虛擬與擴增實境技術日漸成熟，其多元的應用已擴展至商品的展示評估。即時性虛擬試鞋可以協助消費者，透過快速的試穿，嘗試大量的鞋品設計，並減少實體店面的庫存。過往研究多著重於虛擬試穿技術的開發，較缺少其功能互動性，或是使用者經驗的評估，因此本研究施行系統性的評估實驗，比較在實體、AR與VR試穿中的使用者的行為模式，於臨場感(presence)、使用性(usability)與使用者經驗(user experience)三個面向上的差異，分析使用者在虛擬試穿過程的行為及感受，是否接近其熟悉的實體試穿，嘗試找出顯著的影響因子，以做為系統功能改善的依據。使用者須於實體、AR及VR系統中進行試穿測試，評估固定三款運動鞋，從而決定最有意願購買的鞋款，填寫問卷並對整體試穿體驗進行評分。過程中受測者將並在過程中配戴眼動儀，以紀錄眼睛的注視軌跡，並配合放聲思考法得到其主觀想法。眼動資料分析出使用者在實體及AR系統中的視覺注意力主要僅集中在鞋款，在VR系統中則會增加對腿部的凝視比例。透過變異數分析，結果顯示，實體試穿的空間臨場感、自然性及負面效果皆顯著高於VR系統，而AR系統的自然性高於VR系統。在使用者經驗的部分，實體環境的體驗分數顯著高於AR及VR系統，亦找到對AR及VR系統使用者經驗造成影響的負面因子，並透過關聯性分析瞭解修正哪項因子將可連帶提升體驗分數。本研究的創新在於針對虛擬與擴增實境中的虛擬穿戴技術，進行主觀與客觀的使用評估，研究結果將可作以人為本互動設計系統的優化參考。

Virtual reality and augmented reality (VR/AR) have been applied to virtual try-on of various products. Enables by depth sensing technologies, commercial virtual try-on systems allow users to virtually wear apparels, footwear, and other wearing items. Very few literatures have studied the ergonomic issues of the current systems or evaluate how effectively they work on those issues. To address this need, this research measures and compares the presence, usability and user experience of three different try-on methods: real, VR, and AR. A group of subjects conducted a shoe try-on experiment, in which they evaluated three pairs of sneakers and determined which one they prefer to purchase. During the experiment process, each subject’s gaze trajectory was recorded by using an eye tracker. After the experiment, they completed a questionnaire and participated a think-aloud procedure to express their thoughts about the try-on processes. The eye movement data shows that the user’s visual attention in the real and AR try-on mainly concentrated on the shoes, whereas the gaze to in the VR try-on focused on the avatar’s legs. Real try-on shows significantly higher spatial presence and lower negative emotional response than the VR try-on. In addition, the natural authenticity of the AR try-on was higher than VR. Real environment shows significantly higher user experience scores, whereas no significant difference exists between the AR and VR try-on systems. The analysis result also reveals the factors that negatively affects the user experience in the AR and VR try-on processes. We conclude that virtual try-on technologies are useful and complementary to actual try-on, as long as they can provide satisfactory presence, usability and user experience.

第一章、 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究動機 4
1.2.1 AR及VR虛擬試鞋之優勢及劣勢 5
1.2.2 使用者在虛擬試鞋的行為 6
1.3 研究目的 7
第二章、 文獻回顧 9
2.1 AR及VR互動系統之人因評估 9
2.2 不同環境下眼動行為的差異 11
2.3 VR系統之使用性測試 13
2.4 小結 14
第三章、 研究方法 15
3.1 假設命題 15
3.1.1 眼動追蹤之相關假設命題 16
3.1.2 臨場感測量之相關假設命題 17
3.1.3 使用性測試之相關假設命題 19
3.2 系統設置 20
3.2.1 實體試穿 20
3.2.2 AR虛擬試穿系統 21
3.2.3 VR虛擬試穿系統 22
3.3 實驗設計 23
3.3.1 測量方法及工具 23
3.3.2 眼球運動分析指標及研究內容 25
3.3.3 研究參與者 33
3.3.4 實驗流程 33
3.3.5 實驗場景配置 35
第四章、 研究結果 38
4.1 基本資料分析 38
4.2 實體、AR及VR試穿之單因子變異數分析 39
4.2.1 眼動行為於不同試穿媒介之差異分析 39
4.2.2 臨場感因子於不同試穿媒介之差異 45
4.2.3 使用性於兩虛擬試穿系統之差異 47
4.2.4 體驗分數於不同試穿媒介之差異 48
4.2.5 負面因子影響程度之差異 49
4.2.6 顯著影響體驗分數的負面影響因子 49
4.3 使用者體驗、使用性、臨場感與負面因子之相關性分析 51
4.3.1 可提升使用者體驗分數之因素 51
4.3.2 可提升系統使用性之因素 53
4.3.3 可提升使用者臨場感層級之因素 55
4.3.4 負面因子於凝視時間之影響 58
第五章、 討論 60
5.1 重要發現及假設命題彙整 60
5.2 研究結果討論與解釋 62
5.2.1 眼動行為 62
5.2.2 臨場感 63
5.2.3 使用性 64
5.2.4 體驗分數 65
5.3 討論結果統整 67
第六章、 結論與建議 69
6.1 結論 69
6.2 建議與未來方向 70
附錄一、實體試穿問 77
附錄二、AR試穿問卷 78
附錄三、VR試穿問卷 81
附錄四、放聲思考法之語音資料 84

[1] Digi Capital, Augmented/Virtual Reality Report 2017: http://www.digi-capital.com/news/2017/01/after-mixed-year-mobile-ar-to-drive-108-billion-vrar-market-by-2021/#.WUxl3-uGOUk
[2] SHISEIDO，彩粧魔鏡(Makeup Simulator)
[3] 智鏡科技股份有限公司，3D虛擬試衣間，https://www.timglobe.com.tw/m/bg52.php?companyID=109&secureChk=5fd6f0c9bf7438e29831b7f35c502ade
[4] 東方線上2015年12月之網路調查
[5] Ganapathy, S., Ranganathan, C., & Sankaranarayanan, B. (2004), “Visualization strategies and tools for enhancing customer relationship management,” Communications of the ACM, 47(11), 92-99
[6] Arnone, M. P., Small, R. V., Chauncey, S. A., & McKenna, H. P. (2011), “Curiosity, interest and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: a new research agenda,” Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 181-198.
[7] Smith, R. E., & Swinyard, W. R. (1988), “Cognitive response to advertising and trial: Belief strength, belief confidence and product curiosity,” Journal of Advertising, 17(3), 3-14.
[8] Kaltcheva, V. D., Patino, A., & Chebat, J. C. (2011), “Impact of retail environment extraordinariness on customer self-concept,” Journal of Business Research, 64(6), 551-557.
[9] Swaminathan, V. (2003), “The impact of recommendation agents on consumer evaluation and choice: the moderating role of category risk, product complexity, and consumer knowledge,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(1-2), 93-101.
[10] Lemoine, J. F., & Notebaert, J. F. (2011), “Agent virtuel et confiance des internautes vis-à-vis d'un site Web,” Décisions marketing, (61), 47.
[11] Holzwarth, M., Janiszewski, C., & Neumann, M. M. (2006), “The influence of avatars on online consumer shopping behavior. Journal of marketing,” 70(4), 19-36.
[12] Holzwarth, M., Janiszewski, C., Neumann, M. (2006), “The influence of avatars on online consumer shopping behavior,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), pp. 19-36
[13] Yee, N., Bailenson, J.N., Ducheneaut, N. (2009), “The Proteus effect: Implications of transformed digital self-representation on online and offline behavior,” Communication Research, 36 (2), pp. 285-312
[14] Huston, T.L., Levinger, G. (1978), “Interpersonal attraction and relationships,” Annual Review of Psychology, 29 (1), pp. 115-156
[15] Trepte, S., Reinecke, L. (2010), “Avatar creation and video game enjoyment,” Journal of Media Psychology, 22 (4), pp. 171-184
[16] Hooi, R. & Cho, H. (2014), “Avatar-driven self-disclosure: The virtual me is the actual me,” Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 39, October 2014, Pages 20-28
[17] Yuan, M., Khan, I. R., Farbiz, F., Yao, S., Niswar, A., & Foo, M. H. (2013), “A mixed reality virtual clothes try-on system,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 15(8), 1958-1968.
