隱喻經常是建築設計者運用的一種方式。在概念發想階段，建築師常藉由基地相關的特徵進行概念置換，此置換為強調從A來源到B目標的概念轉化過程。因此隱喻置換被認為是延伸創造力的渠道，然而，渠道間行進的置換過程卻隱晦不明，猶如一只黑箱，設計者無法藉由過程知悉進而累積置換的連結知識。本研究試圖藉由探索設計拼圖的行為模式，建構並呈現A到B之間概念的連結知識過程，輔助設計者進行如開放式拼圖般的設計創造。   
為達上述研究目的，本論文主要藉由設計者的置換行為實驗與觀察中發現模型雛形，再從相關文獻與系統進行回顧，最後進入模型建構導入系統實作，其研究步驟包括:1) 從設計者實驗之觀察分析，進行相關理論與系統回顧；2) 提出Design Jigsaw設計拼圖模型，企圖以開放式拼圖的比喻與數位化的運算機制，重新群組、比對與組合A與B之間的知識元件，創造出設計拼圖呈現出置換過程；3)發展dJOE（design Jigsaw On sitE）系統，結合基地觀察之設計行動化和裝置之即時性，讓置換發生在基地現場和行動過程當中。4) 進行使用者操作系統與測試，理解系統使用上之效益，發展運用設計拼圖模式產生之行動化基地互動設計。 
本研究以dJOE協助設計者進行AB想法置換之間進行探索，在設計拼圖過程中建構起A到B之間的連結知識，從呈現設計者群組、比對與組合的想法置換來回探尋之中，收斂出置換連結又同時呈現開放式結局的設計拼圖參考文本，有助於設計者進行廣度較大且較具深度之設計置換。另外，在研究過程中引介出設計拼圖運算相關比對與基地特徵等複雜性問題，將提供研究者進行未來之後續研究。

Designers often use metaphor, and during concept generation, architects frequently use site-related characteristics to displace concepts. Concept displacement is a process by which a concept is converted from source A to object B and metaphor displacement is considered a channel for extending creativity. However, displacing processes that occur in the channel are as obscure as if they were in a black box. Designers cannot accumulate associated knowledge of concept displacement by using displacing processes. This study involves exploring the behavioral patterns of a design jigsaw, constructing and presenting associated knowledge processes from source A to object B, helping designers to create open-ended jigsaw-like works.         
To attain the research goal, the displacing behaviors of designers were observed to identify a prototype model; after conducting a literature review, the model was constructed and the proposed system was implemented. The research comprised: (a) observing and analyzing the experiments of designers and conducting a literature review; (b) proposing a design jigsaw model and using open-ended jigsaw-like metaphors and digital computation to group, compare, and assemble the knowledge components from source A to object B, generating a design jigsaw and presenting the relevant displacement processes; (c) developing a design jigsaw on site (dJOE) system that combines design mobilization of on-site observation and real-time devices, allowing concept displacement to occur on site and in the process of mobilization; and (d) testing the effectiveness of a user operating system and developing a mobilized on-site interactive design by using the design jigsaw model.      
In this study, the proposed dJOE system was used to help designers explore concept displacement, moving from source A to object B and building associated knowledge between A and B during the design jigsaw process. This study explores how designers group, compare, assemble, and displace concepts, converging on a design jigsaw reference text that presents displacement, association, and open ending, and helps designers undertake an in-depth and broad design displacement. The complex concepts introduced in the study regarding design jigsaw computation and comparison and site-related characteristics can serve as references for future studies.

