-Feldt 3 -values were averaged for 3 > 0.7 [46]. These corrections attempt to adjust the degrees of freedom in the test in order to
produce a more accurate p-value. The analysis showed signicant
main effects of Material [F(5,525) 151.4, p < 0.001, h2 0.57] and
Condition [F(2,113) 8.7, p < 0.001, h2 0.13]. A signicant interaction effect Material  Condition was also found [F(10,525) 11.7,
p < 0.001, h2 0.17].
The mean ratings indicate that responses in the TAC condition
tend to deviate from those in the GEN and VIS conditions (Fig. 1). To
test the differences between the GEN and VIS responses, an additional ANOVA was run considering only the data from the GEN and
VIS conditions. Material (blue stone, brickwork, concrete, steel,
wood, white plaster) and Condition (GEN, VIS) were specied as
independent variables. The analysis showed a signicant main

363

9
8
7

TAC

6
5
GEN

4
3

VIS

cold

having seen or touched the samples for one of the tests, a betweensubjects design was used. The conditions were randomly assigned
to the participants.
For each material sample, a separate questionnaire page was
provided. Participants completed a list of fteen attribute pairs
based on a 9-point itemized rating scale: unpleasantepleasant,
simple patternecomplex pattern, not fragile at alleextremely fragile,
not lively at allevery lively, intense colorepale color, not freshevery
fresh, mateglossy, softehard, not dentingedenting, dark colorelight
color, not massiveemassive, obtrusiveeneutral, smootherough, texturedeat, and coldewarm. After nishing the evaluation of one
sample, the test person ipped the page, covered the material
sample and proceeded to the next sample. In addition, comments
made by the participants during and after the test were recorded.
The sequence in which materials were evaluated differed
between participants according to four different orders for the GEN
and VIS conditions and three sequences for the TAC condition.
Because of the specic test setup, two participants could take the
test simultaneously without interfering with each other. The
duration of the test varied between 14 and 65 min with a mean of
33 min (GEN: 18e64 min, VIS: 20e65 min, TAC: 14e40 min).

warm

L. Wastiels et al. / Building and Environment 49 (2012) 359e367

1
steel

concrete

white
plaster

blue stone

brickwork

wood

Fig. 1. Plots of the mean responses to the variable warm for the original materials
according to the different test conditions (GEN, VIS, TAC).

effect of Material [F(5,314) 120.3, p < 0.001, h2 0.63]. No effect of


Condition [F(1,70) 0.02, p > 0.50, h2 0.00] and no interaction
effect Material  Condition [F(5,314) 0.4, p > 0.50, h2 0.01] were
found. This implies that no signicant differences exist between the
responses to warm in the GEN and the VIS condition, and that the
effects of Condition found in the previous analysis related to the
differences in responses between the tactile (TAC) condition on the
one hand versus the other two conditions (GEN and VIS) on the
other hand.
Differences between individual materials were investigated by
paired comparisons (post-hoc t-tests) with Bonferroni adjustment.
First of all, the marginal means for the GEN and VIS conditions were
considered: wood had the highest mean warm rating (7.15), followed by brickwork (6.84); steel is judged to be the coldest material
(2.27), followed by concrete (3.26), plasterwork (3.57) and blue
stone (3.88). Differences between materials were signicant in
paired comparisons (p < 0.001), except for the difference between
brickwork and wood, and the paired differences between blue
stone, concrete and plaster (p > 0.50 for all).
The results from the tactile evaluation of material warmth were
signicantly different from those of the visual and general conditions. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed on the TAC data,
with Material as a within-subjects variable and TestOrder as
a between-subjects variable. This analysis yielded a signicant
main effect of Material [F(4,145) 55.3, p < 0.001, h2 0.61]. Going
from warm to cold, wood was rated the warmest (7.37), followed by
plasterwork (6.31), brickwork (6.13), concrete (5.39), steel (2.68),
and blue stone (2.66). Post-hoc comparisons showed no signicant
differences between brickwork, plasterwork and concrete
(p > 0.10), and between steel and blue stone (p > 0.20). All other
paired comparisons yielded signicant differences (p < 0.05).
3.2. Relationship between material warmth and technical
parameters
For our second research question, we investigated the correlations between specic physical parameters of the materials and the
perception of warm. Taking into consideration that the senses used
for evaluation inuence peoples perception of material warmth
(see previous section), these correlations were investigated separately for the different test conditions. The evaluations of
coldewarm were compared to the physical data obtained for the
different materials by means of a correlational analysis (N 6).
Mean values for the technical parameters were included for each
material and means for the perceived parameters were obtained for
the different test conditions (GEN, VIS, and TAC). The Pearson
correlations are presented in Table 2.

