| Literature DB >> 32655629 |
Abstract
Miryoku engineering is a design concept based on customer preferences, with the goal of creating attractive products or spaces. However, traditional Miryoku engineering faces two main issues: (1) the upper Kansei factor ranks the weights by the number of mentions, but it does not represent the importance of customers; (2) the mapping connection between the upper Kansei factor and the lower specific conditions adopts a statistical analysis method, which easily leads to the omission of key information. With the development of computer-based artificial intelligence, it repeatedly simulates human thinking with simple calculation rules, which has the advantages of fewer errors and faster speed. Therefore, on the three-level evaluation grid diagram platform established by Miryoku engineering, this paper first uses grey relationship analysis to comprehensively evaluate the priority order of Kansei words. Secondly, for the key Kansei factors, a morphological deconstruction table that connects the original reasons and specific conditions is established. Orthogonal design is used to screen representative combinations of design elements and create sample models by using the 3D software. Finally, the neural network was used to establish a mapping function between the key Kansei factors and the representative product design elements, and based on this, the most perceptually attractive product design was discovered. As a case study, the automobile booth was used to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method and significantly improve exhibitor design decisions and attendees' satisfaction.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32655629 PMCID: PMC7322608 DOI: 10.1155/2020/8863727
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Evaluation grid diagram.
A brief comparison between this paper and the previous ones.
| Literature | Expert interview | Kansei evaluation | Function evaluation | Filter product design elements | Synthesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This paper | EGM | GRA | NN | ||
| Wu and Cheng [ | EGM | Fuzzy Kano, fuzzy AHP | QT-I | ||
| Wu and Kang [ | EGM | Fuzzy AHP | |||
| Kang et al. [ | EGM | Fuzzy Kano, fuzzy AHP | Fuzzy QFD | ||
| Kang et al. [ | EGM | QT-I | |||
| Kang et al. [ | Focus group | Fuzzy Delphi | FWARM | ||
| Chen and Li [ | EGM | QT-I | |||
| Shen [ | EGM | QT-I | |||
| Zhang et al. [ | EGM | ANP | |||
| Wang and Hsueh [ | AHP, Kano model | DEMATEL | |||
| Wang [ | AHP, TRIZ | QFD | |||
| Wang [ | Focus group | TRIZ, FCPR | RST |
Notes. FWARM: fuzzy weighted association rule mining; TRIZ: theory of inventive problem solving; DEMATEL: decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory; RST: rough set theory; FCPR: fuzzy cognitive pairwise rating.
Figure 2The proposed research framework.
Figure 3Complete evaluation structure chart.
16 representative Kansei words.
| Warm | Wide | Simple | Noble | Dynamic | Technological | Industrial | Retro |
| Youthful | Attractive | Passionate | Fantasy | Absorbed | Fashionable | Interesting | Exquisite |
Kansei evaluation values.
| Kansei factors | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Warm | 3.25 | 3.45 | 3.16 | 5.63 | 4.47 | 3.75 | 3.59 | 3.90 | 3.98 | 3.90 | 3.92 | 4.43 | 3.98 | 4.12 |
| Wide | 5.47 | 5.31 | 5.76 | 5.29 | 5.63 | 4.37 | 5.04 | 5.31 | 5.24 | 5.31 | 4.86 | 4.67 | 5.61 | 5.12 |
| Simple | 5.59 | 5.29 | 5.61 | 4.94 | 5.35 | 4.51 | 5.31 | 5.33 | 5.31 | 4.98 | 4.71 | 4.98 | 5.49 | 5.31 |
| Noble | 5.20 | 3.98 | 5.24 | 4.96 | 5.18 | 4.71 | 4.98 | 5.10 | 4.71 | 5.02 | 4.24 | 5.06 | 4.80 | 4.35 |
| Dynamic | 4.86 | 3.76 | 5.94 | 3.53 | 4.51 | 5.71 | 5.45 | 4.98 | 4.53 | 5.61 | 4.16 | 5.06 | 4.96 | 4.39 |
