Assessment of Window Size and Layout Impact on a View Quality Perception in a Virtual Reality Environment

References

• Abd-Alhamid F, Kent M, Bennett C, Calautit J, Wu Y. 2019. Developing an innovative method for visual perception evaluation in a physical-based virtual environment. Build Environ. 162:106278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abd-Alhamid F, Kent M, Calautit J, Wu Y. 2020. Evaluating the impact of viewing location on view perception using a virtual environment. Build Environ. 180:106932.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abd-Alhamid F, Kent M, Wu Y. 2023. Quantifying window view quality: a review on view perception assessment and representation methods. Build Environ. 227:109742.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acosta I, Campano MÁ, Molina JF. 2016. Window design in architecture: analysis of energy savings for lighting and visual comfort in residential spaces. Appl Energ. 168:493–506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvarsson JJ, Wiens S, Nilsson ME. 2010. Stress recovery during exposure to nature sound and environmental noise. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 7(3):1036–1046.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aries MBC, Veitch JA, Newsham GR. 2010. Windows, view, and office characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort. J Environ Psychol. 30(4):533–541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker N, Fanchiotti A, Steemers K. 1993. Daylighting in architecture–a European reference book. Commission of the European communities, directorate–general XII for science research and development. London: Research and Development, James & James Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Berry MS, Repke MA, Nickerson NP, Conway LG III, Odum AL, Jordan KE. 2015. Making time for nature: visual exposure to natural environments lengthens subjective time perception and reduces impulsivity. PloS One. 10(11):e0141030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blehm C, Vishnu S, Khattak A, Mitra S, Yee RW. 2005. Computer vision syndrome: a review. Surv Ophthalmol. 50(3):253–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boubekri M, Hull RB, Boyer LL. 1991. Impact of window size and sunlight penetration on office workers’ mood and satisfaction: a novel way of assessing sunlight. Environ Behav. 23(4):474–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouchard S, Robillard G, Giroux I, Jacques C, Loranger C, St-Pierre M, Chrétien M, Goulet A. 2017. Using virtual reality in the treatment of gambling disorder: the development of a new tool for cognitive behavior therapy. Front Psychiatry. 8(27):2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boyce P, Hunter C, Howlett O. 2003. The benefits of daylight through windows. Troy (NY): Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Braithwaite JJ, Watson DG, Jones R, Rowe M. 2013. A guide for analysing electrodermal activity (EDA) & skin conductance responses (SCRs) for psychological experiments. Psychophysiology. 49(1):1017–1034.
   Google Scholar
• BREEAM. 2018. BREEAM new construction 2018. Watford,UK: BRE Global Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Bush LK, Hess U, Wolford G. 1993. Transformations for within-subject designs: a Monte Carlo investigation. Psychol Bull. 113(3):566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo JT, Tassinary LG, Berntson G. 2007. Handbook of psychophysiology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carlucci S, Causone F, Rosa FD, Pagliano L. 2015. A review of indices for assessing visual comfort with a view to their use in optimization processes to support building integrated design. Renew Sust Energy Rev. 47:1016–1033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cetegen D, Veitch J, Newsham G. 2008. View size and office illuminance effects on employee satisfaction. In: Proceedings of Balkan light, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 242–252.
   Google Scholar
• Chamilothori K, Chinazzo G, Rodrigues J, Dan-Glauser ES, Wienold J, Andersen M. 2019. Subjective and physiological responses to façade and sunlight pattern geometry in virtual reality. Build Environ. 150:144–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chamilothori K, Wienold J, Andersen M. 2018. Adequacy of immersive virtual reality for the perception of daylit spaces: comparison of real and virtual environments. LEUKOS. 15:1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang C-Y, Chen P-K. 2005. Human response to window views and indoor plants in the workplace. HortScience. 40(5):1354–1359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho D, Ham J, Oh J, Park J, Kim S, Lee N-K, Lee B. 2017. Detection of stress levels from biosignals measured in virtual reality environments using a kernel-based extreme learning machine. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland). 17(10):2435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dashwood T. 2011. A beginner’s guide to shooting stereoscopic 3D. Toronto, canada: Dashwood Cinema Solutions.