Author's personal copy

Surface measures

Color measures

Thermal conductivity k
Specic heat c
Density r
Thermal efsivity h
LOG (thermal effusivity)
Average roughness Ra
Mean square roughness Rq
Gloss (60 )
Gloss (85 )
Lightness L*
Red-Green value a*
Yellow-Blue value b*
Color intensity I*

VIS

TAC

0.57
0.77*
0.68
0.63
0.80*
0.63
0.64
0.56
0.65
0.27
0.79*
0.95**
0.92**

0.57
0.70
0.66
0.62
0.76*
0.69
0.71
0.56
0.64
0.36
0.85**
0.95**
0.94**

0.64
0.74*
0.78*
0.70
0.88**
0.47
0.47
0.61
0.94**

* Correlation signicant at the 0.10 level (2-tailed t-test).


** Correlation signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed t-test).

As concerns the thermal measures, we found the highest


correlation for LOG(thermal effusivity) in all three conditions
(Table 2). Materials with a higher thermal effusivity lead to a colder
temperature perception, according to a logarithmic relation.
Only one signicant correlation with a surface measure was
found: in the TAC condition a very high negative linear correlation
was found with the gloss measured according to the 85-degreesgeometry (Table 2). This implies that the tactile perception of
warmth increases when the gloss of the material decreases. The
correlation matrix shows several positive correlations for roughness as well, but these did not reach statistical signicance.
For the color measures, a high to very high positive correlation
was found with the a*-value (red-green), the b*-value (yellow-blue),
and the color intensity (Table 2). No correlation with lightness was
found. These results indicate that materials with reddish and
yellowish hues, and materials with high color intensity (saturation), tend to contribute to a warmer perception of the material.
3.3. Effect of material color: color versus non-color effect
For our third research question, we isolated the effect of the
material color on the perception of warmth from the effect of the
other material properties. First of all, we compared the warm scores
for the original materials to those of the colored control samples.
The dataset for this test included the general and visual data from
virtually all samples (original plaster), except for the white
plaster. A repeated measures ANOVA was run with MaterialType
(original materials versus plasterwork) and Color (stone-blue,
brick-red, concrete-gray, steel-gray, wood-yellow) as withinsubjects variables, and Condition (GEN, VIS) and TestOrder as
between-subjects variables. The analysis showed signicant main
effects of both MaterialType [F(1,70) 28.7, p < 0.001, h2 0.29]
and Color [F(4,269) 167.7, p < 0.001, h2 0.71]. Also a signicant
interaction effect MaterialType  Color was found [F(4,258) 16.9,
p < 0.001, h2 0.19]. Because no effect of Condition was found
[F(1,70) 0.2, p > 0.50, h2 0.00], marginal means were calculated
by averaging the results over the GEN and VIS conditions (Fig. 2).
For each material color, a separate repeated measures ANOVA
was run with MaterialType (original material versus plaster sample)
as a within-subjects variable and Condition (GEN, VIS) and TestOrder
as between-subjects variables. All ANOVAs yielded signicant main
effects of MaterialType (p < 0.01). This implies that the non-color
material aspects inuence the perception of warmth for all tested
materials. In Fig. 2 we see that the warm scores for the original
materials are lower than those of their plaster equivalents, except
for the wooden sample.

8
7
6
plaster equivalents
5

original materials
4
3
cold

Thermal measures

GEN

2
1
steel

concrete

blue stone

brickwork

wood

Fig. 2. Marginal means for coldewarm for the original material samples and their
colored plaster equivalents.