一. 緒論................................................................................1
1.1 隱喻設計的置換過程..................................................................2
1.2 運算機制輔助呈現置換過程.......................................................4
1.3. 論⽂文概述...................................................................................8
1.3.1 研究問題..........................................................................8
1.3.2 研究目的..........................................................................9
1.4 研究方法..................................................................................11
1.4.1 研究方法回顧.................................................................11
1.4.2 研究⽅法建立.................................................................12
1.5. 論⽂內容架構..........................................................................14
二. ⽂獻回顧：從設計置換到設計拼圖..............................16
2.1.置換設計模式..........................................................................16
2.1.1 置換建築設計.................................................................17
2.1.2 置換的規則.....................................................................21
2.1.3 置換的視覺轉化過程......................................................25
2.2 置換知識建構.............................................................26
2.2.1 置換知識建構的搜尋與連結............................................27
2.2.2 置換知識建構的概念地圖...............................................30
2.2.3 置換知識建構的過程......................................................33
2.3 置換拼圖..................................................................................35
2.3.1 拼圖的元素.....................................................................35
2.3.2 拼圖的提示.....................................................................37
2.3.3 開放式拼圖.....................................................................40
2.4 置換⾏行動化.............................................................................42
2.4.1 置換所⾒見-外在與內在空間..............................................42
2.4.2 置換移動-即畫即尋.........................................................44
2.4.3 置換實境－Jigsaw Making on Site..............................47
2.5 ⼩結.........................................................................................49
三. 運算系統回顧................................................................51
3.1 輔助置換呈現..........................................................................51
3.1.1 置換想法連結相關系統...................................................52
3.1.2 置換概念圖像⽐對相關系統............................................56
3.1.3 置換拼圖相關系統..........................................................59
3.2 輔助置換提⽰示!..........................................................................62
3.2.1 置換概念⼿繪提⽰相關系統............................................63
3.2.3 置換⾏動化之再現回饋系統............................................66
3.3 ⼩結.........................................................................................70
四. Design Jigsaw 設計拼圖模型....................................74
4.1 Before Design Jigsaw－設計拼圖之前.................................75
4.1.1 知識圖塊- Idea Piece.....................................................76
4.1.2 知識圖塊置換關係- si.....................................................78
4.1.3 知識圖塊地圖- IP MAP...................................................80
4.2. Design Jigsaw 設計拼圖.......................................................81
4.2.1 運算流程........................................................................81
4.2.2 找出那盒拼圖-Indexing.................................................85
4.2.3 群組-Grouping..............................................................86
4.2.4 ⽐對->組合- Matching->Combining.............................87
4.3 Design Jigsaw 設計拼圖之運算機制......................................88
4.3.1 設計拼圖規則.................................................................88
4.3.2 設計拼圖結構鄰接串列...................................................91
4.3.3 設計拼圖結構.................................................................94
4.4 Design Jigsaw 設計拼圖過程呈現.........................................98
4.4.1 設計拼圖呈現樣式........................................................101
4.4.2 設計拼圖多媒體呈現.....................................................112