   Google Scholar
• Dawson ME, Schell AM, Filion DL. 2007. The electrodermal system. Handb Psychophysiol. 2:200–223.
   Google Scholar
• Dogrusoy IT, Tureyen M. 2007. A field study on determination of preferences for windows in office environments. Build Environ. 42(10):3660–3668.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elias MF, Torres RV. 2017. The renaissance of heart rate variability as a predictor of cognitive functioning. Am J Hypertens. 31(1):21–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farley KM, Veitch JA. 2001. A room with a view: a review of the effects of windows on work and well-being.
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson CJ. 2009. An effect size primer: a guide for clinicians and researchers. Prof Psychol Res Pr. 40(5):532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferré S, O’Brien MC. 2011. Alcohol and caffeine: the perfect storm. J Caffeine Res. 1(3):153–162.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Field A. 2013. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Los Angeles, USA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Field A, Hole G. 2002. How to design and report experiments. London, UK: Sage Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Flor J-F, Aburas M, Abd-AlHamid F, Wu Y. 2020. Virtual reality as a tool for evaluating user acceptance of view clarity through ETFE double-skin façades. Energy Buildings. 231:110554.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fontenelle MR, Bastos LEG. 2014. The multicriteria approach in the architecture conception: defining windows for an office building in Rio de Janeiro. Build Environ. 74:96–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fotios S, Cheal C. 2007. Lighting for subsidiary streets: investigation of lamps of different SPD. Part 1—visual performance. Light Res Technol. 39(3):215–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garretón JY, Rodriguez R, Pattini A. 2016. Effects of perceived indoor temperature on daylight glare perception. Build Res Inf. 44(8):907–919.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geng Y, Hong B, Du M, Yuan T, Wang Y. 2022. Combined effects of visual-acoustic-thermal comfort in campus open spaces: a pilot study in China’s cold region. Build Environ. 209:108658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Girden ER. 1992. ANOVA: repeated measures. SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781412983419.
   Google Scholar
• Goia F. 2016. Search for the optimal window-to-wall ratio in office buildings in different European climates and the implications on total energy saving potential. Sol Energy. 132:467–492.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gottschalk LA, Bechtel RJ, Maguire GA, Harrington DE, Levinson DM, Franklin DL, Carcamo D. 2000. Computerized measurement of cognitive impairment and associated neuropsychiatric dimensions. Compr Psychiatry. 41(5):326–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guidolin E. 2014. Impact of window amount and size on user perception, daylighting and energy demand in an office space [thesis]. University of Padua.
   Google Scholar
• Hashizume A, Kurosu M, Kaneko T. 2007. Multi-window system and the working memory. In: International Conference on Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, Beijing, China. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Heerwagen J, Orians G. 1990. The psychological aspects of windows and window design. California, USA: EDRA.
   Google Scholar
• Heschong L. 2003a. Windows and classrooms: a study of student performance and the indoor environment. Calif Energy Commission. 4:414–435.
   Google Scholar
• Heschong L. 2003b. Windows and offices: a study of office worker performance and the indoor environment. Calif Energy Commission. 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Higuera-Trujillo JL, Maldonado JL-T, Millán CL. 2017. Psychological and physiological human responses to simulated and real environments: a comparison between photographs, 360 panoramas, and virtual reality. Appl Ergon. 65:398–409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holm S. 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat. 6(2):65–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inanici M. 2006. Evaluation of high dynamic range photography as a luminance data acquisition system. Light Res Technol. 38(2):123–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwata T, Tokura M. 1998. Examination of the limitations of predicted glare sensation vote (PGSV) as a glare index for a large source: towards a comprehensive development of discomfort glare evaluation. Int J Light Res Technol. 30(2):81–88.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan S. 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol. 15(3):169–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karthikeyan P, Murugappan M, Yaacob S. 2011. A review on stress inducement stimuli for assessing human stress using physiological signals. In: Signal Processing and its Applications (cspa), 2011 IEEE 7th International Colloquium on, Penang, Malaysia. IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Keighley EC. 1973a. Visual requirements and reduced fenestration in office buildings — a study of window shape. Buil Sci. 8(4):311–320.