The separate impact of color on the warm scores was evaluated


in a repeated measures ANOVA of the ve colored plaster samples
with Color (stone-blue, brick-red, concrete-gray, steel-gray,
wood-yellow) as within-subjects variable and Condition (GEN,
VIS) and TestOrder as between-subjects variables. The analysis
yielded a signicant main effect of Color [F(4,3) 61.1, p < 0.001,
h2 0.47]. No interaction or main effects of Condition and TestOrder
were found (all p > 0.05). The brick-red color led to the highest
mean warmth, followed by the wood-yellow color. The steel-gray
was perceived as being colder than the concrete-gray, which was
similar to the stone-blue in terms of warmth. No signicant
difference in perceived warmth was found between the stone-blue
and concrete-gray plaster samples. All other color pairs differed
signicantly at the 0.05-level in Bonferroni tests.
Fig. 3 plots the separate effects of material and color for the
different materials. The solid line quanties the material effect
which was found by subtracting the warm scores for the colored
plaster samples from the scores for the original materials. The
dotted line represents the effect of the material colors compared to
the white plaster and was measured by subtracting the warm score
for the white plaster from the scores of the colored plaster samples.
This analysis thus allows us to separate the effects of material from
those of color. Fig. 3 shows that the material colors provide extra
warmth to the plaster, whereas most material properties take away
some of that warmth. Wood is the only sample that behaves
differently: the material properties of wood evoke an increase in
warmth perception compared to the properties of the plaster. Note
that a negative impact according to Fig. 3 does not necessarily
4

warmer

Table 2
Pearson correlation coefcients between evaluated material warmth and physical
measures in the three experimental conditions.

warm

L. Wastiels et al. / Building and Environment 49 (2012) 359e367

color effect

3
2
1

white plaster
reference
sample

non-color
material effect

-1
-2

colder

364

steel

concrete

blue stone

brickwork

wood

-3
-4

Fig. 3. Visualization of the increase or decrease in warmth perception because of the


material effect and the color effect compared to a white plaster reference sample.

Author's personal copy

L. Wastiels et al. / Building and Environment 49 (2012) 359e367

mean that the materials properties lead to a cold perception,


because all scores are calculated relative to white plaster.
4. Discussion
The present study shows that the perceived warmth of a material relates to its material parameters, such as the thermal properties and the color. Furthermore, it strongly suggests that the
experience of material warmth differs according to the senses that
are used for evaluation.
4.1. Impact of the senses
The results show that the perception of warmth varies
depending on the senses used for evaluation. A signicant difference was found between the evaluation of warmth in the tactile
condition compared to the other conditions. Considering the
responses from the general, multisensory test condition, no
differences were found with the strictly visual evaluation of the
materials. Apparently, when materials are perceived visually,
whether one can touch the material does not alter the perception of
material warmth. Rather than using one general concept for the
experience of warmth, we can distinguish between the tactile
warmth of a material, which is dened by peoples blind touch, and
the visual warmth of a material, which appears to dominate the
perception as soon as vision is included.
This result suggests that vision has a very large impact on the
general assessment of material warmth within an architectural
context. This nding corresponds with the idea that architecture is
a very visually oriented discipline [47] and that in general most
objects are perceived rst and foremost visually [48,49]. Pallasmaa
argues, however, that the discipline of architecture should be more
sensitive and attentive for a multisensory approach [4].
In our study, we looked at interior walls. Whereas we argued
that the interior wall is being looked at as well as being touched, the
initial and instant interaction (as in the test setting) is probably
rather visual. Observing the participants while taking the test, we
noticed that the tactile interaction with the materials was often
very limited or even wanting. This could explain the visual dominance in the general assessment. Thinking of other building
elements, such as a oor or hand rail, it seems reasonable that the
tactile warmth of the materials will gain importance. Results might
thus be different when considering other building elements.
Another explanation might be found in the existence of previous
experiences, personal memory and associations made by the
participants. Vision reveals what the touch already knows [4].
People know that wood feels warm to the touch and steel feels
cold to the touch, and reect these associations onto the materials
when visually perceiving them. Whereas this knowledge might
help them during their visual judgment, it might mislead them
while making their multisensory evaluations. In other words, the
knowledge based on their visual perception may have biased their
tactile perception. Free comments collected during the tactile test
revealed that several participants were unable to identify the
materials they were feeling: they associated the concrete sample
with wood, and the blue stone with glass. These associations
might inuence their perception when they perceive from
memory rather than in real-time. Perhaps the current ndings are
just another example in which the visual modality attracts so much
attention that it distracts from perception in the other senses [50].
4.2. Relation to technical parameters
The results from this study show that it is possible to relate an
experience aspect, such as warmth, to measurable technical

