使用者透過所有感官與產品互動，在每次的產品經驗中各感官所扮演的角色和重要度會隨著不同使用時期而有所改變，若能對此有更深入的了解，可幫助設計師創造出較持久正向的產品，其可帶給使用者較豐富的多感官產品經驗，並提升消費者對該產品的評價，以提升其競爭力。
本研究根基於Fenko等人(2010)的研究，針對產品經驗中的使用前期(一個月)，透過質性方法(觀察法、訪談法、日記法)，探討四位受測者使用電動榨汁機榨汁之情形，並與相關文獻對照討論感官角色於不同使用時期之轉變，以及影響感官重要度之因素。
本研究發現使用時期的轉變是會循環而非直線性進行的，而每位受測者各個感官的時期變化也會有所差異，整體而言，在受測者第一次與產品接觸時，視覺為主導的感官，然其重要度在初次操作體驗中即下降，觸覺則因發揮了主要的功能角色，而提升其重要度，在接續一個月的任務操作中，各感官於初期的感受較強烈，並引發較多情緒和聯想。而在熟悉任務並習慣刺激後，再次造成感官重要度的轉移，受測者較容易發現問題和產品的缺點，並影響其原本對產品的評價，此外，受測者可能再度發現其他有趣地方，或對問題找到了解決方案，對產品更加了解，並可能在使用一段時間後，與其產生情感，引發老朋友般的感受。
而除了產品功能外，產品特性如造形、材質、色彩，以及過程中引發之正負向情緒、聯想皆會影響到各感官重要度。
關鍵字：多感官產品經驗、感官重要度、使用時期、情緒

Users build up their product experiences through all senses. To understand how these senses work together, how their importance change through time, and how senses evoke emotions and associations would be very helpful for designers to create more longlasting pleasant user experiences and improve users’ evaluation about the product.
In the study, we base on Fenko et al.’s study (2010) and use three qualitative methods (observations, interviews, and diaries) to gather more detailed information from four female participants about the early stage of product usage, which is the key period for a user to evaluate a product. We ask each participant to squeeze juice with an electric juicer for a month. We then discuss the multisensory experiences, the sensory dominance, emotions and associations evoked by senses during the month.
The role of each sense and its importance would change through time. The results suggest that vision is the most important sense when participants getting familiar with the product. However, the importance of each sense changes right at the first time of operation. Touch, which is related to the main function of the product, raises its importance. Also, emotions and associations evoked by senses are very likely to affect the importance of each sense.
Most emotions and associations are evoked at the early days because once after participants gain expertise with the task they would get used to the stimuli and have less feeling about them. However, they are more likely to find out problems or have further findings about the product and change their evaluations. After one month, some participants even report that they have the feeling like old friends with the product.
Keywords: Multisensory Product Experience, Sensory Importance, User-product Interaction, Emotions

Bahrick, L. E., & Lickliter, R. (2000). Intersensory redundancy guides attentional selectivity and perceptual learning in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 36, 190-201.
Bartoshuk, L. M., Duffy, V. B., Fast, K., Green, B. G., Prutkin, J., & Snyder, D. J. (2002). Labeled scales (e.g., category, Likert, VAS) and invalid across-group comparisons: what we have learned from genetic variation in taste. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 125-138.
Bolanowski, S. J., Verrillo, R. T., & McGlone, F. (1999). Passive, active and intra-active (self) touch. Somatosensory and Motor Research, 16, 304-311.
BRAUN. Citromatic, MPZ 9, MPZ 8, MPZ 6, Type 4146. Retrieved 01/12, 2011, from http://www.service.braun.com/line/HH/H4161/H4161_1_MN.pdf
Burns, L. D., Brown, D. M., Cameron, B., Chandler, J., & Kaiser, M. J. (1995). Sensory interaction and descriptions of fabric hand. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 120-122.
Citrin, A. V., Stem, D. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Clark, M. J. (2003). Consumer need for tactile input: an internet retail challenge. Journal of Business Research, 56, 915-922.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). USA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Desmet, P., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of Product Experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57-66.
Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Hekkert, P. (2010). Shifts in sensory dominance between various stages of user - product interactions. Applied Ergonomics, 41, 34-40.
Field, T. (2001). Touch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gibson, J. J. (1962). Observations on active touch. Psychological Review, 69(6), 477-491.