4.4.3 設計拼圖之策略－超規則Meta Rule............................113
4.5小結........................................................................................115
五. design Jigsaw On sitE -dJOE系統........................123
5.1 dJOE 系統架構.....................................................................123
5.1.2 IP知識儲存運算元件.....................................................125
5.1.3 設計拼圖規則基礎運算元件..........................................127
5.1.3 輸⼊入與輸出運算元件.....................................................130
5.2 dJOE系統設備......................................................................133
5.2.1 運算語⾔.......................................................................133
5.2.2 系統設備運作流程........................................................135
5.2.3 外掛輔助.......................................................................137
5.3 dJOE 資料庫.........................................................................140
5.3.1 資料庫建⽴...................................................................141
5.3.2 雲端資料庫儲存形式.....................................................143
5.3.3 本機暫存資料庫............................................................145
5.4 dJOE 介⾯面視覺呈現..............................................................146
5.4.1 介⾯面使⽤用流程說明........................................................147
5.4.1 dJOE介⾯面規劃.............................................................149
5.4.2 dJOE介⾯面使⽤用流程情境模擬........................................151
5.5 dJOE介⾯面實體雛形...............................................................155
六.dJOE之系統使⽤用評估.................................................158
6.1. 評估⽅方法與內容....................................................................158
6.1.1 評估⽅方法.......................................................................159
6.1.2 評估基準.......................................................................160
6.2. 設計實驗：dJOE與傳統設計行為之差異.............................161
6.2.1 實驗說明.......................................................................162
6.2.2 實驗結果.......................................................................163
6.3. 實驗解譯...............................................................................164
6.4. 分析與評估...........................................................................168
6.4.1 dJOE分析....................................................................168
6.4.2 dJOE評估....................................................................171
七.結論與建議...................................................................173
7.1 研究貢獻...............................................................................173
7.2 研究限制................................................................................174
7.3 未來研究................................................................................175
參考文獻...........................................................................177
附錄：...............................................................................190
程式碼.........................................................................................190
圖目錄

圖 1：隱喻置換的過程   10
圖 2：運用隱喻置換的住宅設計（左：Le Corbusier,1923，右：Greg Lynn,2002）   18
圖 3：科比意的廊香教堂隱喻（Hillel Schocken繪製,1984）   19
圖 4：紐約JFK機場（ Eero Saarinen,1959）   20
圖 5：水立方，北京國家游泳中心（PTW,2007）   20
圖 6：軀扭之塔（Santiago Calatrava,2005）   21
圖 7：北京國家游泳中心置換運用的三種規則（本論文整理）   23
圖 8：隱喻置換設計過程（本論文整理）   24
圖 9：手繪線稿由A到B的概念置換過程（Santiago Calatrava,1994）  26
圖 10：設計搜尋（Simon,1983）   28
圖 11：設計搜尋的結構（Woodbury,1991）   29
圖 12：設計搜索路徑（Yang,2004）   30
圖 13： 看—動—看模式（ Schon and Wiggins,1992）   33
圖 14：看—回饋—行動—看模式（Oxman,2002）   35
圖 15：Design Puzzle的探索概念（Chang,2004）   37
圖 16：第一套以手繪幾何線稿的圖像化設計系統（Sutherland,1963）  40
圖 17：左:開放結局的創意性拼圖 右:一般拼圖（本論文整理）   41
圖 18：雪梨歌劇院概念草圖與基地特色關係（Utzon,1957）   43
圖 19：Tod’s東京表參道旗艦店設計概念說明（Toyo Ito,2005）   43
圖 20 ：圖面經過手繪為線條繪製模式（本論文整理）   44
圖 21：利用圖像特徵尋找類似圖像的圖像辨識系統（Lowe,2004）   46
圖 22：PRECEDENT之動態聯結案例機制（Oxman,1993）   52
圖 23：WEBPAD之介面呈現（Oxman and Shabo,1999; Oxman,2004）   53
圖 24 : CampTools 之介面呈現 （Canas, et al.,2004）   54
圖 25：Idea Space System之機制與介面呈現（Segers,2005）   54
圖 26：Idea Map and ICF （Lai,2006）   55
圖 27：ArciMap之機制與介面呈現（Tuncer,2009）   56
圖 28：Stage-of-the-art之圖像比對結果（Wu, et al.,2009）   57