365

parameters. The results from the correlation analysis conrm the


conclusions from Obata et al. [25] that the thermal effusivity is
a good indicator of warmth perception. Whereas the highest
correlation was found with tactile warmth, negative correlations
with the logarithmic function of the thermal effusivity were found
for all test conditions. Because the thermal behavior of a material
cannot be perceived visually, these results suggest that the visual
assessment of material warmth is inuenced by the observers
tactile knowledge.
Furthermore, our study revealed a relationship between the
experience of warmth and the parameters material color and
surface gloss. The effect of the color is discussed further in the text.
A large, negative correlation with gloss was found in the tactile
condition. This correlation was smaller and lacked signicance in
the visual and general condition, even though gloss is dened as
a visual parameter describing a materials behavior in response to
incident light. The suggestion that gloss can be perceived by touch
may be due to its interrelationship with roughness. Roughness is
a measure of the ne, closely-spaced random irregularities of
a surface, caused by the production process [42]. Rough materials
usually have a less glossy surface than smooth materials, because
rough surfaces absorb more light than smooth surfaces. Therefore,
we expect to nd a positive correlation between the perception of
warmth and surface roughness. This link is revealed in the correlation matrix, but was not signicant for the tested sample set. Our
nding corresponds to Thiis-Evensens [11] statement that glossy
materials lead to colder spaces than textured materials. Establishing this link between gloss and the experience of warmth can be
important for architects. Because gloss is a surface property,
architects can play with the experience of warmth by the application of different nishing techniques.
Because of the limited number of cases in the correlation analysis (N 6), a large number of correlation coefcients in the matrix
(Table 2) did not reach statistical signicance. Nevertheless, many
correlation coefcients were considerable in size (r > 0.4), suggesting that there may be other correlations between the
researched parameters without showing signicance in the present
study. For instance, moderate to high correlations were found with
thermal conductivity, specic heat, density and thermal effusivity
for all test conditions. This is understandable as all these thermal
parameters are related to the (logarithm of the) thermal effusivity
for which a very large negative correlation to warmth was found.
Also, moderately positive correlations were found for surface
roughness, which suggests that rough surfaces are perceived as
being warmer than smooth surfaces.
4.3. Effect of color and non-color
Because most materials have their own characteristic, intrinsic
color, we were interested in the relative effect of color and noncolor parameters on material warmth. Both the results from the
correlation analyses and the comparisons between the original
materials and the plaster samples revealed a strong effect of color
on warmth perception. The correspondence to general color theory,
where red and yellow are warm colors and blue and green are cold
colors, is not that surprising, because color research has often been
performed in an interior context [10,27,51]. However, color experience is highly dependent on the context in which it is applied
[17,52]. Within architecture, it would therefore be interesting to
verify whether differences in color warmth can be found for
different building elements, like oors, walls and ceilings.
Comparing the effect of material and color, 3 suggests that color
has a larger impact on warmth than the other material aspects. The
effect of color goes from 0.0 to 3.9 (a difference of 3.9), whereas
the effect of other material aspects goes from 1.3 to 0.9 (a

Author's personal copy

366

L. Wastiels et al. / Building and Environment 49 (2012) 359e367

difference of 2.2). Therefore, the effects of color are almost twice as


large for the samples used in this study. Applying color to a material
thus appears to be a more effective manner to alter the perception
of warmth than changing the surface roughness or gloss. Moreover,
the study showed that all colors, except the steel-gray, are
perceived as warmer than the white colored plaster sample. Where
a white wall can be considered the most neutral wall element in
architecture, it also seems to lead to the coldest perception.
4.4. Implications
Whereas material experience is considered rather intuitively by
architects, the present study revealed that a more informed
consideration of material experience could be achieved by drawing
links to technical material parameters. More specically, the results
from this study contributed to a better understanding of the
experience of material warmth in architecture. Certain material
databases, such as Material Explorer, include warmecold in their
search criteria for materials [53], but it is not clear what this
warmth is actually referring to. First, our study showed that
a distinction should be made between the tactile warmth and the
visual warmth perception of a material. Explicitly making this
distinction, can make architects more aware of the importance of
different sensory inputs in experiencing the buildings they design.
Second, an indication of the relationships between the experience
of material warmth and measurable technical material parameters
allows architects to select materials more efciently and offers
them insights on how to change the experience of warmth by
changing specic technical parameters. Material books and databases for designers could add technical material aspects, such as
the thermal effusivity and the surface gloss, and include an indication of the tactile and visual material warmth in relation to these
parameters. This would allow for architects to rely on more structured knowledge when looking for a warm material, by considering
materials with a high thermal effusivity, a warm color and/or a low
degree of glossiness. In general, the implementation of experiential
material knowledge in existing material databases would allow
architects to address experiential aspects more consciously and
compare different materials in terms of experience.
The fact that no signicant differences were found between the
visual and general evaluation of material warmth of different
building materials suggests that, at least for the aspect
coldewarm, our multisensory perception is dominated by vision.
Concluding that a large amount of information and knowledge on
material experience could thus be passed over to architects in
a visual way would be oversimplifying the results, however.
Because the visual system can quickly provide highly detailed
information on materials, it provides a very rich source of information, especially for materials that have already been explored on
previous occasions [50]. However, the richness of this information
may also be somewhat elusive, and may interfere with our natural
impulse to explore the material through interactive touch: if you
think you know how a material feels, you may not make the effort
to explore it. However, as Fig. 1 shows, the tactual warmth differs
quite substantially from the warmth perceived through vision.
Although people may base their rst evaluation of a material on
their visual impression, the role of the various senses may change
over time, especially if they interact with the material [54]. For
instance, a different context of use might lead to a shift in sensory
importance. If users physically interact with the material, such as in
furniture components, handrails, doors and window panes, oor
parts, and so on, the tactile information gained while touching
a material subconsciously also contributes to our general perception. In this view the use of physical material samples allows
architects to directly and intuitively explore their tactile qualities

and thus remains a valuable addition to the more structured


information that can be provided on material experience.
4.5. Future work
Participants were asked to assess the warmth of building
materials based on six material samples. The variety of materials
allowed for a broad perspective on the concept of material warmth,
but did not allow to formulate detailed ndings concerning the
exact relationships between material warmth and the technical
material parameters. It should be kept in mind that the present
study is exploratory and requires further investigations. In order to
generalize these ndings, the material set would have to be
expanded to a larger number of different samples and the
researched variables (thermal properties, surface roughness, gloss)
should be controlled. We should also be careful with the interpretation of the results concerning colors, because the sample set
was not chosen to cover a wide variety of colors. For example, the
samples with high chromaticity (brick and wood) also consist of
warm hues. A more detailed investigation utilizing a more
complete color set is necessary to substantiate these ndings.
The study focused on indoor wall materials. Because warmth
perception is likely to be context-dependent, the results should be
considered within the boundary conditions set for the test. Applications for other building elements, such as oors, ceilings or
outdoor applications, require further research. Furthermore, the
participants were asked to imagine the materials at full scale but
their ability to do so might be limited. Studies where participants
evaluate materials in a full-scale setting might provide insights in
the differences in perception caused by issues of scale.
Acknowledgments
The research reported in this paper was conducted in the
context of Lisa Wastiels PhD research at the department of Architectural Engineering of the VUB, funded by the Research Foundation e Flanders (FWO). Her current research received funding from
the European Research Council under the European Communitys
Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC grant
agreement no 201673. The authors thank Daniel Debondt (MEMC-VUB) for the preparation/installation, and Heidi Ottevaere
(TONA-VUB) for the roughness measurements of the material
samples. They also thank the VUB Architectural Engineering
students for participating in the study.
References
[1] Fernandez J. Material architecture: emergent materials for innovative buildings and ecological construction. Amsterdam: Architectural Press; 2006.
[2] Hegger M, Drexler H, Zeumer M. Basics materials. Basel: Birkhuser; 2007.
[3] Ashby MF, Johnson K. Materials and design: the art and science of material
selection in product design. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2002.
[4] Pallasmaa J. The eyes of the skin. Architecture and the senses. London: WileyAcademy; 2005.
[5] Malnar JM, Vodvarka F. Sensory design. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press; 2004.
[6] Wastiels L. Mapping material experience in architecture: Characterization of
material warmth. Doctoral dissertation. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels:
VUB Press; 2010.
[7] Wastiels L, Wouters I. Framework of material considerations in architectural
design: the interaction between context, manufacturing, experience, and
material aspects. In: Desmet PMA, Tzvetanova SA, Hekkert P, Justice L, editors.
Dare to desire. Proceedings from the 6th conference on design and emotion.
Hong Kong, SAR: Hong Kong Polytechnic University; 2008.
[8] Wastiels L, Wouters I, Lindekens J. Material knowledge for design: the
architects material vocabulary. In: Poggenpohl S, editor. Proceedings from the
conference of the international societies of design research 2007. Hong Kong,
SAR: Hong Kong Polytechnic University; 2007.
[9] Dalke H, Little J, Niemann E, Camgoz N, Steadman G, Hill S, et al. Colour and
lighting in hospital design. Opti Laser Technol 2006;38(4e6):343e65.

