Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34573743›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2021

A Study on Consumers' Visual Image Evaluation of Wrist Wearables.

Liang-Ming Jia, Fang-Wu Tung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Liang-Ming JiaDepartment of Design, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, No.43, Keelung Rd., Sec.4, Da'an Dist., Taipei City 106335, Taiwan.
Fang-Wu TungDepartment of Design, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, No.43, Keelung Rd., Sec.4, Da'an Dist., Taipei City 106335, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate consumers' visual image evaluation of wrist wearables based on Kansei engineering. A total of 8 representative samples were screened from 99 samples using the multidimensional scaling (MDS) method. Five groups of adjectives were identified to allow participants to express their visual impressions of wrist wearable devices through a questionnaire survey and factor analysis. The evaluation of eight samples using the five groups of adjectives was analyzed utilizing the triangle fuzzy theory. The results showed a relatively different evaluation of the eight samples in the groups of "fashionable and individual" and "rational and decent", but little distinction in the groups of "practical and durable", "modern and smart" and "convenient and multiple". Furthermore, wrist wearables with a shape close to a traditional watch dial (round), with a bezel and mechanical buttons (moderate complexity) and asymmetric forms received a higher evaluation. The acceptance of square- and elliptical-shaped wrist wearables was relatively low. Among the square- and rectangular-shaped wrist wearables, the greater the curvature of the chamfer, the higher the acceptance. Apparent contrast between the color of the screen and the casing had good acceptance. The influence of display size on consumer evaluations was relatively small. Similar results were obtained in the evaluation of preferences and willingness to purchase. The results of this study objectively and effectively reflect consumers' evaluation and potential demand for the visual images of wrist wearables and provide a reference for designers and industry professionals.

Indexed as

factor analysisgeneral linear modelKansei engineeringmultidimensional scalingtriangular fuzzy theorywrist wearables

Identifiers

PMID34573743
PMCPMC8470360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.