圖 29：利用多重形狀標籤檢索的案例基礎推理系統（Milton,2003）   58
圖 30：設計拼貼流程示意圖（楊麗綺,2004）   59
圖 31：Puzzle Sever的拼圖知識狀態（林長駿,2004）   60
圖 32：EDOS介面呈現模擬（鄭元培,2008）   60
圖 33：Knowledge Puzzle之介面呈現 （Zouaq, et al.,2007）   61
圖 34：Antation Portfolis呈現（Gaver,2012）   62
圖 35：DYNAMO以手繪線稿圖形尋找相關案例之系統（Neuckermans, et al.,2002）   63
圖 36：Sketch4Match以手繪幾何圖形尋找相關圖片之系統（Szanto,2011）   64
圖 37：Draw Something利用簡易線條手繪稿猜測字意（OPGPOP,2011）    65
圖 38：Sketchnotes呈現概念圖（Marquardt and Greenberg,2012）   66
圖 39：PhonySIFT PhonyFerns影像狀態偵測情形（Wagner, et al.,2010）   67
圖 40：edge-tracker之輪廓特徵辨識（Klein,2007）   67
圖 41：APM之概念模型（ V. Paelke and M. Sester,2010）   68
圖 42：Insitu呈現概念圖（Paczkowski,2011）   69
圖 43：看－拼圖行動{線稿，群組、比對->組合，草繪}－看的置換模式    76
圖 44：IP元件構成參數    77
圖 45：IP間的連結關係    79
圖 46：置換連結關係    79
圖 47：具連結關係的IP地圖（IP Map）  81
圖 48：F與C拼圖基本模式    82
圖 49：F與C拼圖過程    83
圖 50：置換想法重組收斂的三種拼圖規則    83
圖 51：設計拼圖的置換運算流程    84
圖 52：圖像資料簡化為線條索引之基本四類    85
圖 53：手繪簡易線條與索引提示連結模式    86
圖 54：IP形式F九種分類特徵描述    86
圖 55：IP儲存形式F分類特徵描述    87
圖 56：IP的比對->組合示意    88
圖 57：第一次比對重組規則圖示    89
圖 58：第二次比對重組規則圖示    90
圖 59：Design Jigsaw設計拼圖資料結構鄰接串列   92
圖 60：Design Jigsaw設計拼圖知識構成結構    95
圖 61：Design Jigsaw設計拼圖63種呈現樣式    99
圖 62：Design Jigsaw設計拼圖三角形拼圖型態呈現與結構關係說明    101
圖 63：Design Jigsaw設計拼圖三角形拼圖 索引呈現    102
圖 64：Design Jigsaw設計拼圖 三角形索引、群組呈現與IPs關係說明    103
圖 65：Design Jigsaw設計拼圖三角形不同屬性群組呈現    103
圖 66：d比對呈現    104
圖 67：d比對的組合呈現    105
圖 68：e比對呈現    105
圖 69：e比對的組合呈現    105
圖 70：f比對呈現    106
圖 71：f比對的組合呈現    106
圖 72：g比對呈現    107
圖 73：g比對的組合呈現    107
圖 74：h比對呈現    107
圖 75：h比對的組合呈現    108
圖 76：i比對呈現    108
圖 77：i比對的組合呈現    109
圖 78：j比對呈現    109
圖 79：j比對的組合呈現    109
圖 80：k比對呈現   110
圖 81：k比對的組合呈現    110
圖 82：l比對呈現    111
圖 83：l比對的組合呈現    111
圖 84：Design Jigsaw第四層，第二次比對組合設計拼圖呈現   112
圖 85：Design Jigsaw設計拼圖的多媒體呈現    113
圖 86： dJOE系統主要架構    124
圖 87：專家IP知識分類系統   126
圖 88：規則基礎運算元件    128
圖 89：輸入與輸出運算元件    131
圖 90 : 元件使用運算語言說明    135
圖 91： dJOE設備使用關係圖    136
圖 92：HOPPALA地理資訊儲存介面    139
圖 93：Layar實境介面   140
圖 94：IP圖像經由OpenCV程式解譯    141
圖 95：勞力士學習中心圖像與Open CV程式解譯結果   142
圖 96：IP知識的資料儲存與檢索設定   144
圖 97：下載至本機的IP知識資料，以iPhone平台為例    146
圖 98：Design Jigsaw On site dJOE系統流程    148
圖 99：dJOE App啟動及說明畫面    150
圖 100：dJOE 登入步驟之流程說明    151
圖 101：dJOE 步驟一基地定位之流程說明    152
圖 102：dJOE 步驟二線稿繪製之流程說明    152
圖 103：使用dJOE步驟三流程之說明    153
圖 104：使用dJOE步驟四之流程說明    154
圖 105：使用dJOE步驟五之流程說明    154
圖 106：使用dJOE步驟六之流程說明    155
圖 107：使用dJOE步驟七之流程說明    155
圖 108：iOS不同裝備搭載dJOE    156
圖 109：dJOE於iPAD mini實機上之測試    156
圖 110：dJOE資料輸入於iPHONE實機上之測試    157
圖 111：Linkography的評估要項    160
圖 112：distance graph與設計者圖面之關係對照    161
圖 113 : 實驗基地照片(左：空拍俯視圖，右：基地現況照）   162
圖 114 : 實驗現場照片（左：A組實驗對象，右：B組實驗對象）   162
圖 115 : 實驗使用工具（左：a組使用筆記本及參考書籍，右：b組使用dJOE介面） 163
圖 116：a組受測者之Linkography評估   166
圖 117：b組受測者之Linkography評估   168
 表目錄

表 1：輔助置換呈現之運算系統總表    72
表 2：輔助置換提示之運算系統總表    73
表 3：設計拼圖資料結構鄰接串列    120
表4：b組受測者之指標數值記錄    165
表 5：b組受測者之Design Jigsaw設計拼圖三角形呈現樣式記錄    167
表 6：a組受測者之實驗結果記錄    169
表 7：b組受測者之實驗結果記錄    170

Abdelmohsen, S. and Do, E.Y.-L., (2007), Tracking Design Development through Decomposing Sketching Processes, in Digital Proceedings of the International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR 2007), Hong Kong.
Abdelmohsen, S. M., & Do, E. Y. L. (2009), Analyzing the significance of problem solving expertise and computational tool profiviency in design ideation, Cultures and Visions: CAADFutures.
Addington, M., & Schodek, D. (2012). Smart Materials and Technologies in Architecture. Routledge.
Akin, O. (1990), Necessary conditions for design expertise and creativity,  Design Studies, 11(2), pp.107-113. 
Akin, O., & Akin, C. (1998), On the process of creativity in puzzles, inventions, and designs. Automation in Construction,7, pp.123–138. 
Akin O. (2009), Variants and invariants of design cognition. In: McDonnell J, Lloyd P. (eds.)About: Design: Analysing design meetings: CRC Press; pp.171-92.
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977), A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction ,2. Oxford University Press, USA.
Altshuller, G. (2000), The Innovation Algorithm, Technical Innovation Center, Worcester, MA.
Anderson, J.R. (1983), The Architecture of Cognition, Harvard UP, Cambridge, MA.
