Identifying the stimulus of visual perception based on Eye-tracking in Urban Parks: Case Study of Mellat Park in Tehran

References

• Alikhani M, Farhadi R, Golchin P. 2018. Urban park design guidelines. Tehran: Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research.
   Google Scholar
• Andreani S, Sayegh A 2018. Urban atractors, physical proximity and states of mind: measuring dynamic experiences in varying typologies of the built environment. In: Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (ANFA) 2018 Conference; Sep 20–22; La Jolla (California): Salk Institute for Biological Studies. p. 10–11.
   Google Scholar
• Bell S. 2013. Elements of visual design in the landscape. New York (NY): Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bermudez J, Krizaj D, Lipschitz DL, Bueler CE, Rogowska J, Yurgelun-Todd D, Nakamura Y. 2017. Externally-induced meditative states: an exploratory fMRI study of architects’ responses to contemplative architecture. Front Archit Res. 6(2):123–136. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.02.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins CMT, Cook-Monie I, Raum S. 2019. What do people know? Ecosystem services, public perception and sustainable management of urban park trees in London, U.K. Urban For Urban Green. 43:126362. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.06.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deng L, Li X, Luo H, Fu E-K, Ma J, Sun L-X, Huang Z, Cai S-Z JY. 2020. Empirical study of landscape types, landscape elements and landscape components of the urban park promoting physiological and psychological restoration. Urban For Urban Green. 48:126488. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ducao A, Koen I 2018. Multimer: human signals for improved spatial design. In: Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (ANFA) 2018 Conference; Sep 20–22; La Jolla (California): Salk Institute for Biological Studies. p. 54–55.
   Google Scholar
• Espinoza M, Wang R-M, Iramina K.  2018. Exploring garden design composition and its effect on psychophysiological and behavioral responses. In: Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (ANFA) 2018 Conference; Sep 20–22; La Jolla (California): Salk Institute for Biological Studies. p. 62–63.
   Google Scholar
• Etemadonline. 2019. Municipal actions to reduce social gaps of north and south of Tehran. [accessed 2019 Jul 16]. http://www.etemadonline.com.
   Google Scholar
• Forsyth A, Musacchio L. 2005. Designing small parks: a manual for addressing social and ecological concerns. New Jersey (NJ): John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Gholami Y 2018. Improving the quality of legibility in landscape by emphasizing on cognitive science case study: tehran urban parks [master’s thesis]. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University.
   Google Scholar
• Hamshahri. 2008. The differences between north and south of Tehran is significant. [accessed 2008 Oct 7]. http://www.hamshahrionline.ir.
   Google Scholar
• Huang AS-H, Lin Y-J. 2020. The effect of landscape colour, complexity and preference on viewing behaviour. Landsc Res. 45(2):214–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang S-CL, Chiang NC, Kuo N-F, Chen Y-J. 2019. An exploratory approach for using EEG to examine person-environment interaction. Landsc Res. 44(6):702–715. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2018.1548586.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang Y, Kim EJ. 2019. Differences of restorative effects while viewing urban landscapes and green landscapes. Sustainability. 11(7):2129. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Ryan RL. 1998. With people in mind: design and management of everyday nature. Washington (DC): Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Karimi A, Sanaieian H, Farhadi H, Norouzian-Maleki S. 2020. Evaluation of the thermal indices and thermal comfort improvement by different vegetation species and materials in a medium-sized urban park. Energy Rep. 6:1670–1684. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.06.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovács B, Uchiyama Y, Miyake Y, Penker M, Kohsaka R. 2020. An explorative analysis of landscape value perceptions of naturally dead and cut wood: a case study of visitors to Kaisho Forest. Aichi, Japan J For Res. 25(5):291–298. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13416979.2020.1773619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Hu M, Zhao B. 2020. Interactions between forest landscape elements and eye movement behavior under audio-visual integrated conditions. J For Res. 25(1):21–30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13416979.2019.1707341.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch K. 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge: MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Mathewson JH. 1999. Visual‐spatial thinking: an aspect of science overlooked by educators. Sci Educ. 83(1):33–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazumder R, Ellard C 2018. The space between: an exploration into how urban environments influence affect and distance perception. In: Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (ANFA) 2018 Conference; Sep 20–22; La Jolla (California): Salk Institute for Biological Studies. p. 104–105.