   Google Scholar
• Keighley EC. 1973b. Visual requirements and reduced fenestration in offices — a study of multiple apertures and window area. Buil Sci. 8(4):321–331.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy RS, Lane NE, Berbaum KS, Lilienthal MG. 1993. Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int J Aviat Psychol. 3(3):203–220.
   Google Scholar
• Kent M, Schiavon S. 2020. Evaluation of the effect of landscape distance seen in window views on visual satisfaction. Build Environ. 183:107160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent MG, Schiavon S, Jakubiec JA. 2020. A dimensionality reduction method to select the most representative daylight illuminance distributions. J Buil Perf Simul. 13(1):122–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim J, Cha SH, Koo C, Tang S-K. 2018. The effects of indoor plants and artificial windows in an underground environment. Build Environ. 138:53–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim J, Kent M, Kral K, Dogan T. 2022. Seemo: a new tool for early design window view satisfaction evaluation in residential buildings. Build Environ. 214:108909.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ko WH, Kent MG, Schiavon S, Levitt B, Betti G. 2021. A window view quality assessment framework. LEUKOS. 18:1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ko WH, Kent MG, Schiavon S, Levitt B, Betti G. 2022. A window view quality assessment framework. LEUKOS. 18(3):268–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolmogorov A. 1933. Sulla determinazione empirica di una lgge di distribuzione. Inst Ital Attuari Giorn. 4:83–91.
   Google Scholar
• Lambooij M, IJsselsteijn W, Bouwhuis DG, Heynderickx I. 2011. Evaluation of stereoscopic images: beyond 2D quality. IEEE Trans Broadcast. 57(2):432–444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leather P, Pyrgas M, Beale D, Lawrence C. 1998. Windows in the workplace: sunlight, view, and occupational stress. Environ Behav. 30(6):739–762.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee JW, Jung HJ, Park JY, Lee JB, Yoon Y. 2013. Optimization of building window system in Asian regions by analyzing solar heat gain and daylighting elements. Renew Energ. 50:522–531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legge GE, Bigelow CA. 2011. Does print size matter for reading? A review of findings from vision science and typography. J Vis. 11(5):8–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang R. 2018. Development of an adaptive façade for visual comfort, daylight and thermal control element. Nottingham. UK: University of Nottingham.
   Google Scholar
• Liang R, Kent M, Wilson R, Wu Y. 2019. Development of experimental methods for quantifying the human response to chromatic glazing. Build Environ. 147:199–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin IM, Fan S-Y, Lu Y-H, Lee C-S, Wu K-T, Ji H-J. 2015. Exploring the blood volume amplitude and pulse transit time during anger recall in patients with coronary artery disease. J Cardiol. 65(1):50–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin T-Y, Le A-V, Chan Y-C. 2022. Evaluation of window view preference using quantitative and qualitative factors of window view content. Build Environ. 213:108886.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindal PJ, Hartig T. 2013. Architectural variation, building height, and the restorative quality of urban residential streetscapes. J Environ Psychol. 33:26–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindal PJ, Hartig T. 2015. Effects of urban street vegetation on judgments of restoration likelihood. Urban For Urban Green. 14(2):200–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu D, Kovacs-Biro MJ, Connelly K, Abd-AlHamid F, Wu Y. 2023. Preliminary investigation on the human response to patterned chromatic glazing. Build Environ. 229:109901.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Low A, McCraty R. 2018. Heart rate variability: new perspectives on assessment of stress and health risk at the workplace. Heart And Mind. 2(1):16.
   Google Scholar
• Ludlow A. 1976. The functions of windows in buildings. Light Res Technol. 8(2):57–68.
   Google Scholar
• Manasrah A, Al Zyoud A, Abdelhafez E. 2021. Effect of color and nano film filters on the performance of solar photovoltaic module. Energy Sources Part A. 43(6):705–715.
   Google Scholar
• Mari MST, Odat MSS, Al-Shammari MSA. 2020. Energy performance analysis of passive design strategies for the green affordable homes project in Jordan. J Eng. 8(2):72–80.
   Google Scholar
• Markus TA. 1967. The function of windows— a reappraisal. Buil Sci. 2(2):97–121.