Antoniades, A.C. (1990), Poetic of architecture: theory of design, John Wiley& Sons Inc. Canada. 
Archea, J. (1987), Puzzle-Making: What Architects Do When No One is Looking, in Computability of Design. Y. Kalay, Ed. Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York, pp.37-52.
Arnheim, R. (1969), Visual thinking.London: Faber and Faber.
Azuma, R. (1997), "A Survey of Augmented Reality," Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments.6(4), Aug. 1997, pp.355-385.
Blaauw, G. A., & Brooks Jr, F. P. (1997), Computer architecture: concepts and evolution. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
Black, M. (1962), Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press. Bates,B.,（2002), Game Design: The Art and Business of Creating Games, Premier Press.
Blackwell, A.F., Stacey, M.K. and Earl, C.F. (2004), Sketching across design domains. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design.
Brown, T. (2009), Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation, HarperBusiness.
Cai, H., Do, E. Y. L., & Zimring, C. M. (2010), Extended linkography and distance graph in design evaluation: an empirical study of the dual effects of inspiration sources in creative design. Design Studies, 31(2), pp.146-168.
Canas, A. J., Hill, G., Carff, R., Suri, N., Lott, J., Eskridge, T., ... & Carvajal, R. (2004), CmapTools: A knowledge modeling and sharing environment. In Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology. Proceedings of the first international conference on concept mapping,1, pp.125-133.
Carbonell, J.G. (1983), Learning by analogy: formulating and generalising plans from past experience. in Michalski, R. S., Carbonell, J. G. and Mitchell, T. M. (eds), Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Tioga, Palo Alto, California, pp.137–161.
Carroll J.M. Mack R.L. and Kellogg W.A. (1988), Interface Metaphors and User Interface Design. In Helander M. (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 1988, pp.67-85.
Carvalho, J., Duarte, L. & Carrico, L. (2012), Puzzle Games: Player Strategies across Different Interaction Modalities. ACM Fun& Games, September 4-6, Toulouse, France.
Casakin, H., & Goldschmidt, G. (1999), Expertise and the use of visual analogy: implications for design education. Design Studies, 20(2), pp.153-175.
Casakin, H. P., & Kreitler, S. (2005a). The determinants of creativity: Flexibility in design. In P. Rodgers, L. Brodhurst, & D. Hepburn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Engineering &Product Design Education International Conference pp.303-307, London.
Casakin, H.P. (2006), Assessing the Use of Metaphors in the Design Process. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33, pp.253-268.
Casakin, H.P. (2007), Factors of metaphors in design problem-solving: Implications for design creativity. International Journal of Design, 1(2), pp.21-33. 
Casakin, H.P. & Goldschmidt, G. (1999), Expertise and the use of visual analogy:implications for design education. Design Studies, 20(2), pp.153-175.
Cha, S., Kwon, D. & Lee, W. (2007), Using Puzzles: Problem-Solving and Abstraction. ACM SIGITE 07,October 18-20,Destin, Florida, USA.
Chang, T.W. (2004), Supporting Design Learning with Design Puzzles, in Van Leeuwen, J.P. and H.J.P. Timmermans (eds.), Recent Advances in Design & Decision Support Systems in Architecture and Urban Planning, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.293-307.
Chen, R., & Wang, X. (2008), An empirical study on tangible augmented reality learning space for design skill transfer. Tsinghua Science & Technology, 13, pp.13-18.
Cheng, N. and Lane-Cummings, S. (2004), Teaching with Digital Sketching, in the Design Communication Association Proceedings, eds., William Bennett. and Mark Cabrinha, San Luis Obispo, California, pp. 61-67.
Cheng, Y.B. & Chang, T.W. (2007), Soloving design puzzle with physical interaction. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia Nanjing.
Chou, S.B. (2007), A method for evaluating creativity in linkogrphy. conference, Proceedings of the 10th Quality Management and Qrganizational Development(QMOD), Helsingborg Sweden. 
Clement, J. (1981), Analogy generation in scientific problem solving, f ceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp.137-140, Berkeley, CA.
Clement, J. (1994), Use of Physical Intuition and Imagistic Simulation in Expert Problem Solving. In Implicit and Explicit Knowledge (ed.) by D. Tirosh. Ablex Publishing Company.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological review, 82(6), pp.407-428.
Cooper, A. (1995). The myth of metaphor. Visual Basic Programmer’s Journal, pp.127-128.
Coyne, R., Snodgrass, A. & Martin, D. (1994). Metaphor in the Design Studio, In Journal of Architectural Education,48(2): pp.113-125.
