Occupants' Perceptions of Amenity and Efficiency for Verification of Spatial Design Adequacy

31 Pages·2016·4.88 MB·English

International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Occupants’ Perceptions of Amenity and Efficiency for
Verification of Spatial Design Adequacy
SangwonLee*andKwangyunWohn
Received:17November2015;Accepted:17November2015;Published:14January2016
AcademicEditor:DerekClements-Croome
GraduateSchoolofCultureTechnology,KoreaAdvancedInstituteofScienceandTechnology,Daejeon34141,
Korea;[email protected]
* Correspondence:[email protected];Tel.:[phone];Fax:[phone]
Abstract: Thebestspatialdesignconditiontosatisfytheoccupancyneedsofamenityandefficiency
isdeterminedthroughanalyzingthespatialdesignadequacy(SDA).Inthisstudy,therelationship
betweenthespacedesignelementsandspaceonfutureoccupants’perceptionareanalyzed. The
thirty-three participants reported their self-evaluated SDA that describes the quality of eight
alternativehousinglivingroomswithdifferentspatialfactors. Theoccupantswereguidedthrough
theperceptionprocessingelaborationinorderforthemtoevaluatetheactualperceptioninthereal
space. Thefindingsdemonstratedthatthespatialsize(e.g.,width,depth,andheight)issignificantly
correlatedwiththeoverallsatisfactionofamenity. Itisalsofoundthatthespatialshape(e.g.,the
width-to-depthratio,theheight-to-arearatio,androomshape)maysignificantlyinfluencetheoverall
satisfaction of efficiency. The findings also demonstrate that the causal relationship between the
spatialfactorsandspaceisclearlypresentintheoccupants’perception,reflectingthetime-sequential
characteristics of the actual experience divided into amenity and efficiency. This result indicates
thatthecorrelationbetweenthespatialfactorsandspaceofSDAundertheoccupants’perception
processingelaborationcanbeausefulguidetopredicttheoccupancysatisfactionofamenityand
efficiencyinrealspaces.
Keywords: spatialdesignadequacy;futureoccupants’perception;satisfaction;amenity;efficiency;
perceptionprocessingelaboration
1. Introduction
1.1. ProblemStatementsandObjectives
Intheoccupants’self-reportedverificationprocessofspatialdesignadequacy(SDA)tosatisfy
theirneedsinrealspaces,theexaminationoftherelationshipbetweenthespatialfactorsandspace
isessentialinordertodeterminethebestspatialconditions[1–8]. FortheSDAofsafety,health,and
sustainability,theoccupancyneedsareobjectivelyverifiedbecausethesetypesofoccupancycanbe
simulatedusingpreviousempiricaldatafromrealspaces[9–15]. However,theSDAofamenityand
efficiencyhasnotbeenclearlyverified,becausetheoccupantscouldnotclearlystatewhetherthespace
cansatisfactorilysupporttheirlifeconsideringtheirsocial,cultural,andpersonalbackgroundsaswell
astheirexperiences[16–21]. Duetotheseproblems,thedissatisfactionofamenityandefficiencyand
theresultingeconomiclossthatoccursafterthecompletionofconstructionhaverarelydiminishedin
realspaces[22].
Spatialdesignadequacy(SDA)referstothespatialdesignqualitiesthatareabletosatisfactorily
obtain an occupancy goal (in particular, the amenity and efficiency values) in a space. Amenity
(comfort) refers to the goal that occupants feel pleasantness in agreeable spatial conditions that
result from agreement with their lifestyle and social, cultural, and personal backgrounds as well
Int.J.Environ.Res.PublicHealth2016,13,128;doi:10.3390/ijerph13010128 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int.J.Environ.Res.PublicHealth2016,13,128 2of31
as experiences [23]. Efficiency (convenience) refers to the goal that occupants do not feel stress in
agreeable spatial conditions that results from engaging in certain specific behaviors [24]. Space is
generallydeterminedthroughthecombinationofspatialfactorssuchaswidth,depth,andheightas
wellastheirrespectiveratios. Theyareunitedwithcomplementaryrelationships. Therefore,both
spatialfactorsandspace,aswellastheirrelationship,shouldbeanalyzedinordertodeterminethe
bestdesignthroughtheverificationoftheSDA.
Inpreviousstudies,theamenityandefficiencySDAswerereviewedthroughcomparingspatial
designswithpostoccupancyevaluation(POE)resultsofthereferencedactualspace[25,26]. However,
this comparative evaluation using the referenced POE data has the inevitable limitation of clearly
verifyingthedesignqualityandwhetheritsatisfiesthefutureoccupants’needs. Also,therelationship
betweenthespatialenvironmentfactorsandspacewasstudiedingreenbuildingtermsusingseveral
ratingsystems[27–31]. Thechangeofspatialfactorssuchaswidth,depthandratioofwindowtowall
influencesoccupants’perceptionofspace,becausethechangeaffectsindoorenvironmentalfactors
which affect human comfort. However, the influence of spatial factors on occupants’ perception
ofamenityandefficiencyhasnotbeenfullydiscussed,sincetheeffectofenvironmentalfactorson
occupantsinspacewaslimitedtocertaininteractionsbetweenthem.
Avirtualrealityenvironment(VRE)wasusedtoevaluatetheSDAforamenityandefficiency,
becauseitexhibitsthestrengthtocomposethepredictivefutureoccupants’livingscenesinthevirtual
environments,althoughVREhassomelimitationstopredictallofactualexperienceinreal-world
environments[32–36]. VariouspredictiveevaluationsofSDAusingtheVREhavebeenconducted
throughanalyzingthefutureoccupants’self-reportedsatisfactioninordertosatisfytheiramenityand
efficiencyneeds[33,37–41].
However,theoccupants’self-evaluativeresponsesinthepreviousstudiesdidnotclearlydescribe
theSDAtoensurethebesthousingchoiceintheactualspace. Severalshortcomingsintheoccupants’
responses were found, such as the relationship had not been clearly represented regarding what
spatialfactorsinfluencethespace[19,42–45];theactualitywasnoteffectivelyinvestigatedregarding
whethertheoccupants’responsereflectedthecharacteristicoftheactualexperienceintherealspace
ornot[37,46–51];andredundanciesbetweenamenityandefficiencywerefoundregardingwhether
theoccupantsdistinguishedtheirresponseinthesamespatialconditionsornot. Theseambiguitiesin
theoccupants’responseshaveappearedfrequentlyinpreviousresearch,aswellasinthePOE.Dueto
theseambiguities,theoccupants’predictionsintheirself-reported-responseshavenotbeenobjectivity
acceptedwhenselectingthebestspatialdesignconditionsintheverificationprocessofSDA.