   Google Scholar
• Miller DC, Salkind NJ. 2006. Handbook of research design & social measurement. London: Thousand Oaks.
   Google Scholar
• Motalebi G 2002. [Environmental psychology: the new knowledge-based discipline at architecture and urban design’s service]. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba. 10: 52–67. Persian.
   Google Scholar
• Moulay A, Ujang N, Said I. 2017. Legibility of neighborhood parks as a predicator for enhanced social interaction towards social sustainability. Cities. 61:58–64. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.11.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norouzian-Maleki S, Bell S, Hosseini S-B, Faizi M, Saleh-Sedghpour B. 2018. A comparison of neighbourhood liveability as perceived by two groups of residents: tehran, Iran and Tartu, Estonia. Urban For Urban Green. 35:8–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.08.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Office SS. 2010. Guidelines for design of urban green spaces. J Vice President Strat Plan Supv. 203:11–13.
   Google Scholar
• Olszewska-Guizzo AA, Paiva TO, Barbosa F. 2018. Effects of 3D contemplative landscape videos on brain activity in a passive exposure EEG experiment. Front Psychiatry. 9:317. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00317.
   Google Scholar
• Rayner K. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull. 124(3):372. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruskamp P, Chamberlain B, Condia B 2016. Investigating stress triggers and the built environment. In: Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (ANFA) 2016 Conference; Sep 23–24; La Jolla (California): Salk Institute for Biological Studies. p. 144–145.
   Google Scholar
• Sadeghian MM, Vardanyan Z. 2015. [A brief review on urban park history classification and function]. Int J Sci Technol Res. 4(8):120–124. Persian..
   Google Scholar
• Simpson J, Freeth M, Simpson KJ, Thwaites K. 2018. Visual engagement with urban street edges: insights using mobile eye-tracking. J Urban. 12(3):259–278.
   Google Scholar
• Sussman A, Hollander JB, Carr H 2018. Using biometric software to understand the architectural experience and improve design. In: Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (ANFA) 2018 Conference; Sep 20–22; La Jolla (California): Salk Institute for Biological Studies. p. 184–185.
   Google Scholar
• Suurenbroek F, Spanjar G 2018. (Eye) tracking users’ patterns: visual experience and choice behavior in transition zones of Amsterdam-Southeast. In: Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (ANFA) 2018 Conference; Sep 20–22; La Jolla (California): Salk Institute for Biological Studies. p. 176–177.
   Google Scholar
• Taghvaei SH 2003. Ecological landscape design in Iranian hot arid zone: oasis paradigm [dissertation]. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University.
   Google Scholar
• Taghvaei SH. 2012. Landscape architecture: an introduction to theory and meanings. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taghvaei SH 2019.The model of “Fundamental Values and Factors of Landscape” proposed for education and practice of landscape architecture. Proceedings of the 9th Edition of the International Conference “The Future of Education”. June 27–28; Florence (Italy). p. 534–539.
   Google Scholar
• Tsunetsugu Y, Miyazaki Y, Sato H. 2005. Visual effects of interior design in actual-size living rooms on physiological responses. Build Environ. 40(10):1341–1346. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.11.026.
   Google Scholar
• Zarghami E, Ghanbaran A, Vaghar PS, Zameni M. 2018. [The role of physical readability in the security of urban parks (Case study: people’s Park and Eram Park in Hamadan)]. Stud Islam Iran City. 8(32):15–32. Persian.
   Google Scholar
• Zheng Q, Zhao X, Jin M. 2019. Research on urban public green space planning based on taxi data: a case study on three districts of Shenzhen, China. Sustainability. 11(4):1132. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041132.
   Google Scholar
• Zigmunde D 2007. Evaluation criteria of protected landscape aesthetic quality. In: Latvia University of Agriculture (Ed.), Research for Rural Development 2007: International Scientific Conference Proceedings. May 16–18; Jelgava (Latvia): Drukatava Ltd. p. 196–203.
   Google Scholar
• Zigmunde D, Nitavska N, Vugule K, Storie J, Katlapa A, Kalnina A, Mengots A. 2016. Landscape cognition. Landsc Archit Art. 8(8):31–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar