My Phd Thesis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Influence of an Art Gallery's Spatial Layout on Human Attention to and Memory of Art Exhibits Jakub Krukar PhD 2015 The Influence of an Art Gallery's Spatial Layout on Human Attention to and Memory of Art Exhibits Jakub Krukar A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Northumbria at Newcastle for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Research undertaken in the Faculty of Engineering and Environment May 2015 Kasi, w cało´sci. Dziekuj˛ e.˛ ABSTRACT The spatial layout of a building can have a profound impact on our architectural experience. This notion is particularly important in the field of museum curation, where the spatial arrangement of walls and artworks serves as a means to (a) strengthen our focus on indi- vidual exhibits and (b) provide non-obvious linkages between oth- erwise separate works of art. From the cognitive viewpoint, two processes which can describe the relevant aspects of the visitor ex- perience are visual attention and memory. This thesis presents the results of 3 studies involving mobile eye- tracking and memory tests in a real-life task of unrestricted art gal- lery exploration. The collected data describing attention and memory of the gallery visitors is analysed with respect to the spatial arrange- ment of artworks. Methods developed within the architectural theory of Space Syntax serve to formalise, quantify and compare distinct as- pects of their spatial layouts. Results show that the location of individual works of art has a ma- jor impact on the dynamics and quantity of visual attention deployed to the artworks, as well as the memory of their content and of their spatial location. This spatial influence, in many instances, is proven to be more impactful than that of the content of the artworks. Some gallery arrangements amplify the impact of the studied spatial factors to a higher degree than others. The results are discussed with respect to the distinct role played by the built environment (and, indirectly, by its designer) in our every- day cognitive experience. The thesis contributes to the field of mu- seum curation by demonstrating how the aesthetic experience of mu- seum visitors is affected by the decisions made by the curator. It also contributes to the fields of architecture and spatial cognition by demonstrating and quantifying the linkage between the formally de- scribed spatial layout and its impact on human cognitive processes. 3 CONTENTS i introduction 25 1 introduction 27 1.1 Research Question and Contribution to Knowledge 30 1.2 Methodological Approach 31 ii literature review 33 2defininga‘usable’ museum 35 2.1 Historical Context 35 2.2 Object-Centred and Viewer-Centred Curation 36 2.3 How to Evaluate Art Galleries? 38 2.4 Reminder: ‘To get something out of it’ 39 3 relevant cognitive processes 41 3.1 Visual Attention 42 3.1.1 What is Attention? 42 3.1.2 The Nature of Eye Movement 43 3.1.3 The Role of Visual Attention During Explora- tion of the Environment 44 3.1.4 Connections Between Attention and Memory 46 3.2 Memory 48 3.2.1 Visual Memory 48 3.2.2 Spatial Memory 51 3.2.3 Landmark Studies 53 3.3 A Note on Image Recognition 56 4cognitioninthewild... art gallery 59 4.1 Observational Visitor Studies 59 4.2 Towards User-Centric Exhibition Design 63 4.3 Limitations of Observational Visitor Studies 65 4.4 Experimental Aesthetics: Laboratory-Based Approach 67 4.5 Experimental Aesthetics: Museum-Based Approach 69 4.6 Experimental Aesthetics and the Curatorial Arrange- ment 72 4.7 Mobile Eye-Tracking Inside Museums 75 5 the influence of spatial layout 79 5.1 Current Practices 79 5.2 A Formal Description of the Museum Space 83 5.3 Spatial Relations Inside Museum Buildings 90 5.4 Linking Space Syntax with Spatial Cognition 95 iii method overview 101 6 procedure 105 7 participants 109 5 Contents 8mobileeye-tracking 111 8.1 Estimating Eye Gaze 112 8.2 Eye-Tracking Measures 113 8.3 Viewing Sequence Similarity 120 8.4 Task-Specific Oculomotor Behaviour 121 9recognitionmemorytest(reaction times) 125 10 spatial memory test (miniature task) 129 10.1 Analysis of the Miniature Task Results 130 11 space syntax analysis 137 12 hypotheses 141 12.1 What Are the Generalisable Patterns of Human Ocu- lomotor Behaviour Inside Art Galleries and How They Impact Memory (A) 141 12.2 How Space Impacts Oculomotor Behaviour (B) 142 12.3 How Space Impacts Memory (C) 145 12.4 Other Factors (D) 146 iv experiment 1 149 13 method 151 13.1 Procedure and Participants 151 13.2 Space and Materials 153 13.3 Eye-Tracking Recordings 154 13.4 Recognition Memory Test (Reaction Times) 154 13.5 