Thecauseoftheambiguitiesinthepreviousstudiescanbefoundintheoccupants’perception
process[52]. Thatis,insufficientactivationoftheoccupants’perceptionprocessing[46,47,49]resulted
inunclearexaminationsoftheSDAthroughtheself-evaluationprocess[23,24,53–58]. Forexample,
misinformationeffectspreventedtheoccupants’perceptionfromfocusingonprecisecomparisons
withtheiractualexperienceinordertosatisfytheiramenityandefficiencyneeds[59–63]. Furthermore,
theevaluationprocedurewasnotguidedasastructuredprocedureinordertoclearlydescribethe
relationshipbetweenthespatialfactorsandthespace[46,64–69]. Inhuman-environment-interaction
studies,itisconceivedthattheoccupants’evaluativeperceptioncouldbesufficientlyelaboratedin
ordertopresentthecausalrelationshipbetweenthespatialfactorsandspacethroughapsychological
operation,suchasareinforcementofintentionalsystem[48,70–72]aswellastheimprovementofthe
evaluativeparticipatoryprocedureintheVRE[4,55,62,73–77].
Therefore,theevaluativeperceptionprocessingelaborationthroughtheoccupants’evaluation
process should be induced in order to predict their satisfaction at a conscious level as well as at
the subconscious. The objective of this study is to determine the spatial design conditions under
virtualrealityinordertosatisfytheoccupancyneedsofamenityandefficiencybasedonoccupants’
evaluationsonSDA.Inparticular,thecausalrelationshipbetweenthespacedesignfactorsandspace
underperceptionprocessingelaborationwasdiscussedtoactivatetheactualpredictiveoccupancy
satisfactionevaluation.
Int.J.Environ.Res.PublicHealth2016,13,128 3of31
The thirty-three participants evaluated the quality of the eight alternative housing living
rooms with different spatial factors constructed in the VRE. The perception of the spatial factors
(i.e.,spatialsize,shape,andconfiguration)andoverallsatisfactionofspacewereexaminedthroughthe
self-evaluatedreports,andtheirrelationshipswereanalyzed. Theinfluenceofindoorenvironmental
factors on occupants’ perception of amenity and efficiency was not discussed since the tests were
performedbasedonVRE.
1.2. RelatedTheoriesandAnalysisFramework
Occupancy satisfaction evaluation could be described as a decision-making process to select
a certain expected spatial values that could lead to effective results in association with occupants’
subjective views. This study focuses on evaluation of an activated new experience (prospective
memory)oncurrentspatialdesigncomparedwiththeirpreviousexperienceofamenityandefficiency
(retrievedmemory)underperceptionprocessingelaboration. Variousrelevanttheoriesareappliedto
establishhypothesesandanalysisresultsofthisstudy.
Expectancy-valuemodelandthetheoryofplannedbehavioraswellasdecision-makingapproach
werereviewedtoestablishhypothesesandexperimentalconditions. Housingpreferenceandchoice
hasbeenstudiedfromdifferenttheoreticalperspectives[74].
Human-environment-interaction theories are applied to determine a characteristic of actual
experienceinanalysisofparticipants’responses. Experientialaspectofamenityandefficiencyon
occupants’areanalyzedintherespectofpleasure-arousalhypothesisandsociallearningtheory[52].
Conceptsofaffordanceandsatisfactionareusedtodescribethestructureofthecausalrelationship
betweenthespacedesignfactorsandspaceinoccupants’perception[18,78–80].
Cognitivepsychologicalperspectiveisusedtoobservethedistinguishedaspectbetweenamenity
and efficiency in correlations and to control the experimental conditions. This study investigates
perceptionsintime-sequentialunderdistinguishbetweenperception(instantevaluationforspatial
elementinimmediate)andcognition(holisticevaluationforspacebyrecall)[52]. Primingisadopted
toelaborateoccupants’evaluativeperceptionprocessingduringtheevaluation,i.e.,introductionof
categoricalknowledgeforamenityandefficiencyandpre-accommodationinVRE.Thiswouldaffect
tointegratetopdownperceptionbetweenbottomupperceptionwiththeintentionalityforamenity
andefficiencyinassociationwithtime-sequentialcausality[80].
Neuroscienceresearchesarealsoconsideredtoanalyzetheperceptionanalysis. Inthisstudy,the
occupants’perceptionscouldbedividedaccordingtotheiractivatedlevelsofperception. Amenity
couldbeanemotionalreactiontotheemotionalbackgroundattention,anditrequiresinvoluntary
withdrawingoftheimplicitmemory. Incontrast,efficiencycouldbeanattitudetowardcertainactions
inthegoal-orientedattention,anditrequiresvoluntaryintensivewithdrawingoftheexplicitmemory,
suchascategoricalknowledge[64–66]. Inthisstudy,amenitywasobservedasaperceptionoffree
actscomparedwithpreviousexperiencesintherealspace. Efficiencyinthestudywasobservedin
predictingthemovementforservingguests. Efficiencyrequiresmoreattentionthanamenityinthe
perceptionprocessingelaboration.
1.3. Hypotheses
Aseriesofhypotheseswereestablishedinordertoverifythecausalrelationshipregardingthe
occupants’ perception in association with their actual experience. Three hypothesis groups were
proposedundertheconceptofhuman-environment-interactiontheoriesaswellasconsiderationofthe
previousstudies,asfollows.
‚ Hypothesisgroup1demonstratesthatthespatialsizefactorssuchaswidth,depth,andheightofthespace
affect the perception of amenity and efficiency. Most previous studies have not clearly described
the spatial conditions required in order to satisfy occupants’ amenity and efficiency needs
regarding the relationship between the spatial factors and space [35,81–83]; Fang described
thattheunitsizeandthelengthofstayweresignificantlyrelatedtoresidentialsatisfaction[84].
Int.J.Environ.Res.PublicHealth2016,13,128 4of31
Inhuman-environment-interactiontheory, thepleasure-arousalhypothesisdemonstratesthat
occupants were most attracted to settings that were moderately arousing and maximally
pleasurable[52]. Occupantsfeelpleasantnessinagreeablerealspatialconditionsresultingfrom
agreementwiththeiropennessexperiences,e.g.,ahighheightandwidewidthofthespace.
