人接觸產品的第一步即為外觀造形，對於一個穩固的品牌而言，其所具有的品牌策略必定明確且清楚，在市場上具有明顯區隔。而識別系統，大多著重在造形變化上，所以了解造形的相似程度與消費者的觀察模式之間個關係，必定能夠提供產品設計的思考方向與目標。對於人在觀察相似程度不同的產品之間的瀏覽模式，遂成為本研究之主要目標。
本研究利用多元尺度法找出產品相似程度之關係，再以集群分析蒐集歸納出相似度不同之手機樣本，接著使用眼跡追蹤儀器，量測受測者在視覺上對不同相似程度產品的瀏覽模式。實驗總共有三部份，第一部分篩選蒐集來的116個樣本，第二部份以多元尺度法與集群分析歸納出三種相似程度之樣本，第三部份為主要實驗，利用眼跡追蹤儀器，配合搜尋任務來紀錄受測者對三種相似程度之間的觀察方式。
由主要實驗分析結果，相似度高的群體對於樣本的辨認較為困難，相對錯誤產生機會也較高，對於不相似群體的流覽，是比較容易的。在相對於群體當中，較為不相似者，所能吸引到的觀察時間會相對增加，也就是較為”與眾不同者”越能引人注目。用以主要判別特徵的部位，在相似群體當中所需要的時間較長，不相似群體所需要時間則明顯減少。

Form is the firshand that people connect to product, the strategy of a stable brand must be clear and definite, thus, it will have distinct market segment. Nowadays, most of product identity lay stress on form’s variation, so understanding on observation pattern upon different level of similarity of product will offer a innovative aspect to product design.
This reach collect and generalize different level of similarity of product by using statistical method, afterwards utilize the eye-tracking to measure and record the observe behavior of similar products. There three parts in this reach, first part is to sift 116 samples that be collected, second part is to generalize three degree of similarity by using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis, third part is the main experiment,utilize eye-tracking to record the observe behavior that between three level of similarity.
According to the result of main experiment, we can find that, there two kind of observation pattern. One is horizontal observation and the other one is vertical observation. The degree of difficulty in the most similar group is higher than dissimilar group, it is also easier to make error that search sample in similar group. It will make confuse easier when pay attention on similar sample more time. Finally, using cell phone as an example, the most attention part is the center control panel. Observe this part longer, make error fewer.

中文文獻
[1]文蜀嘉, 造形近似性研究, 台灣科技大學工程技術研究所碩士論文，1998
[2]汪宗慶，產品識別造形文法規則的推導與應用─以NOKIA行動電話造形演化為例，國立交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文，2004
[3]吳協衡，局部特徵取代法輔以視覺認知探討應用於本土化設計-以茶壺設計為例, 國立台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文，2004
[4]林慶利，服務標章與行業屬性相關之認知研究，國立台灣工業技術學院工程技術研究所碩士論文，p.11，1996
[5]林東龍, 余佳芳，符號意象在產品造形上之探討－以義大利設計風格為例, 人文暨社會科學期刊第一卷第一期，2005
[6]林磐聳，企業識別系統，藝風堂出版社，1990
[7]林清雲，品牌意象與產品識別之一致性研究－以手工具產品為例，國立交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文，2004
[8]林岳儒，形成產品識別造形因素之探討─以小家電產品例，國立交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文，1995
[9]陳晉玄，消費者對產品識別之視覺認知研究─以汽車造形為例，國立台北科技大學創新設計研究所碩士論文，2002
[10]陳文印，產品意象識別為設計創新策略之實證研究，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告，2001
[11]陳珊珊 撰文，前蘋果電腦設計總監Robert Brunner：設計DNA必須根植於企業文化，數位時代雙週第84期，2004
[12]陳鴻源，汽車輪廓型態意象與區分特徵之關係，國立成功大學工業設計研究所碩士論文，2001
[13]黃俊英，多變量分析, 台北：華泰文化事業公司，1998
[14]張春興，現代心理學，東華圖書公司，台北，p.130，1990
[15]張繼文，從認知心理學觀點探討記號設計，屏東師院學報第八期，屏東，p.488，1995
[16]張嘉萍，產品造形特徵與品牌形象之一致性研究─以液晶電視為例，大同大學工業設計研究所碩士論文，2005
[17]張信賢，汽車特徵意象及其在視覺上的認知研究，國立成功大學工業設計研究所碩士論文，2005
[18]楊宙航，產品品牌造形風格之識別研究-以行動電話為例，銘傳大學設計管理研究所碩士論文，2002
[19]蔡明忠，延伸相似度對品牌延伸之影響:延伸產品訊息與知覺契合度之角色, 中國文化大學國際貿易學系碩士論文，2003
[20]鄭昭明，認知心理學：理論與實務, 台北：桂冠圖書公司，1994
[21]鄭昭明，人類的圖形辨識, 科學月刊第十三卷, 第十期, pp.14-22，1982
[22]鄭麗玉，認知心理學─理論與應用，五南圖書。，1993
[23]鄭麗玉， 認知心理學：理論與應用, 台北：五南圖書出版有限公司，1998
[24]魏雅萍，設計師與一般消費者對造形認知差異研究, 國立成功大學工業設計研究所碩士論文，2000
[25]蘇大典, 台灣地區「證明標章」造形認知研究, 雲林科技大學, 視覺傳達設計系碩士論文，2000
[26]Bernhard E. Burdek, 胡佑宗 譯，Design-Geschichte, Theorie und，1994
[27] Lynn B. Upshaw 著 吳玟琪 譯，建立品牌識別Building Brand Identity，台視文化，2000
[28]Robert L. Solso，認知心理學，黃希庭等譯，五南書局，台北，p.50，1992
[29] Praxis der Produktgestaltung 「工業設計」，亞太圖書出版社。
[30]手機王, (2006/09), http://www.sogi.com.tw/
英文文獻
[1] Aaker D. A. Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, USA, (1996)