[18] Brade, J., Lorenz, M., Busch, M., Hammer, N., Tscheligi, M., & Klimant, P. (2017), “Being there again–Presence in real and virtual environments and its relation to usability and user experience using a mobile navigation task,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 101, 76-87.
[19] Higuera-Trujillo, J. L., Maldonado, J. L. T., & Millán, C. L. (2017), “Psychological and physiological human responses to simulated and real environments: A comparison between photographs, 360 panoramas, and Virtual Reality,” Applied ergonomics, 65, 398-409.
[20] Tang, A., Biocca, F., & Lim, L. (2004), “Comparing differences in presence during social interaction in augmented reality versus virtual reality environments: An exploratory study,” Proceedings of PRESENCE, 204-208.
[21] Dupont, L., Antrop, M. & Van Eetvelde, V. (2014), “Eye tracking analysis in landscape perception research: influence of photograph properties and landscape charac藍teristics,” Landscape Research, vol. 39 (4), pp. 417-432.
[22] Foulsham, T., Walker, E., Kingstone, A. (2011), “The where, what and when of gaze allocation in the lab and the natural environment,” Vision Research,Volume 51, Issue 17, Pages 1920-1931
[23] Jovancevic, J., Sullivan, B., Hayhoe, M. (2006), “Control of attention and gaze in complex environments,” Journal of Vision, 6, pp. 1431-1450
[24] Meißnera, M., Pfeiffer, J., Pfeiffer, T., & Oppewal, H. (2017), “Combining virtual reality and mobile eye tracking to provide a naturalistic experimental environment for shopper research,” Journal of Business Research.
[25] Pelz, J., Hayhoe, M., Loeber, R. (2001), “The coordination of eye, head, and hand movements in a natural task,” Experimental Brain Research, 139 (3), pp. 266-277
[26] Stahl, J.S. (1999), “Amplitude of human head movements associated with horizontal saccades,” Experimental Brain Research, 126 (1), pp. 41-54
[27] Bahill, A.T., Adler, D., Stark, L., (1975), “Most naturally occurring human saccades have magnitudes of 15 degrees or less,” Investigative Ophthalmology, 14 (6), pp. 468-469
[28] Kaikkonen, A., Kallio, T., Kekäläinen, A., Kankainen, A., Cankar, M., (2005), “Usability testing of mobile applications: a Comparison between laboratory and field testing,” J. Usability Stud. 1 (1), 4–16.
[29] Busch, M., Lorenz, M., Tscheligi, M., Hochleitner, C., Schulz, T., (2014), “Being there for real – presence in real and virtual environments and its relation to usability,” NordiCHI, ACM, Helsinki.
[30] Patel, H., Nichols, S., (2004), “View of the future: overview of the experimental programme via quantitative meta-analysis,” Virtual Reality design and evaluation workshop, Nottingham, pp.
[31] Duh, H.B.-L., Chen, V.H., (2006), “Usability evaluation for mobile device: a comparison of laboratory and field tests,” Mobile HCI 2006. ACM Press, Helsinki, 181–186. Fraunhofer-IGD, 2016. Instant reality.
[32] Sun, X., May, A., (2013), “A comparison of field-based and lab-based experiments to evaluate user experience of personalised mobile devices,” Adv. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 1–9.
[33] Slater, M., Usoh, M., & Steed, A. (1994), “Depth of presence in virtual nvironments,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 3, 130–144
[34] Dodge, M., (1999), “Exploration in AlphaWorld: the geography of 3D virtual worlds on the Internet,” In: Proceedings of the RGS-IBG Conference on Virtual Reality in Geography.
[35] Huang, S.H., Yang, Y.I. & Chu, C.H. (2012), “Human-centric design personalization of 3D glasses frame in markerless augmented reality,” Advanced Engineering Informatics, 16, 35-45.
[36] Liu, Y.W., Chu, C.H., Chen, Y.A., Pan, J. (2018), "Avatar-Based Virtual Try-On of Footwear for New Retail", International Conference on Electronic Commerce, Tianjin, China
[37] Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976), “Eye fixations and cognitive processes,” Cognitive Psychology, 8, 441-480.
[38] Blascheck, T., Kurzhals, K., Raschke, M., Burch, M., Weiskopf, D., & Ertl, T. (2014), “State-of-the-art of visualization for eye tracking data,” In Proceedings of EuroVis (Vol. 2014).
[39] Duchowski, A. T. (2002), “A breadth-first survey of eye-tracking applications. Behavior Research Methods,” Instruments, & Computers, 34(4), 455-470.
[40] Poole, A., & Ball, L. J. (2005), “Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and　usability research: Current status and future prospects,” In C. Ghaoui (Ed.),　Encyclopedia of human computer interaction (pp. 211-219). Hershey, PA: Idea　Group.
[41] Mello-Thoms, C., Nodine, C. F., & Kundel, H. L. (2002), “What attracts the eye to the location of missed and reported breast cancers?” In Proceedings of the 2002 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications (pp. 111-117). ACM.
[42] Hauland, G. (2003), “Measuring team situation awareness by means of eye movement data,” In Proceedings of HCI International 2003: Vol 3 (pp. 230-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[43] Byrne, M. D., Anderson, J. R., Douglas, S., & Matessa, M. (1999), “Eye tracking the visual search of clickdown menus,” Proceedings of CHI’99 (pp. 402-409). NY: ACM Press.
[44] 陳學志、賴惠德、邱發忠(2010)。眼球追蹤技術在學習與教育上的應用。教育科學研究期刊，55(4)，39-68。
[45] Brône, G., Oben, B., & Goedemé, T. (2011), “Towards a more effective method for analyzing mobile eye-tracking data: integrating gaze data with object recognition algorithms, In Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on pervasive eye tracking & mobile eye-based interaction (pp. 53-56). ACM.
[46] Netzel, R., Ohlhausen, B., Kurzhals, K., Woods, R., Burch, M., & Weiskopf, D. (2017), “User performance and reading strategies for metro maps: An eye tracking study,” Spatial Cognition & Computation, 17(1-2), 39-64.
[47] Karson, C. N. (1983), “Spontaneous eye-blink rates and dopaminergic systems,” Brain, 106(3), 643-653.
[48] Freeman, J., & Avons, S. E. (2000), “Focus group exploration of presence through advanced broadcast services,” Proceedings of the SPIE, Human Vision and Electronic Imaging V, 3959–3976.
[49] Freeman, J., Avons, S. E., Pearson, D. E., & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (1999), “Effects of sensory information and prior experience on direct subjective ratings of presence,” Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 8(1), 1-13.
[50] Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998), “Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire,” Presence, 7(3), 225-240.
[51] Lombard, M. and Ditton, T (1997), “At the heart of it all: The concept of presence,” Journal of Computer Mediated Communications, 3(2).
[52] Stanney, K. M., & Zyda, M. (2002), “Virtual environments in the 21st century,” In K. M. Stanney, (Ed.) Handbook of virtual environments (pp.1–14). Mahwah, NJ: LEA
[53] Thalmann, N., & Thalmann, D. (1994), “Creating artificial life in virtual reality,” (No. VRLAB-ARTICLE-2007-035, pp. 1-10).
[54] Lee, K. M. (2004), “Presence, explicated,” Communication Theory, 14(1), 27-50.
[55] Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Keogh, E., & Davidoff, J. (2001), “A cross-media presence questionnaire: The ITC-Sense of Presence Inventory,” Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 10(3), 282-297.
[56] Brooke, J. (1996), “SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry,” 189(194), 4-7.
[57] Williams, L. J., & Abdi, H. (2010), “Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) test,” Encyclopedia of research design, 218, 840-853.
[58] Bangor, A. (2009), ”Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale,” Journal of Usability Studies:114-123
[59] Nisenfeld, S. (2003), “Using Reality to Evaluate the ITC Presence,” Unpublished Master Thesis.