‚ Hypothesis group 2 demonstrates that the spatial shape factors such as the width-to-depth ratio,
the height-to-area ratio, and the room shape affect the perception of amenity and efficiency. Most
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 128 4 of 30
previous studies have not clearly described the spatial conditions required in order to satisfy
occupantths’at aomccuepnaintyts awnerde mefofistc iaettnraccytedn etoe dsesttirneggs athradti wngerer emlaodtieorantselhyi parobuesitnwg eaennd mthaxeimspalalyt ial factors
pleasurable [52]. Occupants feel pleasantness in agreeable real spatial conditions resulting from
and space [35,81–83]; Frontczak reported that the amount of space regarding the workspace
agreement with their openness experiences, e.g., a high height and wide width of the space.
contri butHeyspostihgesnisi figcroaunpt l2y dteomtohnsetroatvese rthaaltl sthaet isspfaaticatl ioshnapae mfacotnorgs stuhceh 1a5s tahve awilidatbh-lteo-pdeaprtha mraetitoe, r s[16]. In
human-etnhve ihreoignhmt-teon-atr-eian rtaetrioa,c atniodn thteh erooormy sahnapde saoffceciat lthlee aprenrcienpgtiotnh eofo raym,eonictcy uapnda netffsicoiebncsye.r vMeodst, processed,
and imitparteevdiouths estubdeiehsa hvaivoer nso,t actletiatrulyd deess,craibnedd tehme soptaitoianl acolnrdeitaiocntiso rneqsufiroerd idne osridrearb tloe sabteishfya viors [52].
occupants’ amenity and efficiency needs regarding relationship between the spatial factors and
Occupants do not feel stress in agreeable spatial conditions that results from engaging in a
space [35,81–83]; Frontczak reported that the amount of space regarding the workspace
certainbehavior,e.g.,servingguestsinalivingroom.
contributes significantly to the overall satisfaction among the 15 available parameters [16].
‚ HypothesIins hgurmouanp-en3vidroenmmoennst-tirnatetreasctitohna tthetohrey aonvde rsoaclilals laeatirsnfiangct tihoenoryo,f ocacmupeannittsy obasnerdveedf,fi pcrioecnescsyedi, s perceived
and imitated the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions for desirable behaviors [52].
differently in the same space. Occupants’ overall satisfaction of the space will be distinguished
Occupants do not feel stress in agreeable spatial conditions that results from engaging in a
betweenamenityandefficiency. Amenitysatisfactionisinfluencedbythespatialaspects(e.g.,
certain behavior, e.g., serving guests in a living room.
ceiling hHeyigpohtht)esitsh gartouapf f3e dcetmtohnestreatmes othtiaot nthael osvaertailsl fsaactitsifaocntio;no otfh aemrewniitsye a,ntdh eefficeifenficcyi eisn pceyrcesivaetdi sfaction is
affectedbdyiffetrhenetlsyp ian ttihael saasmpe escpatsce,. eO.gcc.,udpaisnttsa’n ocveertaoll tshaetisofaucttdioon oorf athree aspbaecec awuislle biet daifsfteincgtusitshheedm ovement
between amenity and efficiency. Amenity satisfaction is influenced by the spatial aspects
forhostingguests.
(e.g., ceiling height) that affect the emotional satisfaction; otherwise, the efficiency satisfaction
is affected by the spatial aspects, e.g., distance to the outdoor area because it affects the
2. Methods
movement for hosting guests.
2.1. SpaceSelectionandSpatialFactors
2. Methods
AhousewasselectedforuseinexaminingSDA.Thelayoutofatypicaltwo-storystructurewitha
2.1. Space Selection and Spatial Factors
totalfloorareaof260m2ispresentedinFigure1. Animportantconsiderationforthefutureoccupants’
A house was selected for use in examining SDA. The layout of a typical two-story structure with a
satisfactionistosecurethemaximumviewfromthelivingroomthatfacesthesouthwestdirection. In
total floor area of 260 m2 is presented in Figure 1. An important consideration for the future occupants’
addition,asabtisaflaccotinony issh too uselcdurbee thaet tmacahxiemdumto vtihewe lfirvoimn gthreo loivmings orotohma tthtaht efaicneds tohoer sosuptahcweeisst ddiirreectcitolny. connected
totheoutdIno aodrdsituiornr,o au nbadlcinongys .shTohueldre bfeo raett,atchheedl itvoi nthge rliovoinmg rwooams sseol ethcatte dthef oinrdtohoer fsopcauces ios fdtihreectelyx periments
connected to the outdoor surroundings. Therefore, the living room was selected for the focus of the
becauseitenabledtheinvestigationsofvariousaspectsofamenityandefficiency.
experiments because it enabled the investigations of various aspects of amenity and efficiency.

FigurFeig1u.reH 1o. Huoseuspe lpalnanss ((LLeefftt: :1s1ts ftlofloor,o Rri,gRhti:g 2hndt: f2lonodr). floor).
Int.J.Environ.Res.PublicHealth2016,13,128 5of31
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 128 5 of 30
Thespatialfactorsofwidth, depth, andheightwereprimarilyexamined. Ingeneralpractice,
intheschTehmea stpicatdiaels fiagcntoprsh aosf ew,tidhteh,d deseipgthn,e arnadn dheciglihetn wtdereet eprrmiminareiltyh eexsahmaipneedo. fItnh egesnpearacle pthrarcotiuceg,h the
selectiinn tgheb escshteamltaetricn adteisvigenf oprhasspea, ttihael dfaecsitgonresr aarnrda ncglieenmt ednette,rem.gin.,eh tehieg shhta,pwe iodft thh,ed seppacthe ,thertco.ugAhl lthsep atial
selecting best alternative for spatial factors arrangement, e.g., height, width, depth, etc. All spatial
factorsofalternativesweremanipulatedwithinthelimitations,i.e.,budget,buildingcodes,etc. For
factors of alternatives were manipulated within the limitations, i.e., budget, building codes, etc.
example, in this study the height of living room was limited to 2.8 m which is regulated by the
For example, in this study the height of living room was limited to 2.8 m which is regulated by the
architecturalcode. Thefloorareaofthespaceismainlyconsideredandcomparedwiththefuture
architectural code. The floor area of the space is mainly considered and compared with the future
occupants’requirementsduringthepre-designphase.
occupants’ requirements during the pre-design phase.
Atotalofeightalternativeswerepreparedaccordingtotheheightchanging(fouralternatives)
A total of eight alternatives were prepared according to the height changing (four alternatives)
andlaanydo ulatycohuatn cgheasn(gfeosu (rfoaultre ranltaetrinvaetsiv).esT).h Tehhee ihgehigthcth achnagnegseisn itnh ethfie rfsitrsgt rogruopupw ewreeres usguggegsetsetdedi nino rder
toseloercdtetrh etob seeslteccto tnhde itbieosnt coofnhdeitigiohnt oafn hdetighhet flaonodr tshhea fploeocr hsahnapgee schinanthgeess ienc othned sgecroonudp gwroeurep pwreersee nted
inordperresteonsteedle citnt hoerdbeers ttoc osnedleictti otnheo fbfleosto rcolanydoituiot.n Tohfe faloreoar alanydouvto. luTmhee aorfeeaa acnhda lvteorlunmateiv oefw eaasche qual.