Coyne, R.D., Rosenman, M.A., Radford, A.D., Balachandran, M. & Gero, J.S. (1990), Knowledge Based Design Systems, Addison-Wesley, Reading.
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design studies, 3(4), pp.221-227.
Cross, N. (1999). Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design issues,15(2), pp.5-10.
Cross, N. (2003), The Expertise of Exceptional Designers, in N. Cross and E. Edmonds (eds), Expertise in Design, Creativity and Cognition Press, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
De Vries, M. and Wagter, H. (1990), A caad model for use in early design phases. IN McCullough, M., Mitchell, W.J. and Purcell, P. (Eds.) The electronic design studio: Architectural knowledge and media in the computer era. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp.215-228.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, pp.497–509.
Doswell, J.T. & M.B. Blake. (2006), Mobile augmented reality system architecture for ubiquitous e-learning, Fourth IEEE International Workshop on Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technology in Education - (WMTE’06).
Drummond,T.&Cipolla,R. (1999), Real-time tracking of complex structureswith on- line camera calibration. In Proc. BritishMachine Vision Conference (BMVC’99), 2, pp.574–583, BMVA,Nottingham.
Eckert, C.M., Blackwell, A.F., Stacey, M.K. & Earl, C.F. (2004), Sketching across design domains. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design (VR'04).
Edwards, J., and K. Fraser. (1983), Concept maps as reflectors of conceptual understanding. Research in Science Education, 13, pp.19-26.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Protocol analysis. MIT press.
Furnham, A., & Yazdanpanahi, T. (1995). Personality differences and group versus individual brainstorming. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(1), pp.73-80.
Gabora, L. (2002), Cognitive mechanisms underlying the creative process. In Proceedings Creativity and Cognition IV, Loughborough, pp.126-133.
Gaver, B. and Bowers, J. (2012), Annotated Portfolios, interactions, 19(4)., pp. 40-49.,
Gentner, D. & Gentner, D.R. (1982), Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In Gentner D. and Stevens A.L. (Eds) Mental Models, pp.99-129 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ).
Gentner, D. (1983), Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science,(7) , pp.155-170.
Gero, J.S. (1999a), Recent design science research: Constructive memory in design thinking. Architectural Science Review, 42, pp.3-5.
Gero, J.S. (1999b), Constructive Memory in Design Thinking.Architectural Science Review. Volume42, Issue2.
Gero, J.S. (2000), Computational models of innovative and creative design processes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 64(2-3), pp.183-196.
Gero, J.S. (2003), Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design.
Goel, A. K. (1997). Design, analogy, and creativity, IEEE Intelligent Systems, 12(3), pp.62-70.
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Bradford Book.
Goldschmidt, G. (1990), Linkography: assessing design productivity. In R. Trappl(Ed.), Cybernetics and Systems ’90 ( pp. 291-298). Singapore: World Scientific.
Goldschmidt, G. (1991), The dialectics of sketching, Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), pp.123- 143.
Goldschmidt, G. (1992), Criteria for design evaluation: a process-oriented paradigm.In Y. E. Kalay (Ed.), Evaluating and Predicting Design Performance, pp.67-79. New York: John Wiley & Son Inc.
Goldschmidt, G. (1994), On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture, Design Studies, 15( 2), pp.158-174.
Goldschmidt, G. (1995), Visual displays for design: imagery, analogy and databasesof visual images. Visual Databases in Architecture, pp.53-74.
Goldschmidt, G. (2001), Visual analogy: a strategy for design reasoningand learning. Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education, pp.199-219. Elsevier.
Goldschmidt, G. & Smolkov, M. (2006), Variances in the impact of visual stimulion design problems solving performance. Design Studies, 27(5), pp.549-569.
Goldschmidt, G. & Tatsa, D. (2005), How good are good ideas? Correlates of designcreativity. Design Studies, 26(6), pp. 593-611. Goel, V. (1995), Sketches of thought, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Gomes, P., Seco, N., Pereira, F.C., Paiva, P., Carreiro, P., Ferreira, J.L. & Bento, C. (2006), The importance of retrieval in creative design analogies, Knowledge-Based Systems 19.
Coyne, R., Snodgrass, A. & Martin, D. (1994), Metaphors in the Design Studio, Journal of Architectural Education, 48(2),pp.113-125,Nov 1994 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc. 
Graves, M. (1977), The necessity for drawing: tangible speculation, Architectural Design, 6(77), pp.384-394.
