Figure 1.
Research Structure. (a) bottle deformation effect, (b) bag tearing effect, (c) shop exterior renderings, (d) shop interior renderings, (e) Coke information display, (f) Coke cover opening, (g) potato chip information display, (h) potato chip opening, (i) shopping cart and (j) cashier settlement.
Figure 1.
Research Structure. (a) bottle deformation effect, (b) bag tearing effect, (c) shop exterior renderings, (d) shop interior renderings, (e) Coke information display, (f) Coke cover opening, (g) potato chip information display, (h) potato chip opening, (i) shopping cart and (j) cashier settlement.
Figure 2.
The analytic hierarchy process.
Figure 2.
The analytic hierarchy process.
Figure 3.
Ring box modeling diagram.
Figure 3.
Ring box modeling diagram.
Figure 4.
Amusement park scene interaction diagram: (a) pirate ship diagram, (b) pendulum diagram, (c) balloon diagram, and (d) ring box animation diagram.
Figure 4.
Amusement park scene interaction diagram: (a) pirate ship diagram, (b) pendulum diagram, (c) balloon diagram, and (d) ring box animation diagram.
Figure 5.
Hotspot view of eye movement test in the playground: (a) hotspot view of the packaging display area and (b) hotspot view of the interaction area.
Figure 5.
Hotspot view of eye movement test in the playground: (a) hotspot view of the packaging display area and (b) hotspot view of the interaction area.
Figure 6.
Questionnaire results: (a) the questionnaire results involved pairwise comparisons between the criterion of the target layer and the criteria layer, (b) pairwise comparison of indicators C1 to C3, (c) pairwise comparison of indicators C4–C6, (d) pairwise comparison of indicators C7–C11, (e) pairwise comparison of indicators C12–C14, and (f) pairwise comparison of indicators C15–C17.
Figure 6.
Questionnaire results: (a) the questionnaire results involved pairwise comparisons between the criterion of the target layer and the criteria layer, (b) pairwise comparison of indicators C1 to C3, (c) pairwise comparison of indicators C4–C6, (d) pairwise comparison of indicators C7–C11, (e) pairwise comparison of indicators C12–C14, and (f) pairwise comparison of indicators C15–C17.
Figure 7.
PICO Neo3 glasses.
Figure 7.
PICO Neo3 glasses.
Figure 8.
VR Shopping Model Technology Roadmap.
Figure 8.
VR Shopping Model Technology Roadmap.
Figure 9.
Modeling effects: (a) beverage bottle model, (b) potato chip bag model, (c) bottle deformation effect, and (d) bag tearing effect.
Figure 9.
Modeling effects: (a) beverage bottle model, (b) potato chip bag model, (c) bottle deformation effect, and (d) bag tearing effect.
Figure 10.
Shopping environment rendering: (a) shop exterior renderings and (b) shop interior renderings.
Figure 10.
Shopping environment rendering: (a) shop exterior renderings and (b) shop interior renderings.
Figure 11.
Packaging interaction effect: (a) Coke information display, (b) Coke cover opening, (c) potato chip information display, and (d) potato chip opening.
Figure 11.
Packaging interaction effect: (a) Coke information display, (b) Coke cover opening, (c) potato chip information display, and (d) potato chip opening.
Figure 12.
Purchase stage rendering: (a) shopping cart and (b) cashier settlement.
Figure 12.
Purchase stage rendering: (a) shopping cart and (b) cashier settlement.
Figure 13.
Design diagram of hand movement distance: (a) code diagram and (b) MaxDis script diagram.
Figure 13.
Design diagram of hand movement distance: (a) code diagram and (b) MaxDis script diagram.
Figure 14.
Before and after improvement.
Figure 14.
Before and after improvement.
Table 1.
Virtual packaging multi-sensory evaluation model.
Table 1.
Virtual packaging multi-sensory evaluation model.