Non-afilxtetrunraetsivseu wchasa seqfuuranl. itNuorne-hfiaxdturliems istuecdh cahsa fnugrensit.uMrea hteardi allimanitdedc ochloarngoefsfi. nMisahteersiawl aenred ncooltocrh oafn ged.
finishes were not changed. In this study, the variations of finish material and color were not the
Inthisstudy,thevariationsoffinishmaterialandcolorwerenottheinfluentialfactorsthataffectedthe
influential factors that affected the spatial perceptions. Eight living room spaces were designed
spatialperceptions. EightlivingroomspacesweredesignedaccordingtoKoreannationalbuilding
according to Korean national building codes. The detailed dimensions of the spaces are summarized
codes. ThedetaileddimensionsofthespacesaresummarizedinFigure2andTable1.
in Figure 2 and Table 1.

FigurFeig2u.rLe a2y. oLuaytoouft tohfe thspe ascpeascecsr ecraetaetdedv virirtutuaallllyy ffoorr tthhee lilvivining groroomom (C(eCilienigli nhgeighheti gvhartiveda rfioerd Af–oDr,A –D,
Base scenarios = A: 2.4 m; Room shape varied for E–F, Base scenarios = G: 6 m × 6 m).
Basescenarios=A:2.4m;RoomshapevariedforE–F,Basescenarios=G:6mˆ6m).
Table 1. Living room dimensions.
Table1.Livingroomdimensions.
Category Space Width (m) Depth (m) Height (m) Area (m2) Finishes
A (base scenario) 7.33 4.55 2.4 33.35
Category Space Width(m) Depth(m) Height(m) Area(m2) Finishes
B 7.33 4.55 2.8 33.35
I
A(basescenaCr io) 77.3.333 4.554 .55 2.5 2.433.35 33.35
- Floor :brown wood
B D 77.3.333 4.554 .55 2.6 2.833.35 33.35
I - Wall : light grey p-aFpelor oanrd: bwrooowd nwood
EC (base scenario) 76.3.130 6.104 .55 2.6 2.537.21 33.35
- Ceiling : medium -gWraya lpla:pelirg htgrey
D F 77.3.235 5.134 .55 2.6 2.637.21 33.35
II paperandwood
G 6.50 5.72 2.6 37.21
E(basescenario) 6.10 6.10 2.6 37.21 -Ceiling:medium
H 5.60 6.64 2.6 37.21
F 7.25 5.13 2.6 37.21 graypaper
II I: Variations of the ceiling height; II: Variations of the width and depth.
G 6.50 5.72 2.6 37.21
H 5.60 6.64 2.6 37.21
 First group (A–D): The floor area of the living room space was equal for all four alternatives;
it was 33.35 mI:2V.a rHiaotiwonesvoefrt, htehcee iclieniglinhegi ghhet;igIIh:tV awriaasti ovnasroiefdth efrwomidt h2.a4n dmd etop th2..8 m. In this study,
the ceiling height of 2.4 m was the lowest acceptable height for occupancy and 2.8 m was the
‚ Firstmgraoxuimpu(mA –hDei)g:hTt hreegfluoloatreda rebay otfheth ebuliilvdiinngg rcooodme. sTphaec ecewiliansg ehqeuigahltf oorf a2ll.7f omu rwalatse rnnoatt ives;

it was 33.35 m2. However, the ceiling height was varied from 2.4 m to 2.8 m. In this study,
theceilingheightof2.4mwasthelowestacceptableheightforoccupancyand2.8mwasthe
Int.J.Environ.Res.PublicHealth2016,13,128 6of31
maximumheightregulatedbythebuildingcode. Theceilingheightof2.7mwasnotconsidered
becauseitdoesnotalignwiththeexteriordesignproportionsbetweenthewindowandexterior
finish. Therefore,ceilingheightsof2.4m,2.5m,2.6m,and2.8mwereprovidedusingrandom
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 128 6 of 30
assignment. Inthisgroup,thevariationoftheceilingheightistheinfluentialfactorthataffects
thefucotunrseidoecrecdu pbaecnatus’ses pita dtioaelsp neortc aelpigtino wnsit.h the exterior design proportions between the window
‚ Seconanddg erxotuerpio(rE f–inHis)h:.T Thheerfleofoorre,s cheailpinego hfetihgehtlsi voifn 2g.4r moo, m2.5s mpa, c2e.6w ma, savndar 2ie.8d mw witehrec hparonvgiedsedin the
widthusainngd rdanedpothm, basustigtnhmeecneti.l iInng thhies iggrhoturpe, mthaei nveadriaetqiouna olff othrea clleialilntegr nheaitgivhet sis. Tthhee inflfoluoernatirael afor
allfofuarctsocre tnhaatr iaoffsewctsa tsh3e7 f.u2t1urme 2o,ccbuuptadnitfsf’e srpeantitacl opmerbceipntaiotinosn. sofwidthsanddepthsvaryingfrom
 Second group (E–H): The floor shape of the living room space was varied with changes in the
5.13mto7.25mwereusedinordertocreatethesamearea. Aceilingheightof2.6wasusedin
width and depth, but the ceiling height remained equal for all alternatives. The floor area for all
thisscenarioforallrooms. Inthisgroup,thevariationsofthewidthanddeptharetheinfluential
four scenarios was 37.21 m2, but different combinations of widths and depths varying from
factorsthataffectthespatialperceptions.
5.13 m to 7.25 m were used in order to create the same area. A ceiling height of 2.6 was used in
this scenario for all rooms. In this group, the variations of the width and depth are the
All spaces in the experiment were created virtually using ArchiCAD Version 12 (Graphisoft:
influential factors that affect the spatial perceptions.