Author's personal copy

L. Wastiels et al. / Building and Environment 49 (2012) 359e367


[10] Yildirim K, Akalin-Baskaya A, Hidayetoglu ML. Effects of indoor color on mood
and cognitive performance. Build Environ 2007;42(9):3233e40.
[11] Thiis-Evensen T. Archetypes in architecture. Oslo: Norwegian University
Press; 1987.
[12] Vielhauer Kasmar J. The development of a usable lexicon of environmental
descriptors. In: Nasar JL, editor. Environmental aesthetics. theory, research,
and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1988. p. 144e55.
[13] Wastiels L, Wouters I. Architects considerations while selecting materials.
Mater Design; 2011. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2011.05.011.
[14] Karana E, Hekkert P, Kandachar PV. Meanings of materials through sensorial
properties and manufacturing processes. Mater Design 2009;30(7):2778e84.
[15] van Kesteren IEH, Stappers PJ, de Bruijn S. Materials in product selection: tools
for including user-interaction in materials selection. Int J Des 2007;1(3):
41e55.
[16] Sonneveld MH, Schifferstein HNJ. The tactual experience of objects. In:
Schifferstein HNJ, Hekkert P, editors. Product experience. Oxford; Amsterdam:
Elsevier Science; 2008.
[17] Fenko A, Schifferstein HNJ, Hekkert P. Looking hot or feeling hot: what determines the product experience of warmth? Mater Design 2010;31(3):1325e31.
[18] Klatzky RL, Lederman SJ, Metzger VA. Identifying objects by touch: an expert
system. Percept Psychophys 1985;37(4):299e302.
[19] Sonneveld MH. Aesthetics of tactual experience: About the body language of
objects. Doctoral thesis. Delft, NL: Delft University of Technology; 2007.
[20] Callister Jr WD. Materials science and engineering: an introduction. 7th ed.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2007.
[21] Ho H, Jones LA. Material identication using real and simulated thermal cues.
In: Proceedings of the 26th annual international conference of the IEEE EMBS;
2004. San Francisco, USA.
[22] Lienhard JHI, Lienhard JHV. A heat transfer textbook. Cambridge, MA: Phlogiston Press; 2003.
[23] Marin E. Teaching thermal physics by touching. Lat Am J Phys Educ 2008 Jan;
2(1):15e7.
[24] Myers G. Analytical methods in conduction heat transfer. New York: McGrawHill Book Company; 1971.
[25] Obata Y, Takeuchi K, Furuta Y, Kanayama K. Research on better use of wood
for sustainable development: quantitative evaluation of good tactile warmth
of wood. Energy 2005;30(8):1317e28.
[26] Bergmann Tiest WM, Kappers AML. Thermosensory reversal effect quantied.
Acta Psychol 2008;127(1):46e50.
[27] Itten J. Kleurenleer. de Bilt: Cantecleer; 1970.
[28] Wright B. The inuence of hue, brightness, and colour on the apparent
warmth. Am J Psychol. 1962;75:232e41.
[29] Wright B, Rainwater L. The meaning of colour. J Gen Psychol 1962;67(1):
89e99.
[30] Fenko A, Schifferstein HNJ, Huang T-C, Hekkert P. What makes products fresh:
the smell or the colour? Food Qual Pref 2009;20:372e9.
[31] The American heritage dictionary of the English language. 4th ed. USA:
Houghton Mifin Company; 2009.
[32] Heschong L. Thermal delight in architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1979.
[33] Gescheider GA. Psychophysics: method, theory, and application. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum; 1985.