| Technological | 5.69 | 4.25 | 5.76 | 3.75 | 4.88 | 5.35 | 5.43 | 4.49 | 4.73 | 5.65 | 4.37 | 5.29 | 5.37 | 4.75 |
| Industrial | 5.14 | 4.84 | 5.16 | 3.53 | 4.51 | 5.00 | 5.22 | 3.71 | 4.71 | 4.94 | 4.90 | 4.51 | 5.00 | 4.69 |
| Retro | 2.33 | 2.82 | 2.75 | 3.59 | 3.35 | 3.33 | 3.29 | 4.02 | 3.43 | 3.39 | 3.61 | 3.31 | 3.37 | 3.18 |
| Youthful | 5.33 | 4.73 | 5.35 | 4.69 | 4.78 | 5.20 | 5.29 | 4.24 | 4.61 | 5.35 | 4.16 | 5.10 | 5.12 | 4.63 |
| Attractive | 5.08 | 4.29 | 5.51 | 4.82 | 4.94 | 5.18 | 5.22 | 4.73 | 4.55 | 5.27 | 4.29 | 5.16 | 4.98 | 4.51 |
| Passionate | 4.80 | 3.96 | 5.61 | 3.96 | 4.22 | 5.25 | 5.39 | 4.86 | 4.35 | 4.92 | 4.00 | 4.76 | 4.88 | 4.18 |
| Fantasy | 3.16 | 2.90 | 3.43 | 4.35 | 4.80 | 4.25 | 3.76 | 3.96 | 3.59 | 4.73 | 3.27 | 4.84 | 4.10 | 3.65 |
| Absorbed | 3.86 | 3.49 | 4.41 | 4.53 | 4.57 | 4.53 | 4.49 | 4.94 | 4.33 | 5.00 | 4.12 | 4.86 | 4.53 | 4.35 |
| Fashionable | 4.75 | 4.12 | 5.10 | 4.65 | 4.69 | 5.45 | 5.18 | 4.49 | 4.10 | 5.20 | 4.18 | 4.92 | 4.80 | 4.39 |
| Interesting | 3.96 | 3.47 | 4.29 | 3.94 | 3.96 | 4.88 | 4.92 | 4.00 | 3.80 | 4.76 | 3.90 | 4.22 | 4.20 | 3.80 |
| Exquisite | 5.00 | 4.04 | 4.71 | 5.04 | 4.86 | 5.02 | 5.04 | 3.92 | 4.61 | 5.2 | 4.16 | 4.90 | 4.90 | 4.39 |
Ranking of GRD.
| Kansei factors | GRD | Ranking |
|---|---|---|
| Fashionable | 0.878 | 1 |
| Attractive | 0.871 | 2 |
| Noble | 0.865 | 3 |
| Youthful | 0.847 | 4 |
| Industrial | 0.797 | 5 |
| Dynamic | 0.790 | 6 |
| Absorbed | 0.787 | 7 |
| Passionate | 0.780 | 8 |
| Technological | 0.762 | 9 |
| Interesting | 0.726 | 10 |
| Simple | 0.707 | 11 |
| Wide | 0.705 | 12 |
| Fantasy | 0.667 | 13 |
| Warm | 0.628 | 14 |
| Retro | 0.509 | 15 |
Figure 4Form deconstruction chart.
Figure 525 models of the car booth design.
Experiment layout.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3.75 |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4.91 |
| 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5.03 |
| 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4.49 |
| 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4.55 |
| 6 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4.06 |
| 7 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4.63 |
| 8 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4.56 |
| 9 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4.45 |
| 10 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4.74 |
| 11 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5.28 |
| 12 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3.74 |
| 13 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4.39 |
| 14 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4.44 |
| 15 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3.53 |
| 16 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4.46 |
| 17 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4.19 |
| 18 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4.40 |
| 19 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5.39 |
| 20 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4.64 |
| 21 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4.73 |
| 22 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4.93 |
| 23 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4.58 |
| 24 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 4.79 |
| 25 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5.03 |
Figure 6The performance of NN.
NN model verification.
| No. 21 | No. 22 | No. 23 | No. 24 | No. 25 | RMSE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expected values | 4.73 | 4.93 | 4.58 | 4.79 | 5.03 | 0.3134 |
| Predicted values | 4.4724 | 5.0519 | 4.6342 | 4.8727 | 4.9427 |
Figure 7The radar map for validation.
Figure 8Novel design of the car booth.