Hall, P. (1989), Computational Approaches to Analogical Reasoning: A Comparative Analysis. Artificial Intelligence 39, pp. 39-120.
Harris, C., & Stephens, M. (1988), A combined corner and edge detector. In Alvey vision conference, 15,pp.50.
Herbert, Ｄ. M. (1993), Architecture Study Drawing, Reinhold, New York.
Hesse, M. (1996), Models and Analogies in Science.Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Hesselgren, S. (1975), Man’s perception of man-made environment, Lund: Studentlitt. Stroudsburg,Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
Hewitt, M. (1985). Representational forms and modes of conception: An approach to the history of architectural drawing. Journal of Architectural Education, pp.2-9
Hey, J. H., & Agogino, A. M. (2007), Metaphors in conceptual design. In 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
Hey, J.H., Linsey, J., Agogino, A. & Wood, K. (2008), Analogies and Metaphors in Creative Design, International Journal of Engineering Education, pp.283-294.
Holyoak, K. J. and Thagard, P. (1997), The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52, p.35-44.
Indurkhya, B. (1998), Computational Modelling of Mechanisms of Creativity, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology.
Indurkhya, B. (2009), Computational Model for visual metaphors, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology.
Indurkhya, B. (2007), Rationality and reasoning with metaphors. New Ideas in Psychology 25, pp.16-36.
Jackson, P. (1990), Introduction to expert systems. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc..
Jones, J. C. (1992), Design Methods (2 ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Jong T.M. de, Voordt D.J.M. van der (ed):（1987）, Ways to Study and Research Urban, Architectural, and Technical Design, Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology, Delft, DUP Science, 2002.
Jones, J. C. (1992), Design Methods (2 ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Kalay, Y. E. (1985), Redefining the role of computers in architecture: from drafting/modelling tools to knowledge-based design assistants. Computer-Aided Design, 17(7), pp.319-328.
Kaufmann, H., Schmalstieg, D., and Wagner, M. (2000), Construct3D: a virtual reality application for mathematics and geometry education, Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), pp.263-276.
Klein, G. (2006),Visual Tracking for Augmented Reality PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge.
Klein, G. and Murray, D. (2007), Parallel tracking and mapping for small AR workspaces. In Proc 6th IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR'07). 
Klugman, E. and S. Smilansky. (1990), Children's Play and Learning: Perspectives and Policy Implications (Early Childhood Education Series), Teachers College Press.
Kolodner J.L. (1993), Case-based resoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Kraidy, U. (2002), Digital Media and Education: Cognitive Impact of Information Visualization. Journal of Educational Media, 27(3): pp.95-106.
Kvan, T. & Gao, S. (2006), A Comparative Study of Problem Framing in Multiple Settings. in J.S. Gero(ed), Proceedings of Design Computing and Cognition’06, Eindhoven, Netherlands, pp.245-263.
Kolodner, J.L. (1997), Educational Implications of Analogy: A View from CaseBasedReasoning. American Psychologist, 52(1), pp.57- 66.
Lakoff, G. & Jonson, M. (1980), The Metaphor we live by.  The university of Chicago press. London.
Lakoff, G. (1993), The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.In Metaphor and Thought. Edited by A. Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Nov 26, 1993, pp.202-251. ISBN: 0521405610.
Lai, I.C. and Chang, T.W. (2003), Companying Physical Space with Virtual Space—A Co- existence Approach, Proceedings of 8th Conference on CAADRIA2003, Thailand. pp. 359- 370.
Lai, I.C. (2005), Dynamic Idea-Maps: A Framework for Linking Ideas with Cases during Brainstorming, International Journal of Architectural Computing, 4(3), pp.429-447.
Lai, I.C. & Chang, T.W. (2006), A Distributed Linking System for Supporting Idea Association in the Conceptual Design Stage. Design Studies, 27(6), pp.685-710.
Lanzara, G.F. (1983), The Design Process: Frames, Metaphors, and Games. In Briefs U. Ciborra C. Schneider L. (Eds) Systems Design For, With and By the Users, pp.29-40 (North Holland Publishing Company, New York).
Larkin, J. & Simon, H. (1987), Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11: pp. 65-99.
Laseau, P. (1980), Graphic Thinking for Architects and Designers, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Lawler, J.M. Metaphors We Compute By. In Hickey D. (1999), Figures of Thought: For College Writers, Mayfield Publishing, Mountain View ,pp.411-422.
Lawson, B. (1979), Cognitive Strategies in Architectural Design. Ergonomics,22: pp.59-68.
Lawson, B. (1990), How Designers Think, Butterworth, London.