Target Layer | Criteria Layer | Sub-Criteria Layer |
---|
Virtual packaging multi-sensory evaluation model (A) | Interactive behavior (B1) | Consistency of operational behavior (C1) |
Accuracy of information transmission (C2) |
Rationalization of the control module (C3) |
Color transmission (B2) | Rationality of color application (C4) |
Coordination of color and environment (C5) |
Replaceability of color groups (C6) |
Virtual packaging multi-sensory evaluation model (A) | Sensory experience (B3) | Hearing (C7) |
Vision (C8) |
Touch (C9) |
Smell (C10) |
Taste (C11) |
Scene experience (B4) | Adaptation of scene and packaging (C12) |
Scene immersion (C13) |
Scene entertainment (C14) |
Packaging function (B5) | Accuracy of packaging function realization (C15) |
Matching degree of packaging function (C16) |
The suitability of packing model and function (C17) |
Table 2.
Saaty’s nine-point scale and its meaning.
Table 2.
Saaty’s nine-point scale and its meaning.
Scale | Meaning |
---|
1 | Indicates that the two elements are equally important. |
3 | Indicates that one element is slightly more important. |
5 | Indicates that one element is more important but not overwhelmingly so. |
7 | Indicates that one element is more important. |
9 | Indicates that one element is extremely more important. |
Reciprocal Values (1/3, 1/5, 1/7, 1/9) | If one element has a higher value of x than another, then the reciprocal of x (1/x) indicates the relative importance of the second element compared to the first. |
Table 3.
Random consistency index (RI) values for different matrix orders.
Table 3.
Random consistency index (RI) values for different matrix orders.
n | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
RI | 0 | 0 | 0.58 | 0.90 | 1.12 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 1.41 | 1.45 | 1.49 | 1.51 | 1.54 |
Table 4.
Judgment matrix for pairwise comparison of criteria B1 to B5.
Table 4.
Judgment matrix for pairwise comparison of criteria B1 to B5.
Matrix 1 | Interactive Behavior (B1) | Color Transmission (B2) | Sensory Experience (B3) | Scene Experience (B4) | Packaging Function (B5) | Weight |
---|
Interactive behavior (B1) | 1 | 3 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 2 | 0.164 |
Color transmission (B2) | 1/3 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 0.080 |
Sensory experience (B3) | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1/2 | 2 | 0.275 |
Scene experience (B4) | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0.335 |
Packaging function (B5) | 1/2 | 3 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.146 |
Table 5.
Judgment matrix for pairwise comparison of criteria C1 to C3.
Table 5.
Judgment matrix for pairwise comparison of criteria C1 to C3.
Matrix 2 | Consistency of Operational Behavior (C1) | Accuracy of Information Transmission (C2) | Rationalization of the Control Module (C3) | Weight |
---|
Consistency of operational behavior (C1) | 1 | 1/5 | 1/3 | 0.105 |
Accuracy of information transmission (C2) | 5 | 1 | 3 | 0.637 |
Rationalization of the control module (C3) | 3 | 1/3 | 1 | 0.258 |
Table 6.
Judgment matrix for pairwise comparison of criteria C4 to C6.
Table 6.
Judgment matrix for pairwise comparison of criteria C4 to C6.
Matrix 3 | Rationality of Color Application (C4) | Coordination of Color and Environment (C5) | Replaceability of Color Groups (C6) | Weight |
---|
Rationality of color application (C4) | 1 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 0.163 |
Coordination of color and environment (C5) | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0.540 |
Replaceability of color groups (C6) | 2 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.297 |
Table 7.
Judgment matrix for pairwise comparison of criteria C7 to C11.
Table 7.
Judgment matrix for pairwise comparison of criteria C7 to C11.
Matrix 4 | Hearing (C7) | Vision (C8) | Touch (C9) | Smell (C10) | Taste (C11) | Weight |
---|
Hearing (C7) | 1 | 1/6 | 1/3 | 3 | 2 | 0.131 |
Vision (C8) | 6 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0.450 |
Touch (C9) | 3 | 1/3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0.233 |
Smell (C10) | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1 | 1/2 | 0.073 |
Taste (C11) | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 2 | 1 | 0.114 |
Table 8.
Judgment matrix for pairwise comparison of criteria C12 to C14.
Table 8.
Judgment matrix for pairwise comparison of criteria C12 to C14.
Matrix 5 | Adaptation of Scene and Packaging (C12) | Scene Immersion (C13) | Scene Entertainment (C14) | Weight |
---|
Adaptation of scene and packaging (C12) | 1 | 1/3 | 1 | 0.210 |
Scene immersion (C13) | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0.550 |
Scene entertainment (C14) | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.240 |
Table 9.