Budapest,Hungary). Then,thesespaceswereexportedtotheVirtualBuildingExplorer(VBE)format
thatproviAdlel ssepaasceys nianv tihgea teixopnerfoimrevnitr twuaerlee ncrveiartoendm veirntutsa,llbye ucasiunsge AthrcishinCaAvDig aVteiorsnioenn 1v2i r(oGnrmapehnistoifst:m ore
Budapest, Hungary). Then, these spaces were exported to the Virtual Building Explorer (VBE) format
userfriendly[40,41]. ThedisplayconditionsoftheVBEformatusedtherendermodewithaheadlight,
abackthgarto purnovdidmeos deaesyw nitahvitghaetisokny f,oar nvdirtaua0l. 9e8n˝vivroienwmecnotns,e b.eTchauesnea tvhiisg nataivoingastpioene denavnirdonmmoeunst eiss menosreit ivity
user friendly [40,41]. The display conditions of the VBE format used the render mode with a headlight,
were0.59sand22,respectively. Acamerawasinstalledataheightof1.6mabovetheflooranditwas
a background mode with the sky, and a 0.98° view cone. The navigation speed and mouse sensitivity
usedforthenavigator’svisualfields. Allspaceswereprojectedona17-inchTFTcomputerscreenin
were 0.59 s and 22, respectively. A camera was installed at a height of 1.6 m above the floor and it
sequence. Thescreenresolutionwas1600ˆ900,andtheconditionsofbrightness,colorquality,and
was used for the navigator’s visual fields. All spaces were projected on a 17-inch TFT computer
imagescsrdeeind nino tsceaquuseencvei.s uTahlep srcorbeleenm rsesfoolruntiaovni gwaatiso n16.00 × 900, and the conditions of brightness,
Pcoelrosrp qeucatilvitye, vainedw imsoagfetsh deidei ngohtt csaiumseu vlaistuedal spproabcleesmasr feoril nluasvtirgaatteiodn.i nFigure3. Thefloorcovering
wasalighPtebrsrpoewctnivwe voioedw.s Tohf ethceo eloigrhsto sfimthuelastoedu tshpearcnesa anrde iwlluessttreartnedw ina lFlsigwureer e3.l iTghhet fgloroary ;cothvoersiengo fthe
northwerans aa nlidgheta bsrtoewrnnw waololsd.w Tehree cloiglohrts borfo twhen soauntdhebreni gane,dr wesepsetecrtniv welayl.lsT wheerec eliiglihntg gwraays; tahomsee doifu thme gray.
northern and eastern walls were light brown and beige, respectively. The ceiling was a medium
Agray-coloredfive-seatsofawasplacedinthesoutheastareaoftheroom,andtheremainderofthe
gray. A gray-colored five-seat sofa was placed in the southeast area of the room, and the remainder
spacewasusedforpersonaluse. Acoffeetablewithdimensionsof1.2mˆ0.9mwasplacedinfront
of the space was used for personal use. A coffee table with dimensions of 1.2 m × 0.9 m was placed in
ofthesofa. Thetopareaofthetablewascoveredwithglass. Alightpurplerugwasplacedonthe
front of the sofa. The top area of the table was covered with glass. A light purple rug was placed on
floorunderneaththesofaandcoffeetable. Awall-mountedtelevisionwasinstalledontheeastern
the floor underneath the sofa and coffee table. A wall-mounted television was installed on the
wall,eaansdtertnh eweanllt, raanndc ethde oeonrtrwanacse idnotohr ewnaos rinth tehren nworathlle.rn wall.

FigurFeig3u.rPee 3r.s Ppeercstpivecetivviee vwieowf othf ethsee sleelcetcetdeds sppaacceess ((CCeeiilliinngg hheeigighth vtavraierdie fdorf oAr–AD–, BDa,sBe ascseensacreionsa =r iAos: =A:
2.4m2;.R4 omo;m Rosohma psehavpaer vieadriefodr foEr– EF–,FB, aBsaeses csecnenaarrioioss == GG:: 66 mm ׈ 6 m6m). ).
2.2. P2a.r2t.i Pciapratinctipsaanntsd aQndu eQsutieosntinonaniraeisres
The survey questions used in this study consisted of general questions for participants and
The survey questions used in this study consisted of general questions for participants and
self-reported questions for spatial perception. The general questions contained information about
self-reportedquestionsforspatialperception. Thegeneralquestionscontainedinformationabout
the participants such as gender, age, spatial sense of change in space configurations, etc. The general
theparticipantssuchasgender,age,spatialsenseofchangeinspaceconfigurations,etc. Thegeneral
questions were used to analyze the demographic characteristics and spatial perception ability of the
questionswereusedtoanalyzethedemographiccharacteristicsandspatialperceptionabilityofthe
participants. The health conditions were prescreened in order to satisfy the general standards for
particpiapratincitpsa.nTtsh, eeh.ge.,a lnthorcmoanl dvitiisoionns wanedr etpher esacbrielietyn etdo inideonrtdifeyr tcoolosarst isafnydt hveargiaetnioenrsa losft anspdaatiradl s for
Int.J.Environ.Res.PublicHealth2016,13,128 7of31
participants,e.g.,normalvisionandtheabilitytoidentifycolorsandvariationsofspatialconfigurations
invirtualworlds. Aseven-pointLikertscalewasusedtoanswerallquestionsfromstronglydisagree
(–3points)tostronglyagree(+3points)asdescribedinTable2.
Table2.Likertvotingscaleforquestionnaries.
Answer Scale
Stronglyagree 3
Moderatelyagree 2
Slightlyagree 1
Neitheragreenordisagree 0
Slightlydisagree ´1
Moderatelydisagree ´2
Stronglydisagree ´3
Therewerethirty-threeparticipantsintheexperimentbasedonthelivingroomshapesforSDA.
Twenty-threefemalesandtenmaleswhowereexpectingtobuythehouseinthefuturerandomly
participated in this study. Their age varied from minimal age of 21 to maximal age of 29 years,
with a mean age of 24.9 years. All participants were familiar with computer tasks using virtual
realitynavigation. Inthepre-experiments,itwasfoundthatnon-professionalscouldnotsuccessfully
participateinthefeedbackassignment,becausetheirinexperiencedskillsinnavigatingthesoftware
interruptedtheirconcentrationonthefeedback.
The eye height of participants in this study was 1.6 m. The differences of individuals were
not considered to collect their responses. Korean Statistical Information Service (http://kosis.kr,
2010) reported that average eye height of 25-year old Korean is 1.62 m for man and 1.49 m for
woman,respectively. Also,intheprocedureoftestinthisstudy,pre-accommodationintheVREwere
sufficientlyconductedforparticipantstoappropriatelycontroltheirexpectationorbiaserroraccording
totheheightdifferences.
Theself-reportedquestionsforspatialperceptionusedinthesurveyarepresentedinTables3
and 4. The organization of the spatial perception questions for the main survey was established
logically in order to appropriately interpret the relationship in the time-sequential feedback. The
questionsprovidedatime-sequentialstructureforthecorrelationbetweentheaffordanceofthespatial
factorsandtheoverallsatisfactionintheparticipants’spatialperceptions.
Table3.Contentsofquestionnaireforamenityperception.
Number QuestionsContent Category
Howwellisyoursenseofamenitysatisfiedwhilewalking
A1 Satisfactionofspace
throughthisspace?
A2 Istheroomwidthconducivetofeelingamenity?
A3 Istheroomdepthconducivetofeelingamenity?
spatialsize
A4 Istheroomheightconducivetofeelingamenity?
A5 Istheroomareaconducivetofeelingamenity?
A6 Istheratioofwidthtodepthconducivetofeelingamenity?
A7 Istheroomshapeconducivetofeelingamenity?
A8 Istheratioofheighttoareaconducivetofeelingamenity? spatialshape
A9 Isthefrontwindowsizeconducivetofeelingamenity?
