景觀影像類型與空間頻率對偏好與腦區反應之影響

Neural Correlates of Natural Scenes: Effects of Scene Category and Spatial Frequency on Preference and Brain Activation Responses

10.53106/101632122023060124005

李欣恬(Hsin-Tien Lee)；何立智(Li-Chih Ho)；黃從仁(Tsung-Ren Huang)；蔡宇平(Yu-Ping Tsai)；張俊彥(Chun-Yen Chang)

景觀類型 ； 空間頻率 ； 低階視覺特徵 ； 功能性磁振造影 ； Scene Category ； Spatial Frequency ； Low-Level Visual Property ； Restorative Environment ； fMRI

建築學報

124期（2023 / 06 / 30）

85 - 100

繁體中文;英文

過去研究證實人們偏好自然景觀更甚於都市景觀，然而這類環境尚不清楚是否有關鍵的視覺特徵造成這樣的影響。本研究以景觀分類加上影像低階視覺特徵的觀點，探討不同景觀類型與空間頻率構成的環境影像偏好，並深入討論景觀影像刺激對人體大腦反應之影響。研究方法為將環境影像分為三種景觀類型與兩種空間頻率類別共六種景觀類型，利用持續注意力測驗、偏好問卷與功能性磁振造影儀器進行實驗。研究結果顯示景觀類型對偏好具有顯著差異（F=19.42, p<0.001），以海岸類型偏好平均數（3.39）為最高；空間頻率對偏好之影響雖無顯著，但當景觀類型與空間頻率共同作用時，對偏好亦有影響；在景觀影像刺激對大腦反應之結果，主要具有顯著活化的腦區為枕葉中之舌回（lingual gyrus）與楔葉（cuneus）；而觀看都市類型影像相較於海岸類型，海馬旁回（parahippocampal gyrus）會具有顯著活化的現象。藉由本研究結果能夠提供景觀影像低階視覺特徵對人們感知之影響的研究觀點，並瞭解人們與自然環境間互動的關係。

Previous researches have shown that human have a preference for images of natural scenes over built environments, and being in or viewing natural scenes can improve attention and psychological benefits. However, what are the features in the landscapes that produce these benefits? The purpose of this study is to explore the responses of brain activation to natural scenes. We focused on the relationship between individuals' perceptions and the environmental features. In this study, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to monitor brain activity responses. Participants were asked to perform the Sustained Attention to Response Test (SART), answer the preference question scales, while viewing a mixture of photographs of scene category (coast, forest, and urban) and different spatial frequency (low and high frequency). The result shows that there is interaction effect of scene category and spatial frequency on preference. People prefer coast and forest than urban. The result shows that there were different patterns of brain activation associated with different landscapes, activation responses were commonly found in lingual gyrus and cuneus. In viewing urban minus coast images condition, the parahippocampal gyrus were found activated. The findings of this study provide a viewpoint to the influence of landscape features on human perceptions, and how individuals interact with nature and environment.

1. Berman, M. G.,Hout, M. C.,Kardan, O.,Hunter, M. R.,Yourganov, G.,Henderson, J. M.,Hanayik, T.,Karimi, H.,Jonides, J.(2014).The perception of naturalness correlates with low-level visual features of environmental scenes.PLOS ONE,9(12),e114572.
2. Berman, M. G.,Jonides, J.,Kaplan, S.(2008).The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature.Psychol Sci,19(12),1207-1212.
3. Berto, R.(2005).Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity.Journal of Environmental Psychology,25(3),249-259.
4. Bratman, G. N.,Daily, G. C.,Levy, B. J.,Gross, J. J.(2015).The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition.Landscape and Urban Planning,138,41-50.
5. Bratman, G. N.,Hamilton, J. P.,Hahn, K. S.,Daily, G. C.,Gross, J. J.(2015).Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A,112(28),8567-8572.
6. Canário, N.,Jorge, L.,Loureiro Silva, M. F.,Alberto Soares, M.,Castelo-Branco, M.(2016).Distinct preference for spatial frequency content in ventral stream regions underlying the recognition of scenes, faces, bodies and other objects.Neuropsychologia,87,110-119.
7. Epstein, R. A.,Morgan, L. K.(2012).Neural responses to visual scenes reveals inconsistencies between fMRI adaptation and multivoxel pattern analysis.Neuropsychologia,50(4),530-543.
8. Ganaden, R. E.,Mullin, C. R.,Steeves, J. K.(2013).Transcranial magnetic stimulation to the transverse occipital sulcus affects scene but not object processing.J Cogn Neurosci,25(6),961-968.
9. Graham, D.,Schwarz, B.,Chatterjee, A.,Leder, H.(2016).Preference for luminance histogram regularities in natural scenes.Vision Research,120,11-21.
10. Grahn, J. A.,Manly, T.(2012).Common neural recruitment across diverse sustained attention tasks.PLOS ONE,7(11),e49556.
11. Hartig, T.,Evans, G. W.,Jamner, L. D.,Davis, D. S.,Gärling, T.(2003).Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings.Journal of Environmental Psychology,23(2),109-123.
12. Hartig, T.,Staats, H.(2006).The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences.Journal of Environmental Psychology,26(3),215-226.
13. Head, J.,Helton, W. S.(2012).Natural scene stimuli and lapses of sustained attention.Consciousness and Cognition,21(4),1617-1625.
14. Henderson, J. M.,Larson, C. L.,Zhu, D. C.(2007).Cortical activation to indoor versus outdoor scenes: an fMRI study.Exp Brain Res,179(1),75-84.
15. Ho, L. C.,Chen, J. C.,Chang, C. Y.(2014).Changes in the visual preference after stream remediation using an image power spectrum: Stone revetment construction in the Nan-Shi-Ken stream, Taiwan.Ecological Engineering,71,426-431.
16. Johnson, M.,Johnson, M.(2014).Decoding individual natural scene representations during perception and imagery.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,8
17. Kardan, O.,Demiralp, E.,Hout, M. C.,Hunter, M. R.,Karimi, H.,Hanayik, T.,Yourganov, G.,Jonides, J.,Berman, M. G.(2015).Is the preference of natural versus man-made scenes driven by bottom-up processing of the visual features of nature?.nal ResearchFrontiers in Psychology,6
18. Kauffmann, L.,Chauvin, A.,Pichat, C.,Peyrin, C.(2015).Effective connectivity in the neural network underlying coarse-to-fine categorization of visual scenes. A dynamic causal modeling study.Brain Cogn,99,46-56.
19. Kauffmann, L.,Ramanoël, S.,Guyader, N.,Chauvin, A.,Peyrin, C.(2015).Spatial frequency processing in scene-selective cortical regions.Neuroimage,112,86-95.
20. Kihara, K.,Takeda, Y.(2012).Attention-free integration of spatial frequency-based information in natural scenes.Vision Research,65,38-44.
21. Kravitz, D. J.,Peng, C. S.,Baker, C. I.(2011).Real-world scene representations in high-level visual cortex: it's the spaces more than the places.J Neurosci,31(20),7322-7333.
22. Laumann, K.,Gärling, T.,Stormark, K. M.(2003).Selective attention and heart rate responses to natural and urban environments.Journal of Environmental Psychology,23(2),125-134.
23. Lindquist, M. A.(2008).The statistical analysis of fMRI data.Statistical Science,23(4),439-464.
24. Lowe, M. X.,Gallivan, J. P.,Ferber, S.,Cant, J. S.(2016).Feature diagnosticity and task context shape activity in human scene-selective cortex.Neuroimage,125,681-692.
25. Park, S.,Brady, T. F.,Greene, M. R.,Oliva, A.(2011).Disentangling scene content from spatial boundary: Complementary roles for the parahippocampal place area and lateral occipital complex in representing real-world scenes.The Journal of Neuroscience,31(4),1333.
26. Peyrin, C.,Baciu, M.,Segebarth, C.,Marendaz, C.(2004).Cerebral regions and hemispheric specialization for processing spatial frequencies during natural scene recognition. An event-related fMRI study.Neuroimage,23(2),698-707.
27. Peyrin, C.,Schwartz, S.,Seghier, M.,Michel, C.,Landis, T.,Vuilleumier, P.(2005).Hemispheric specialization of human inferior temporal cortex during coarse-to-fine and fine-to-coarse analysis of natural visual scenes.Neuroimage,28(2),464-473.
28. Tennessen, C. M.,Cimprich, B.(1995).Views to nature: Effects on attention.Journal of Environmental Psychology,15(1),77-85.
29. Torralbo, A.,Walther, D. B.,Chai, B.,Caddigan, E.,Fei-Fei, L.,Beck, D. M.(2013).Good exemplars of natural scene categories elicit clearer patterns than bad exemplars but not greater BOLD activity.PLOS ONE,8(3),e58594.
30. Ulrich, R. S.(1983).Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment.Human Behavior & Environment: Advances in Theory & Research,6,85-125.
31. Ulrich, R. S.,Simons, R. F.,Losito, B. D.,Fiorito, E.,Miles, M. A.,Zelson, M.(1991).Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments.Journal of Environmental Psychology,11(3),201-230.
32. Valtchanov, D.,Ellard, C. G.(2015).Cognitive and affective responses to natural scenes: Effects of low level visual properties on preference, cognitive load and eye-movements.Journal of Environmental Psychology,43,184-195.
33. Van den Berg, A. E.,Jorgensen, A.,Wilson, E. R.(2014).Evaluating restoration in urban green spaces: Does setting type make a difference?.Landscape and Urban Planning,127,173-181.
34. Van den Berg, A. E.,Koole, S. L.,Van der Wulp, N. Y.(2003).Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related?.Journal of Environmental Psychology,23(2),135-146.
35. Velarde, M. D.,Fry, G.,Tveit, M.(2007).Health effects of viewing landscapes – Landscape types in environmental psychology.Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,6(4),199-212.
36. Walther, D. B.,Caddigan, E.,Fei-Fei, L.,Beck, D. M.(2009).Natural scene categories revealed in distributed patterns of activity in the human brain.The Journal of Neuroscience,29(34),10573.
37. Watson, D. M.,Hartley, T.,Andrews, T. J.(2014).Patterns of response to visual scenes are linked to The low-level properties of the image.Neuroimage,99,402-410.
38. Watson, D. M.,Hymers, M.,Hartley, T.,Andrews, T. J.(2016).Patterns of neural response in scene-selective regions of the human brain are affected by low-level manipulations of spatial frequency.Neuroimage,124(Pt A),107-117.
39. White, M.,Smith, A.,Humphryes, K.,Pahl, S.,Snelling, D.,Depledge, M.(2010).Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes.Journal of Environmental Psychology,30(4),482-493.
40. Wilkie, S.,Clouston, L.(2015).Environment preference and environment type congruence: Effects on perceived restoration potential and restoration outcomes.Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,14(2),368-376.
41. Yue, X.,Vessel, E. A.,Biederman, I.(2007).The neural basis of scene preferences.Neuroreport,18(6),525-529.