Judgment matrix for pairwise comparison of criteria C15 to C17.
Table 9.
Judgment matrix for pairwise comparison of criteria C15 to C17.
Matrix 6 | Accuracy of Packaging Function Realization (C15) | Matching Degree of Packaging Function (C16) | Suitability of Packing Model and Function (C17) | Weight |
---|
Accuracy of packaging function realization (C15) | 1 | 1/4 | 1/7 | 0.079 |
Matching degree of packaging function (C16) | 4 | 1 | 1/3 | 0.263 |
The suitability of packing model and function (C17) | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0.659 |
Table 10.
Relative weights and ranking.
Table 10.
Relative weights and ranking.
Indicators | Relative Weight | Ranking |
---|
Consistency of operational behavior (C1) | 0.017 | 15 |
Accuracy of information transmission (C2) | 0.104 | 3 |
Rationalization of the control module (C3) | 0.042 | 9 |
Rationality of color application (C4) | 0.013 | 16 |
Coordination of color and environment (C5) | 0.043 | 8 |
Replaceability of color groups (C6) | 0.024 | 13 |
Hearing (C7) | 0.036 | 11 |
Vision (C8) | 0.124 | 2 |
Touch (C9) | 0.064 | 7 |
Smell (C10) | 0.020 | 14 |
Taste (C11) | 0.031 | 12 |
Adaptation of scene and packaging (C12) | 0.070 | 6 |
Scene immersion (C13) | 0.184 | 1 |
Scene entertainment (C14) | 0.080 | 5 |
Accuracy of packaging function realization (C15) | 0.012 | 17 |
Matching degree of packaging function (C16) | 0.038 | 10 |
Suitability of packing model and function (C17) | 0.096 | 4 |
Table 11.
Key technology.
Table 11.
Key technology.
Technology | Function |
---|
3DMAX | The 3D models were created with 3ds Max software |
Substance Painter | The 3D models were textured with Substance Painter |
Maya | Model animation design |
Unity3D | Engine and scene building |
PICO Neo3 | VR all-in-one |
C# | Programming language |
Table 12.
Virtual packaging multi-sensory evaluation model score.
Table 12.
Virtual packaging multi-sensory evaluation model score.
Criteria Layer | Sub-Criteria Layer | Score |
---|
Interactive behavior (B1) | Consistency of operational behavior (C1) | 6 |
Accuracy of information transmission (C2) | 5 |
Rationalization of the control module (C3) | 6 |
Color transmission (B2) | Rationality of color application (C4) | 7 |
Coordination of color and environment (C5) | 8 |
Replaceability of color groups (C6) | 7 |
Sensory experience (B3) | Hearing (C7) | 7 |
Vision (C8) | 7 |
Touch (C9) | 5 |
Smell (C10) | 3 |
Taste (C11) | 3 |
Scene experience (B4) | Adaptation of scene and packaging (C12) | 9 |
Scene immersion (C13) | 8 |
Scene entertainment (C14) | 7 |
Packaging function (B5) | Accuracy of packaging function realization (C15) | 5 |
Matching degree of packaging function (C16) | 7 |
Packaging model and workmanship (C17) | 7 |
Total score | 6.68 |
Table 13.
Virtual packaging multi-sensory evaluation model score.
Table 13.
Virtual packaging multi-sensory evaluation model score.
Criteria Layer | Sub-Criteria Layer | Score |
---|
Interactive behavior (B1) | Consistency of operational behavior (C1) | 7 |
Accuracy of information transmission (C2) | 6 |
Rationalization of the control module (C3) | 7 |
Color transmission (B2) | Rationality of color application (C4) | 7 |
Coordination of color and environment (C5) | 8 |
Replaceability of color groups (C6) | 7 |
Sensory experience (B3) | Hearing (C7) | 8 |
Vision (C8) | 9 |
Touch (C9) | 7 |
Smell (C10) | 3 |
Taste (C11) | 3 |
Scene experience (B4) | Adaptation of scene and packaging (C12) | 9 |
Scene immersion (C13) | 8 |
Scene entertainment (C14) | 7 |
Packaging function (B5) | Accuracy of packaging function realization (C15) | 8 |
Matching degree of packaging function (C16) | 7 |
Packaging model and workmanship (C17) | 7 |
Total score | 7.36 |