Gottfried, J. A., & Dolan, R. J. (2003). The Nose Smells What the Eye Sees: Crossmodal Visual Facilitation of Human Olfactory Perception. Neuron, 39, 375-386.
Herz, R. S., & Schooler, J. W. (2002). A naturalistic study of autobiographical memories evoked by olfactory and visual cues: testing the Proustian hypothesis. American Journal of Psychology, 115, 21-32.
Hinton, P. B., & Henley, T. B. (1993). Cognitive and affective components of stimuli presented in three modes. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 595-598.
Hoffman, H. G., Hollander, A., Schroder, K., Rousseau, S., & Furness, T. I. (1998). Physically touching and tasting virtual objects enhances the realism of virtual experiences. Journal of Virtual Reality, 3, 226-234.
Hollins, M., Faldowski, R., Rao, S., & Young, F. (1993). Perceptual dimensions of tactile surface texture: a multidimensional scaling analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 54, 697-705.
Karapanos, E., Hassenzahl, M., & Martens, J.-B. (2008, April 5-10). User Experience Over Time. Paper presented at the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), Florence, Italy.
Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Metzger, V. (1985). Identifying objects by touch: An "expert system". Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 299-302.
Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Reed, C. (1987). There's more to touch than meets the eye: the salience of object attributes for haptics with and without vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 356-369.
Krumhansl, C. L. (2002). Music: a link between cognition and emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 45-50.
Lederman, S. J., Summers, C., & Klatzky, R. L. (1996). Cognitive salience of haptic object properties: role of modality-encoding bias. Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 983-998.
Legard, R., Keegan, J., & Ward, K. (2003). In-depth interviews. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers: SAGE Publications Ltds.
Lindstrom, M. (2005). Brand sense: build powerful brands through touch, taste, smell, sight, and sound.: New York: Free Press.
Maccoby, E., & Maccoby, N. (1954). The Interview: A Tool of Social Science. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexander, L. (1995). In-depth Interviewing: Principles, Techniques, Analysis. (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Longman.
Pedgley, O. (2007). Capturing and analysing own design activity. Design Studies, 28(5), 463-483.
Picard, D., Dacremont, C., Valentin, D., & Giboreau, A. (2003). Perceptual dimensions of tactile textures. Acta Psychologica, 114, 165-184.
Scherer, K. R. (2003). Vocal communication of emotion: A review of research paradigms. Speech Communication, 40, 227-256.
Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2006). The perceived importance of sensory modalities in product usage: A study of self-reports. Acta Psychologica, 121, 41-64.
Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Cleiren, M. P. H. D. (2005). Capturing product experiences: a split-modality approach. Acta Psychologica, 118, 293-318.
Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Desmet, P. M. A. (2007). The effects of sensory impairments on product experience and personal well-being. Ergonomics, 50, 2026-2048.
Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Spence, C. (2008). Multisensory product experience. In H. N. J. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product Experience (Vol. 5): Elsevier Ltd.
Smith, D. T. (2004). A (Multi) Sensational Approach to Perception. In C. Spence & J. Driver (Eds.), Crossmodal Space and Crossmodal Attention (Vol. Review ): Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spence, C. (2002). The ICI report on the secret of the senses. London: The Communication Group.
Tranel, D., Logan, C. G., Frank, R. J., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Explaining category-related eVects in the retrieval of conceptual and lexical knowledge for concrete entities: operationalization and analysis of factors. Neuropsychologia, 35, 1329-1339.
Washburn, D. A., Jones, L. M., Vijaya Satya, R., Bowers, C. A., & Cortes, A. (2003). Olfactory use in virtual environment training. Modelling and Simulation, 2(3), 19-25.
Wild, P. J., McMahon, C., Darlington, M., Culley, S., & Liu, S. (2010). A diary study of information needs and document usage in the engineering domain. Design Studies, 31(1), 46-73.
Zimmerman, D. H., & Wieder, D. L. (1977). Diary-interview method. Urban Life, 5(4), 479-498.
林金定, 嚴嘉楓, & 陳美花. (2005). 質性研究方法：訪談模式與實施步驟分析. 身心障礙研究, 3(2), 122-136.
黃世輝. (2008). 略談質性研究. Retrieved 10/27, 2010, from http://ge.tit.edu.tw/971Community/file/d/10/971111-2.pdf