A10 Istherightwindowsizeconducivetofeelingamenity?
A11 Isthesofalocationconducivetofeelingamenity?
A12 Isthevacantspacesizeconducivetofeelingamenity?
spatialelements
A13 Isthevacantspacelocationconducivetofeelingamenity?
configuration
A14 Isthebalconydoorlocationconducivetofeelingamenity?
A15 Isthecorridorwidthtobalconyconducivetofeelingamenity?
Int.J.Environ.Res.PublicHealth2016,13,128 8of31
Table4.Contentsofquestionnaireforefficiencyperception.
Number QuestionsContent Category
Howwellisyoursenseofefficiencysatisfiedwhilewalking
E1 Satisfactionofspace
throughthisspace?
E2 Istheroomwidthsufficientforservingguests?
E3 Istheroomdepthsufficientforservingguests?
spatialsize
E4 Istheroomheightsufficientforservingguests?
E5 Istheroomareasufficientforservingguests?
E6 Istheratioofwidthtodepthsufficientforservingguests?
E7 Istheroomshapesufficientforservingguests?
E8 Istheratioofheighttoareasufficientforservingguests? spatialshape
E9 Isthefrontwindowsizesufficientforservingguests?
E10 Istherightwindowsizesufficientforservingguests?
E11 Isthesofalocationsufficientforservingguests?
E12 Isthevacantspacesufficientforservingguests?
spatialelements
E13 Isthevacantspacelocationsufficientforservingguests?
configuration
E14 Isthebalconydoorlocationsufficientforservingguests?
E15 Isthecorridorwidthtobalconysufficientforservingguests?
Thequestionsregardingthespatialfactorswereorganizedreferringtothequestionsinprevious
POEstudies[14,35,53,73,81,85]. Questionsweredividedintothreecategories: theeffectofthespatial
size factors was evaluated using the questions regarding the height, width, and depth; the effect
ofthespatialshapefactorswasevaluatedusingthequestionsregardingtheshapeandratios;and
theeffectofthespatialelementconfigurationfactorswasevaluatedusingthequestionsregarding
thevacantspace,furniturelocation,etc. Theresponseswereevaluatedatthelowlevelperception
(i.e., intervention to the reasoning through activating the emotional experiences in virtual space
regardingthepreviousexperienceinrealspaces).
The questions regarding satisfaction were organized with reference to the previous
POE [44,48,86] as well as neuroscience research [46,47,49]. Yasushi argued that the satisfaction of
efficiencyisaffectedbythespatialaspectstoincereasetheussage;i.e.,everydaylifeactivity,utilization
of facilites, transproation, and service. Furthermore, the satisfaction of amenity is affected by the
spatialaspectstoincereasetheemotionalpleasure;i.e.,highqualityaesthetic,openness,easinessof
communityformation,separationfromunpleasantfacilities,andplentyofnature,etc.[29,53].
Inthisstudy,efficiencywasevaluatedregardingtheeverydaylifeactivityandusageoffacilities
tosupporttheguestservingactivity. Amenitywasevaluatedregardingaestheticandopennessto
thenaturetoaffectemotionalpleasure. Theseresponseswereevaluatedatthehighlevelperception
(i.e., reason-based perception through priming the categorical knowledge in order to obtain the
expectationsregardingsatisfactionofthecurrentcontext).
2.3. Occupants’ParticipatoryEvaluationProceduresandStatisticalAnalysisMethod
AseriesofexperimentswereconductedinordertoexaminetheSDAofamenityandefficiency.
Eachexperimentwasconductedusingthesameprocedure. Ineachexperiment,theinstructions,main
tests,andfinalsurveywereconductedinacomputerlaboratoryusingthefollowingprocedure.
‚ Step 1: Introduction for 15 min. Prior to the main tests, instructions were provided about the
backgroundofthetestswithanexplanationofthehouseplansandthesurveyprocedurethatis
presentedinFigure2.
‚ Step2:Primingfor15min.Twotypesofframingswereconductedinordertoelaboratethepotential
occupants’perceptions. Theframingofcategoricalknowledgefortheterminologyofamenity
and that for specific behavior in the current design alternatives were conducted. During the
primingperiod,theparticipantsadaptedthemselvestothecurrentvirtualspatialenvironments
Int.J.Environ.Res.PublicHealth2016,13,128 9of31
wherethebehaviorsettingswereframedonamenity. Theparticipantswereprimedtobeready
toimmediatelyrespondwiththeirjudgmentusingbothsubconsciousandconsciousepisodic
memoryactivation[37].
‚ Step 3: Evaluation of perception (40 min). During the survey, the participants navigated eight
spacesduringthe40-minperiodandtheyperceivedthespatialconditionsofeachroom. When
the participants navigated each room, they concurrently answered the survey questions that
correspondedtoeachspatialelementfromNumber2toNumber15aslistedinTable2. These
questIinot.n J.s Enevviroanl.u Reast. Peudblitch Heealpthe 2r01c6e, p13t, i1o28n ofeachspatialfactorthataffectstheparticipan9t ’osf 3s0a tisfaction
withtheamenity.
primed to be ready to immediately respond with their judgment using both subconscious and
‚ Step4: Evcaolnusactioiouns eopfisoovdeirca mllesmaotirsyf aaccttiivoantioanft [e3r7m]. ainsurvey(5min). Aftertheparticipantscompleted
thena• vigSatteipo 3n: aEnvadluaatniosnw oef rpserfcoeprtieona c(h40r mooinm). ,Dtuhreinyg atnhes wsuerrveedy, qthuee sptairotincipNauntms nbaevrig1atiend Teaigbhlte 2.
spaces during the 40-min period and they perceived the spatial conditions of each room. When
Intheseethxep pearritmiciepnantsts, nthaveigpaaterdt iecaicpha rnotosmw, tehreey ncoontcumrraedntelya awnsawreeretdh ethceh saunrvgeeys qiunestthioenss tphaatt ialfactors
corresponded to each spatial element from Number 2 to Number 15 as listed in Table 2.