367

[34] Chen X, Shao F, Barnes CJ, Childs THC, Henson B. Exploring relationships
between touch perception and surface physical properties. Int J Des 2009;
3(2):67e76.
[35] Calvert GA, Spence C, Stein BE, editors. The handbook of multisensory
processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2004.
[36] Chen X, Barnes CJ, Childs THC, Henson B, Shao F. Materials tactile testing and
characterisation for consumer products affective packaging design. Mater
Design 2009;30(10):4299e310.
[37] Bone AHLG, Kemps TNWG, Peters AW, Post H. Bouwkunde tabellenboek. Den
Haag: Ten Hagen&Stam; 2003.
[38] Braeckman B, De Cock N, Drugmand K. Thermisch en hygrisch gedrag van
bouwconstructies. Antwerp: EBES N.V.; 1987.
[39] Leijendeckers PHH, Fortuin JB, van Herwijnen F, Schwippert GA. Polytechnisch
zakboek. Arnhem: Elsevier; 2002.
[40] Simpson W, TenWolde A. Physical properties and moisture relations of wood.
In: Wood handbook: wood as an engineering material. Madison, WI: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 1999.
[41] Wilkinson MA. Thermal properties of building materials [Internet]. Building
Environment. Available from: http://people.bath.ac.uk/absmaw/BEnv1/
properties.pdf [cited 2008 Sep 4].
[42] Wyko Corporation. WYKO surface prolers technical reference manual.
United States: Wyko Corporation; 1996.
[43] Leloup F, Hanselaer P, Versluys J, Forment SAB. BRDF and gloss measurements.
In: Proceedings of the CIE expert symposium on visual appearance. Paris: CIE
(Commission International de lEclairage); 2006.
[44] Commission Internationale de lEclairage (CIE). Colorimetry. Technical report.
2nd ed.; 1986. Wien.
[45] Bodart M, de Penaranda R, Deneyer A, Flamant A. Photometry and colorimetry
characterisation of materials in daylighting evaluation tools. Build Environ
2008;43:2046e58.
[46] Stevens JP. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. 4th ed.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2002.
[47] Heylighen A, Devlieger P, Strickfaden M. Design expertise as disability and
vice versa. In: Proceedings of the communicating (by) design conference.
Brussels: Chalmers University of Technology/Hogeschool voor Wetenschap en
Kunst St.-Lucas; 2009.
[48] Schifferstein HNJ. The perceived importance of sensory modalities in product
usage: a study of self-reports. Acta Psychol 2006;121:41e64.
[49] Schifferstein HNJ, Cleiren MPHD. Capturing product experiences: a splitmodality approach. Acta Psychol 2005;118:293e318.
[50] Schifferstein HNJ, Desmet PMA. The effects of sensory impairments on
product experience and personal well-being. Ergonomics 2007;50(12):
2026e48.
[51] Stone NJ. Designing effective study environments. J Environ Psychol 2001;
21(2):179e90.
[52] Holmes CB, Buchanan J. Color preference as a function of the object described.
B Psychonomic Soc 1984;22:423e5.
[53] Materia [Internet]. Materialize the future. Available from: www.materia.nl
[cited 2010 May 15].
[54] Fenko A, Schifferstein HNJ, Hekkert P. Shifts in sensory dominance between
various stages of user-product interactions. Appl Ergon 2010;41:34e40.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai