建築空間性的認知地圖

Abstract

本研究以設計思考的角度切入，針對建築設計與認知心理學兩個領域來討論空間心像能力的認知地圖與建築空間性的關聯與組織。在設計過程中，當專業設計者腦海裡思考設計作品的初步印象時，也必然會思考到設計作品所傳達的空間性，這樣的空間性是一種空間知識呈現的表達。因此，若想要深入探討出空間性在不同空間層級之間的運作關係與聯結組織時，必須要先釐清各個空間層級的內在結構與組織關係。以本研究而言，這個問題著眼於專業設計者運用認知地圖來思考空間知識時到底有哪些設計認知現象存在。一個具有專業建築設計實務經驗的受測者進行兩個認知實驗，一個是以都市設計為主題，另一個則是室內設計為主題。兩個實驗均以影音回溯口語分析法為基本的研究方法。在建築空間性的認知地圖裡可以歸結到四個設計認知現象：第一，從一個設計問題引導出一個設計目標的設計過程裡，專業設計者若是思考建築空間的外在時，傾向思考認知地圖裡點元素的地標；若是思考建築空間的內在時，傾向於思考面元素的邊界。第二，從一個設計目標引導出一個新的設計問題裡，專業設計者若是思考建築空間的外在時，傾向思考面元素的區域；若是思考建築空間的內在時，傾向思考點元素的節點。第三，從一個設計問題分解成幾個子問題裡，專業設計者若是思考建築空間的外在時，傾向思考面元素的區域；若是思考建築空間的內在時，傾向思考點元素的地標。第四，從一個設計目標分解成幾個新的子目標裡，專業設計者若是思考建築空間的外在時，傾向思考點元素的節點；若是思考建築空間的內在時，傾向思考面元素的邊界。這些可能的設計認知現象，可以成為一種基於設計過程來思考空間型態變化與運用空間知識的參考法則。此外，對於認知地圖所建構出的空間參考架構與點線面元素，也能夠表達出較為明確的空間性意義。在未來研究中，建築空間性的認知地圖一方面可以再深入空間決策與空間評估的設計認知層面，另一方面也能夠成為電腦輔助設計系統的建構依據。

In view of designing in architecture and cognitive psychology, this research focused on the relativity with cognitive maps of mental images and spatiality in architecture. In design thinking process, the professional designer would think consequentially about the conveyed spatiality of design creations when he or she has a preliminary consideration in designing. Therefore, it should clear to define the inner structure and organized relationship if it would be explored deeper into the spatiality on each spatial layer. In this research, this problem focused on that which cognitive phenomena existed in design process when the professional designer used cognitive maps to think about spatial knowledge. One subject who has professional experience of designing in architecture manipulated two cognitive experiments, one was based on urban design as topic and another one was based on interior design. The methodology of two experiments was instructed in retrospective protocol analysis. In conclusion, there are four cognitive phenomena in designing arose in cognitive maps of spatiality in architecture: firstly, from one design problem led to one design goal in design process, it tended to consider the landmark in point elements of cognitive maps if the professional designer thought about the outside of architectural space; otherwise, it tended to consider the edge in area elements if the professional designer thought about the inside of architectural space. Secondly, from one design goal led to one design problem in design process, it tended to consider the district in area elements of cognitive maps if the professional designer thought about the outside of architectural space; otherwise, it tended to consider the node in point elements if the professional designer thought about the inside of architectural space. Thirdly, when one design problem was divided into several sub-problems, it tended to consider the district in area elements of cognitive maps if the professional designer thought about the outside of architectural space; otherwise, it tended to consider the landmark in point elements if the professional designer thought about the inside of architectural space. Fourthly, when one design goal was divided into several sub-goals, it tended to consider the node in point elements of cognitive maps if the professional designer thought about the outside of architectural space; otherwise, it tended to consider the edge in area elements if the professional designer thought about the inside of architectural space. These phenomena could be one kind of referable principle which is based on design process to think about the varieties of spatial typology and the application of spatial knowledge. Furthermore, the referred framework and all spatial elements of cognitive maps could be conveyed the spatiality more clear. In the further studies, on the one part cognitive maps of spatiality in architecture will deeper into spatial strategies and estimations and on the other part it also could be a theory basis of computer-aided design system.