beforeenteringthenextspace,becausetheyshoulddeterminethechangesinthespaceindependently
These questions evaluated the perception of each spatial factor that affects the participant’s
withoutpriorsiantifsofarcmtioant iwointh. tTheh aismpenriotyc.e durepreventsthe“guineapigeffect”. Theparticipantscould
concentrat•e oSnteap r4t: iEcvualluaattiinong oft ohveeriarll psaetirscfaectiivone daftear fmfoairnd saurnvceye (5a nmdin)s. aAtfitesrf athcet ipoanrticwipiatnhtos ucotmbpilaetse,d btheec ause they
couldmaintainnatvhigeaetivona launadt iaonnswdeirrse fcotri eoanchf ororoamm, tehneyit aynaswcceorerdd qinugesttioont hNeumfrbaemr 1in ing Taanbdle s2e. amlessevaluation
duringthewaIlnk tthhesreo uexgpheriimnetnhtse, vthier tpuaartlicsippaanctes .were not made aware the changes in the spatial factors
before entering the next space, because they should determine the changes in the space independently
Findingswereanalyzedusingstatisticstools. (1)Allmean(M)andstandarddeviation(SD)of
without prior information. This procedure prevents the “guinea pig effect”. The participants could
responses(A2andE2–A15andE15)forthespatialperceptioninthesurveyquestionsinTable3were
concentrate on articulating their perceived affordance and satisfaction without bias, because they
analyzed;c(o2u)ldA mmainutlatiinp tlhee leivnaeluaartiroeng drierescstiioonn fowr aamspeneitryf oacrcmoreddin.gT toh teheo fvraemrainllgs aantdi ssfeaacmtlieosns elveavluealtsiofno ramenity
(A1 and Ed1u)riwnge trhee wcoalnks tihdroeurgehd into thbe evirdtueapl espnadcee.n t variables in the prediction models. All responses
Findings were analyzed using statistics tools. (1) All mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of
(A2–A15)forthespatialperceptioninthesurveyquestionsinTables3and4wereusedasindependent
responses (A2 and E2–A15 and E15) for the spatial perception in the survey questions in Table 3
variables. Allparticipantresponsesofperceptionswereincludedintheinitialpredictionmodelsas
were analyzed; (2) A multiple linear regression was performed. The overall satisfaction levels for
independeamntenviatyr i(Aab1 laensd. EN1)e wxetr,et choensiindedreedp teon bde edneptevndaerniat vbalreiasbwlesh ino sthee spirgedniicfitiocna nmcoedelles.v Aellls rewspeorneselso werthan
0.05were(sAe2le–Act1i5v) efolyr thine cspluatdiael dpeirncetphtieonfi inn athlem suordveeyl squfeosrtiothnse inm Tualbtlieps l3e anredg 4r wesesreio unseda nasa ilnydseips;en(3de)nAt nalysisof
variables. All participant responses of perceptions were included in the initial prediction models as
variance(ANOVA)testswereusedforthemodelsinordertoexaminewhetheranacceptablemultiple
independent variables. Next, the independent variables whose significance levels were lower than
linearrelationshipexistedbetweenthedependentandindependentvariables.
0.05 were selectively included in the final models for the multiple regression analysis; (3) Analysis of
variance (ANOVA) tests were used for the models in order to examine whether an acceptable
3. AnalysmisulotifplOe lcincueapr arenlattsi’onPsehripce epxitsitoedn boetfwAeemn ethnei dtyependent and independent variables.
3.1. Partici3p. aAnntasl’yGsies noefr OalccCuhpaarnatsc’t Pereirscteipctsion of Amenity
Theg3e.1n. ePraartlicciphaantrsa’ cGteenreirsatl iCchsaroafcttehriestipcsa rticipants,whichcanexplaintheirsensitivitytoperceiving
spatial conditTiohne sg,enaerreald cheasrcarcitbereidsticisn oFf ithgeu praert4ic.ipOanvtse,r walhli,chth ceanp eaxrptlaicinip thaenirt sseenasistiivlyityp teo rpceericveievdingc hanges in
the spatiaslpcaotiaml cpoondnietinontss, tahrea dteisncrflibueed ninc eFigsuprae t4i.a Olvpeerarlcl,e tpheti poanrtsi.cipWanhtsi eleasi6ly9 .p9e%rceiovfedt hcheanpgaerst iinc itphea nts easily
recognizedspathtiael cchoamnpgoneesnitns tthhaet sinpfaluteianclec ospmatpiaol npeenrctesp(tiMons=. W0.6hi1le, S6D9.9=% 0o.7f 1t)h,e1 2pa.1rt2ic%ipaonftst heeaspilya rticipants
recognized the changes in the spatial components (M = 0.61, SD = 0.71), 12.12% of the participants
werenotsensitivetothesechanges.
were not sensitive to these changes.
Do you perceive easily the chnage of spatial composition?
100 Do you perceive easily the change of space height?
Do you perceive easily the chagne of space area?
Do you perceive easily the change of space shape?
80 Do you perceive easily where you head for in space?
%]
ge [ 60
a
nt
e
c
er 40
P
20
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Voting scale

Figure 4. Participants’ ability to perceive change in the spatial components.
Figure4.Participants’abilitytoperceivechangeinthespatialcomponents.
Int.J.Environ.Res.PublicHealth2016,13,128 10of31
IInntt.. JJ.. EEnnvviirroonn.. RReess.. PPuubblliicc HHeeaalltthh 22001166,, 1133,, 112288 1100 ooff 3300
IInn mmoorree ddeettaaiill,, 7755..7766%% ooff ppaarrttiicciippaannttss aannsswweerreedd tthhaatt tthheeyy ccoouulldd eeaassiillyy ppeerrcceeiivvee cchhaannggeess iinn tthhee
Inmoredetail,75.76%ofparticipantsansweredthattheycouldeasilyperceivechangesinthe
cceeiilliinngg hheeiigghhtt,, bbuutt 99..0099%% ooff ppaarrttiicciippaannttss wweerree nnoott sseennssiittiivvee ttoo tthheessee cceeiilliinngg hheeiigghhtt cchhaannggeess ((MM == 00..6677,,
ceilingheight,but9.09%ofparticipantswerenotsensitivetotheseceilingheightchanges(M=0.67,
SSDD == 00..6655)).. TThhee ppaarrttiicciippaannttss aallssoo ppeerrcceeiivveedd tthhee aarreeaa cchhaannggeess lleessss sseennssiittiivveellyy tthhaann tthheeyy ppeerrcceeiivveedd
SD = 0.65). The participants also perceived the area changes less sensitively than they perceived
tthhee cchhaannggeess ooff tthhee cceeiilliinngg hheeiigghhtt ((MM == 00..5588,, SSDD == 00..6666)).. FFuurrtthheerrmmoorree,, tthhee ppaarrttiicciippaannttss aapppprroopprriiaatteellyy
thechangesoftheceilingheight(M=0.58,SD=0.66). Furthermore,theparticipantsappropriately
ppeerrcceeiivveedd cchhaannggeess iinn tthhee ssppaattiiaall sshhaappeess ((MM == 00..5588,, SSDD == 00..5566)).. HHoowweevveerr,, wwhheenn tthhee ppaarrttiicciippaannttss
perceived changes in the spatial shapes (M = 0.58, SD = 0.56). However, when the participants
nnaavviiggaatteedd tthhee ssppaacceess,, tthheeiirr aabbiilliittyy ttoo ppeerrcceeiivvee ddiirreeccttiioonn wwaass nnoott eexxcceelllleenntt ((MM == 00..0099,, SSDD == 00..9988)).. IInn
navigatedthespaces, theirabilitytoperceivedirectionwasnotexcellent(M=0.09, SD=0.98). In
ssuummmmaarryy,, tthhee ddiissttrriibbuuttiioonn ooff tthhee ggeenneerraall cchhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss ooff tthhee ppaarrttiicciippaannttss wwaass nnoott nnoottiicceeaabbllyy
summary,thedistributionofthegeneralcharacteristicsoftheparticipantswasnotnoticeablyskewed,
sskkeewweedd,, aalltthhoouugghh tthhee ddiissttrriibbuuttiioonn wwaass nnoott ppeerrffeeccttllyy nnoorrmmaall.. TThhiiss iinnddiiccaatteess tthhaatt tthhee ssuurrvveeyy rreessuullttss
althoughthedistributionwasnotperfectlynormal. Thisindicatesthatthesurveyresultsfromthe
ffrroomm tthhee ppaarrttiicciippaannttss wweerree uunnbbiiaasseedd aanndd tthhaatt tthheeyy pprroovviiddee rreelliiaabbllee rreessuullttss..