[2] Aaker, D. A., & Keller, D.L, (1990), Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(1), 27-41
[3] Biederman, Higher-level vision, Visual cognition and action (vol.2): an invitation to cognitive science, Pages: 41 - 72 , (1990)
[4] Biederman, Irving; Ju, Ginny, Surface versus Edge-Based Determinants of Visual Recognition, Cognitive Psychology, v20 n1 p38-64, (1988)
[5] Biederman, Irving, Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding, Psychological Review, v94 n2 p115-47, (1987)
[6] Boush, D. M., & Loken, B., A process-tracing study of brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(1), 16-28, (1991)
[7] CF Nodine, HL Kundel, Eye Movements: From Physiology to Cognition, (1987)
[8] David Marr, Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. , (1982)
[9] Douglas L. Medin, Robert L. Goldstone, Dedre Gentner.” SIMILARITY INVOLVING ATTRIBUTES AND RELATIONS: JUDGMENTS OF SIMILARITY AND DIFFERENCE ARE NOT INVERSES “Psychological Science 1 (1), 64–69. (1990)
[10] JH Goldberg, XP Kotval, Eye Movement-Based Evaluation of the Computer Interface, Advances in Occupational Ergonomics and Safety, (1998)
[11] Kapferer J. Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page Limited, Great Britain, (1997)
[12] Karjalainen, T. M. Semantic transformation in design, UiAH, Helsinki, Finland. (2004)
[13] Karjalainen T. M., Strategic Brand Identity and Symbolic Design Cues, Proceedings of the 6th Asian Design Conference, Tsukuba Japan, October 14-17,(2003a)
[14] Karjalainen, Semantic knowledge in the creation of brand-specific product design, (2003c)
[15] Karjalainen, T.M. & Warell, A. Do You Recognise This Tea Flask? - Transformation of brand-specific product identity through visual design cues, International Design Congress – IASDR, (2005)
[16] Karjalainen T. M. When is a car like a drink? Metaphor as a means to distilling brand and product identity, Design Management Journal. Winter 2001. Vol. 12, Iss. 1; p. 66, (2001)
[17] Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A.. The effects of sequential introduction of brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 35-50. (1992)
[18]Krumhansl CL.. Density versus feature weights as predictors of visual identifications: comment on Appelman and Mayzner. J Exp Psychol Gen. 101-8. (1982)
[19] Lene Gangstad, , Communicating Brand Identity through Products， Norwegian University of Science and Technology Department of Product Design, (2005)
[20] Max Wertheimer, Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. II, Psychological Research , (1923)
[21] McCormack J.P. and Cagan J., “ Speaking the Buick language: capturing, understanding, and exploring brand identity with shape grammars ”, USA, Design Studies, Vol 25 No. 1 , (2003)
[22] Nicholas Ind, The corporate image: strategies for effective identity programmes, (1990)
[23] Park, J., & Kim, K., Acceptance of brand extensions: Interactive influences of product category similarity, typicality of claimed benefits, and brand relationship quality. Advances in Consumer Research, 29(2), 185-193. (2002)
[24] Rosch E. H., Mervis C. B., “Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories”,Cognitive Psychology, 7, pp.573-605,(1975)
[25] Taylor, V. A., & Bearden, W. O., The effects of price on.brand extension evaluations: The moderating role of extension similarity. Academy of Marketing Science, 30(2),131-141, (2002)
[26] Tversky A., “Features of similarity”, Psychological Review, 84, pp.327-352, (1977)
[27] Warrell, A., Design Syntactics: A Functional Approach to Visual Product Form, Chalmers, Göteborg, Sweden , (2001)
[28] Warell, A., Design Syntactics - A Contribution Towards a Theoretical Framework for Form Design, Proceedings of ICED’01, International Conference on Engineering Design, Glasgow, Great Britain, (2001a)