Spatial Memory Test (Miniature Task) 155 13.6 Perceived Picture Salience study 155 14 data analysis 157 14.1 Cross-Condition Differences: Space Syntax and Isovist Analysis 157 14.2 Within-Condition Differences: Space Syntax and Isov- ist Analysis 157 14.3 Eye-Tracking Measures 158 14.4 Recognition Memory Test (Reaction Times) 164 14.5 Spatial Memory Test (Miniature Task) 166 15 results 169 15.1 Time Spent Inside 169 15.2 Visual Attention 169 15.3 Recognition Memory 184 15.4 Spatial Memory 192 16 discussion 201 16.1 Visual Attention 201 16.2 Recognition Memory 211 16.3 Spatial Memory 214 v experiment 2 217 17 method 221 17.1 Procedure and Participants 221 6 Contents 17.2 Space and Materials 222 17.3 Eye-Tracking Recordings 225 17.4 Recognition Memory Test (Reaction Times) 225 17.5 Spatial Memory Test (Miniature Task) 225 17.6 Revised Hypotheses (E) 227 18 data analysis 229 18.1 Cross-Condition Differences 229 18.2 Within-Condition Differences: Space Syntax and Isov- ist Analysis 231 18.3 Eye-Tracking Measures 231 18.4 Recognition Memory Test (Reaction Times) 231 18.5 Spatial Memory Test (Miniature Task): String Matching Analysis 232 18.6 Miniature Task Sequence Analysis 234 19 results 237 19.1 Time Spent Inside 237 19.2 Visual Attention 237 19.3 Recognition Memory 244 19.4 Spatial Memory 248 20 discussion 253 20.1 Visual Attention 253 20.2 Recognition Memory 259 20.3 Spatial Memory 261 20.4 Summary 263 vi baltic case study 265 21 method 269 21.1 Procedure and Participants 269 21.2 Space and Materials 270 21.3 Eye-Tracking Recordings 275 21.4 Recognition Memory Test (Reaction Times) 276 21.5 Spatial Memory Test (Miniature Task) 276 21.6 Revised Hypotheses (F) 278 22 data analysis 281 22.1 Spatial Characteristic of the Gallery (Space Syntax and Isovist Analysis) 281 22.2 Eye-Tracking Measures 283 22.3 Recognition Memory Test (Reaction Times) 283 22.4 Spatial Memory Test (Miniature Task) 284 22.5 Miniature Task Sequence Analysis 284 23 results 285 23.1 Time Spent Inside 285 23.2 Visual Attention 285 23.3 Recognition Memory 296 23.4 Spatial Memory 297 24 discussion 303 7 Contents 24.1 Visual Attention 303 24.2 Recognition Memory 312 24.3 Spatial Memory 313 vii summary and conclusion 317 25 summary 319 25.1 Contribution of This Thesis 319 25.2 On Generalisability of Behavioural and Cognitive Pat- terns 327 25.3 Can Experience Ever Be Pre-Determined by Spatial Lay- out? 329 25.4 Generalising to Other Building Types 330 26 limitations 333 26.1 Criticism of Space Syntax Approach 333 26.2 Distance Between the Viewer and the Picture 335 26.3 Illusions of the Path-(in)dependent Approach 336 26.4 Issues with ‘Measuring’ Cognition 337 26.5 Describing the ‘Experience’ 338 26.6 A Note on Power 339 27 conclusion 341 27.1 Future Work 344 viii appendix 347 aeye-tracking: coding procedure and reliability 349 a.1 Coding Procedure 350 a.2 Internal reliability 351 bcustom-built string matching algorithm for mini- ature task analysis 355 c forms 357 c.1 Informed Consent Form 357 c.2 Demographic Information Form 360 c.3 Excerpt from Colour Blindness Test 362 d instructions 365 d.1 Pre-Meeting Instruction (e-mail) 365 d.2 Briefing Instructions (prior to entering the gallery) 366 d.3 Recognition Test Instructions (on-screen) 366 d.4 Miniature Task Instructions (spoken) 367 d.5 Salience Study Instructions (online; in Polish) 367 d.6 Salience Study Screenshot (online) 368 e stimuli used in recognition memory tests 371 f glossary 373 8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 A sample ‘dwell’. 44 Figure 5.1 Two sample isovists derived from separate loc- ations; differing by area and shape. 85 Figure 5.2 Visibility Graph Analysis derived for the same layout as above, showing Isovist areas of all points in the graph. 86 Figure 5.3 ‘Clustering coefficient’ values in Visibility Graph Analysis overlaid with ‘e-spaces’. Original black and white figure adapted from Turner, Doxa, O’Sullivan and Penn (2001). with permission from Pion Ltd, London (www.pion.co.uk / www.envplan.com). 87 Figure 5.4 ‘Targeted visual connectivity’ (in this paper re- ferred to as ‘Targeted Co-Visibility’.). Darker colours show higher number of visible patient beds in a hospital. Adapted from Lu and Zim- ring (2012). 88 Figure 5.5 Five types of ‘co-visibility’ calculated (from a-e respectively) with more detailed input describ- ing participant’s movement throughout the vir- tual gallery. Adapted from Lu and Peponis (2014) with permission from Pion Ltd, London (www.pion.co.uk / www.envplan.com). For a more detailed description refer to the source material. 89 Figure 6.1 Sample participant wearing an eye-tracking device inside the gallery.