   Google Scholar
• Masoudinejad S, Hartig T. 2018. Window view to the sky as a restorative resource for residents in densely populated cities. Environ Behav. 52(4):401–436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moscoso C, Chamilothori K, Wienold J, Andersen M, Matusiak B. 2021. Regional differences in the perception of daylit scenes across Europe using virtual reality. Part I: effects of window size. LEUKOS. 18:1–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ne’Eman E, Hopkinson RG. 1970. Critical minimum acceptable window size: a study of window design and provision of a view. Light Res Technol. 2(1):17–27.
   Google Scholar
• New House Internet Services B.V. 1996. Ptguipro software. Rotterdam (The Netherlands): New House Internet Services B.V.
   Google Scholar
• Nordh H, Hartig T, Hagerhall CM, Fry G. 2009. Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban For Urban Green. 8(4):225–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ochoa CE, Aries MB, van Loenen EJ, Hensen JL. 2012. Considerations on design optimization criteria for windows providing low energy consumption and high visual comfort. Appl Energ. 95:238–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ode Å, Hagerhall CM, Sang N. 2010. Analysing visual landscape complexity: theory and application. Landscape Res. 35(1):111–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA. 2007. Updated world map of the köppen-Geiger climate classification.
   Google Scholar
• Pehlivanoğlu B, Durmazlar N, Balkancı D. 2005. Computer adapted Stroop colour-word conflict test as a laboratory stress model. Erciyes Med J. 27(2):58–63.
   Google Scholar
• Peltola MA. 2012. Role of editing of R-R intervals in the analysis of heart rate variability. Front Physiol. 3:148–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinhard E, Stark M, Shirley P, Ferwerda J. 2002. Photographic tone reproduction for digital images. ACM Trans Graphics (TOG). 21(3):267–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renaud P, Blondin J-P. 1997. The stress of Stroop performance: physiological and emotional responses to color–word interference, task pacing, and pacing speed. Int J Psychophysiol. 27(2):87–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaffer F, Ginsberg JP. 2017. An overview of heart rate variability metrics and norms. Front Public Health. 5:258–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 52(3/4):591–611.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherif A, Sabry H, Wagdy A, Mashaly I, Arafa R. 2016. Shaping the slats of hospital patient room window blinds for daylighting and external view under desert clear skies. Sol Energy. 133:1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Society for Psychophysiological Research Ad Hoc Committee On Electrodermal, M. 2012. Publication recommendations for electrodermal measurements. Psychophysiology. 49(8):1017–1034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solimini AG, Mannocci A, Di Thiene D, La Torre G. 2012. A survey of visually induced symptoms and associated factors in spectators of three dimensional stereoscopic movies. BMC Public Health. 12(1):779.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Svetlak M, Bob P, Cernik M, Kukleta M. 2010. Electrodermal complexity during the Stroop colour word test. Auton Neurosci. 152(1–2):101–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabrizian P, Baran PK, Smith WR, Meentemeyer RK. 2018. Exploring perceived restoration potential of urban green enclosure through immersive virtual environments. J Environ Psychol. 55:99–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson ER. 2007. Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). J Cross Cult Psychol. 38(2):227–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomaka J, Blascovich J, Swart L. 1994. Effects of vocalization on cardiovascular and electrodermal responses during mental arithmetic. Int J Psychophysiol. 18(1):23–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tong Y, Melara RD. 2007. Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of distractor variation on auditory selective attention. Brain Res. 1166:110–123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tregenza P, Loe D. 1998. The design of lighting. London: published by E&FN SPON.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich RS. 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Sci. 224(4647):420–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA, Zelson M. 1991. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol. 11(3):201–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valtchanov D, Barton KR, Ellard C. 2010. Restorative effects of virtual nature settings. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 13(5):503–512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West M. 1985. Landscape virsus and stress response in the prison environment [ MLA thesis]. Washington (DC): Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Washington.
   Google Scholar
• Wienold J, Christoffersen J. 2006. Evaluation methods and development of a new glare prediction model for daylight environments with the use of CCD cameras. Energy Buildings. 38(7):743–757.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Q, Liu M, Shu C, Mmereki D, Hossain U, Zhan X. 2015. Impact analysis of window-wall ratio on heating and cooling energy consumption of residential buildings in hot summer and cold winter zone in China. J Eng. 2015:1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar