| Literature DB >> 24594683 |
Wenjuan Liu1, Jianlin Ji1, Hua Chen1, Chenyu Ye1.
Abstract
Color is one of the most powerful aspects of a psychological counseling environment. Little scientific research has been conducted on color design and much of the existing literature is based on observational studies. Using design of experiments and response surface methodology, this paper proposes an optimal color design approach for transforming patients' perception into color elements. Six indices, pleasant-unpleasant, interesting-uninteresting, exciting-boring, relaxing-distressing, safe-fearful, and active-inactive, were used to assess patients' impression. A total of 75 patients participated, including 42 for Experiment 1 and 33 for Experiment 2. 27 representative color samples were designed in Experiment 1, and the color sample (L = 75, a = 0, b = -60) was the most preferred one. In Experiment 2, this color sample was set as the 'central point', and three color attributes were optimized to maximize the patients' satisfaction. The experimental results show that the proposed method can get the optimal solution for color design of a counseling room.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24594683 PMCID: PMC3942464 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090646
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Conceptual model of the impact of color on patients’ outcome.
Figure 2CIE Lab color space.
Figure 3The questionnaire of Affective Appraisal Scale.
Experiment 1: Results of color sample selection.
| ID |
|
|
| pleasant–unpleasant | interesting–uninteresting | exciting–boring | relaxing–distressing | safe–fearful | active–inactive | Avg. Score |
| 25 | 60 | 60 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.1 | 4.3 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 4.1 | |
| 2 | 25 | 60 | 0 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 3.5 | 3.7 | 4.0 |
| 3 | 25 | 60 | –60 | 4.2 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 4.7 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 4.3 |
| 4 | 25 | 0 | 60 | 4.9 | 4.7 | 4.9 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.7 | 4.5 |
| 5 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 4.9 | 4.8 | 4.9 | 4.2 | 3.5 | 4.8 | 4.5 |
| 6 | 25 | 0 | –60 | 4.4 | 3.5 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 4.1 | 4.3 | 4.2 |
| 7 | 25 | –60 | 60 | 4.4 | 4.0 | 4.4 | 4.6 | 3.5 | 4.3 | 4.2 |
| 8 | 25 | –60 | 0 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 4.7 | 4.4 | 3.2 | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| 9 | 25 | –60 | –60 | 3.9 | 3.2 | 4.5 | 4.3 | 3.7 | 4.1 | 4.0 |
| 10 | 50 | 60 | 60 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 3.0 | 3.1 |
| 11 | 50 | 60 | 0 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 2.9 | 3.0 |
| 12 | 50 | 60 | –60 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 3.0 | 3.9 | 4.0 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| 13 | 50 | 0 | 60 | 2.9 | 3.5 | 3.9 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.9 | 3.4 |
| 14 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 4.3 | 3.9 | 3.0 | 4.4 | 3.9 |
| 15 | 50 | 0 | –60 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 3.4 | 2.8 |
| 16 | 50 | –60 | 60 | 3.3 | 2.8 | 3.7 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 3.6 | 3.2 |
| 17 | 50 | –60 | 0 | 3.4 | 2.7 | 3.5 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 3.1 |
| 18 | 50 | –60 | –60 | 2.8 | 2.3 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 3.0 | 2.7 |
| 19 | 75 | 60 | 60 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 2.5 | 2.6 |
| 20 | 75 | 60 | 0 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 4.0 | 3.7 | 2.3 | 2.5 |
| 21 | 75 | 60 | –60 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 4.0 | 3.8 | 2.1 | 2.6 |
| 22 | 75 | 0 | 60 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 3.7 | 2.8 | 2.3 | 3.4 | 2.9 |
| 23 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 2.6 | 2.9 | 3.9 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 3.9 | 3.0 |
| 24 | 75 | 0 | –60 | 1.7 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 2.7 | 2.0 |
| 25 | 75 | –60 | 60 | 1.7 | 2.7 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.1 |
| 26 | 75 | –60 | 0 | 1.9 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.2 |
| 27 | 75 | –60 | –60 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.1 |
Figure 4Experiment 1: Color samples.
Experiment 2: Matrix for the CCD and results.
| ID |
|
|
| pleasant–unpleasant | interesting–uninteresting | exciting–boring | relaxing–distressing | safe–fearful | active–inactive |
| 1 | 88 | –30 | –90 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 4.1 | 2.2 | 1.2 |
| 2 | 63 | –30 | –30 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 3.1 | 3.9 |
| 3 | 75 | 50 | –60 | 4.5 | 3.6 | 1.2 | 4.9 | 4.7 | 2.6 |
| 4 | 75 | –50 | –60 | 2.9 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 4.3 | 2.9 | 2.9 |
| 5 | 96 | 0 | –60 | 1.2 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.0 | 2.1 | 2.3 |
| 6 | 88 | 30 | –90 | 3.3 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 2.5 | 4.2 | 2.4 |
| 7 | 75 | 0 | –10 | 3.0 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 1.4 | 4.8 | 4.7 |
| 8 | 63 | 30 | –90 | 3.8 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 3.8 |
| 9 | 63 | 30 | –30 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 2.0 | 4.7 | 4.3 | 3.9 |
| 10 | 75 | 0 | –60 | 1.9 | 2.7 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 2.8 |
| 11 | 54 | 0 | –60 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 3.9 |
| 12 | 75 | 0 | –110 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 2.4 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 |
| 13 | 88 | –30 | –30 | 2.1 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 4.1 | 1.9 | 2.2 |
| 14 | 63 | –30 | –90 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 2.8 | 3.9 |
| 15 | 88 | 30 | –30 | 2.9 | 4.1 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 4.2 | 2.1 |
Figure 5Experiment 2: Color samples.
Model summary statistics.
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square |
| Prob> |
| Model | 10.41 | 9 | 1.16 | 7.62 | 0.0188 |
| Residual | 0.76 | 5 | 0.15 | ||
| Corr. total | 11.17 | 14 | |||
| Standard deviation | 0.39 |
| 0.9321 | ||
| Mean | 2.73 | Adj. | 0.8098 | ||
| CV% | 14.28 | Pred. | 0.4211 | ||
| Press | 6.47 | Adeq. precision | 9.941 |
Figure 6The contour plots for 6 responses.
Figure 7The contour and 3D plot of total desirability.
Figure 8The optimal color solution.
The optimal solution for color design.
|
|
|
| Pleasant-unpleasant | Interesting-uninteresting | Exciting-boring | Relaxing-distressing | Safe-fearful | Active-inactive | Desirability |
| 76.40 | –12.65 | –77.00 | 1.705 | 2.401 | 1.421 | 1.722 | 1.237 | 2.775 | 0.768 |