participantswereunbiasedandthattheyprovidereliableresults.
333...222... EEEffffffeeecccttt ooofff SSSpppaaatttiiiaaalll SSSiiizzzeee ooonnn ttthhheee PPPeeerrrccceeeppptttiiiooonnn ooofff AAAmmmeeennniiitttyyy
TTThhheee oooccccccuuupppaaannntttsss’’’ pppeeerrrccceeeppptttiiiooonnnsss ooofff ttthhheee ssspppaaatttiiiaaalll sssiiizzzeee fffaaaccctttooorrrsss tttooo cccooonnnccceeeiiivvveee ttthhheee aaammmeeennniiitttyyy fffeeeeeellliiinnnggg wwweeerrreee
aaannnaaalllyyyzzzeeeddd... TTThhheee ssstttaaatttiisisstttiiciccaaall l aaannnaaallylyysssiisiss rrreeesssuuullltttsss fffooorrr eeeaaaccchhh qqquuueeessstttiiiooonnn aaarrreee ppprrreeessseeennnttteeeddd iiinnn FFFiiiggguuurrreeesss 555 aaannnddd 666... TTThhheee
wwwiiidddttthhh ooofff ttthhheee ssspppaaaccceee wwwaaasss sssuuufffffifiiccciiieeennnttt tttooo aaaccchhhiiieeevvveee bbbeeetttttteeerrr aaammmeeennniiitttyyy (((AAA222))) fffooorrr SSSpppaaaccceeesss AAA,,, BBB,,, CCC,,, aaannnddd DDD... TTThhheee ccceeeiiillliiinnnggg
hhheeeiiiggghhhttt ooofff 222...444 mmm (((SSSpppaaaccceee AAA))) ppprrrooovvviiidddeeeddd gggooooooddd cccooonnndddiiitttiiiooonnnsss fffooorrr bbbeeetttttteeerrr aaammmeeennniiitttyyy wwwhhheeennn ttthhheee fffllloooooorrr aaarrreeeaaa wwwaaasss eeeqqquuuaaalll
fffooorrr aaallllll ssspppaaaccceeesss (((MMM === 111...111222,,, SSSDDD === 111..1.11777))).. . TTThhheee dddiififffffeeerrreeennnccceee iiinnn ttthhheee mmmeeeaaannn rrreeessspppooonnnssseeesss wwwaaasss wwwiiittthhhiiinnn 000...222777 iiinnn ttthhheee LLLiiikkkeeerrrttt
ssscccaaallleee... TTThhheeessseee fffiiinnndddiiinnngggsss iiinnndddiiicccaaattteee ttthhhaaattt ttthhheee wwwiiidddttthhh wwwaaasss pppeeerrrccceeeiiivvveeeddd tttooo bbbeee wwwiiidddeeerrr uuunnndddeeerrr lllooowwweeerrr ccceeeiiillliiinnnggg hhheeeiiiggghhhttt
cccooonnndddiiitttiiiooonnnsss wwwhhheeennn ttthhheee hhheeeiiiggghhhttt ooofff aaallllll rrroooooommmsss rrreeemmmaaaiiinnneeeddd ttthhheee sssaaammmeee...
22..00
11..55
11..00
ee
nsns 00..55
oo
pp
eses 00..00
ean rean r --00..55 AA22 AA33 AA44 AA55
MM
--11..00
SSppaaccee--AA SSppaaccee--BB
--11..55 SSppaaccee--CC SSPPaaccee--DD
--22..00
QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirree nnuummbbeerr

FFFiiiggguuurrreee 555... SSSpppaaatttiiiaaalll pppeeerrrccceeeppptttiiiooonnn ooofff ttthhheee ssspppaaatttiiiaaalll sssiiizzzeee iiinnn ttteeerrrmmmsss ooofff aaammmeeennniiitttyyy uuunnndddeeerrr hhheeeiiiggghhhttt ccchhhaaannngggeeesss...
22..00
11..55
11..00
ee
nsns 00..55
oo
pp
eses 00..00
ean rean r --00..55 AA22 AA33 AA44 AA55
MM
--11..00
SSppaaccee--EE SSppaaccee--FF
--11..55
SSppaaccee--GG SSppaaccee--HH
--22..00
QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirree nnuummbbeerr

FFFiiiggguuurrreee 666... SSSpppaaatttiiiaaalll pppeeerrrccceeeppptttiiiooonnn ooofff ttthhheee ssspppaaatttiiiaaalll sssiiizzzeee iiinnn ttteeerrrmmmsss ooofff aaammmeeennniiitttyyy uuunnndddeeerrr fffllloooooorrr lllaaayyyooouuuttt ccchhhaaannngggeeesss...
HHoowweevveerr,, wwhheenn tthhee wwiiddtthh aanndd ddeepptthh vvaarriieedd bbuutt tthhee hheeiigghhtt rreemmaaiinneedd tthhee ssaammee iinn SSppaacceess EE,, FF,, GG,,
aanndd HH,, tthhee mmeeaann rreessppoonnsseess eexxhhiibbiitteedd nnoottiicceeaabbllee ddiiffffeerreenncceess.. TThhee mmoosstt ppoossiittiivvee rreessppoonnsseess ffoorr aammeenniittyy
wweerree rreeppoorrtteedd ffoorr SSppaaccee FF ((MM == 11..4455,, SSDD == 11..0066)),, aanndd tthhee mmoosstt nneeggaattiivvee ppeerrcceeppttiioonnss wweerree rreeppoorrtteedd ffoorr