Lawson, B. (1994), "Design in Mind", Butterworth.
Lin, J.C., Wu, S.W. & Yang, F. J. (2005), A study of course planning in creativity in the field of art for pre-service teachers. In proceedings of 2005 international symposium on Empirical Aesthetics: culture, arts and education. National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, pp.372-389. 
Liu, Y.T. (2000), Creativity or novelty?: Cognitive-computational versus social-cultural, Design Studies, 21(3): pp.261-276.
Liu, Y.T. & Bai, J.Y. (2001), A computerized procedure for visual impact analysis and assessment: The Hsinch experience. Automation in Construction 10: pp.337-343.
Liu, Y.T. (2001), Defining Digital Architecture: The 2000 FEIDAD Award, Taipei.
Lo,C.H, Lai, I.C. & Chang, T.W. (2010), Playing Jigsaw: Finding the Underlying Structure of Combining Ideas within Design Productive Process, CAADRIA 2010 Conference Proceedings, Hong Kang, pp.371-380, NSC-98-2221-E-032-046-
Lo, C.H., Lai, I.C. & Chang, T.W. (2011), A is b, displacement: exploring linking patterns witHin metaphor in the design process. CAADRIA 2011 Conference Proceedings. NewCastle, Australia. 
Luck, R. (2008), Design Thinking Research, Symposium 7.
 Lugt, Remko van der. (2000), Developing a graphic tool for creative problem solving in design groups. Design Studies,21(5) ,pp.505–522.
Liao, Y.Y. (2009), Some Phenomena of Analogical Thinking In Design. Caadria.
Maglio, P.P. and Matlock T. (1999), The conceptual structure of information space. In Munro A. Benyon D. and Hook K. (Eds.), Social navigation of information space, pp.155-173,Springer Verlag, London.
Maher, M. L., Balachandran, M. B. and Zhang, D. M. (1995), Cased-Based Reasoning in Design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Marquardt, N. & Greenberg, S. (2012), Sketchnotes for Visual Thinking in HCI. In Proc. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI Workshop on Visual Thinking and Digital Imagery. (Workshop held at the ACM CHI Conference), pp.5, May 2012.
Marr, D. (1982), Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
Mcharg, I. (1991), Design with Nature. Wiley, New York.
McKim, R.H. (1972), Experiences in Visual Thinking, Monterey, Calif, Brooks/Cole.
Mihalcea, R., and Leong, C. W. (2008), Toward communi- cating simple sentences using pictorial representations. Ma- chine Translation 22(3), pp.153–173.
Mikolajczyk, K. & Schmid, C. (2003), A performance evaluation of localdescriptors. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.257-264.
Miller, G.A. (1956), The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63, pp.81-97
Milton, T. (2003), Emergent Relations Self-Indexing Media for Case-Based Reasoning. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design, CAADFutures, pp. 73-82, Tainan,Taiwan.
Mitchell, W.J. (1990), The Logic of Architecture. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Moggridge, B. (2007), Designing for interactions.Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.
Mohnkern, K. (1997), Beyond the interface metaphor. SIGCHI Bulletin,29(2), pp.11-15.
Molana, R. (2000), Visual guidance of amobile robot. Fourth year project, Cambridge University Engineering Department.
Moravec, H.P. (1980), Obstacle Avoidance and Navigation in the Real World by a Seing Robot Rover. Phd Thesis, Stanford University.
Neuckermans, H., Heylighen, A. & Morisse, P. (2002), Visual Keys To Architectural Design.  International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in ASIA (CAADIA) ,Cyberjaya.
Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. (1963), GPS: a program that simulates human thought. Computers and Thought. E. A. Feigenbaum and J. Feldman, pp.279-296.
Newell, A., (1983), The heuristic of George Polya and its relation to Al, in: R. Groncr, M. Groncr and W.I·. Bischof (Eds.), Methods of Heuristics, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp.195-243.
Newell, A. (1973), Artificial intelligence and the concepts of mind, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.
Niblock C. & Hanna R. (2007), An Investigation of the influence of Using the Computer on Cognitive Design Actions. eCAADe ,26, pp.693-699.
Norman, D.A. (1988), The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books.
Novak, J.D. (1984), Learning how to learn. Cambridge University Press, New York. Metaphor and thought, Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J.D. (1998), Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and cor- porations, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Novak, J. D. (1991), Clarify with concept maps, The Science Teacher, 58(7), pp.45-49.
Ortony, A. (Ed.) (1993), Metaphor and thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Osborn, A.F. (1963), Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creativity Thinking, Charles Scribiner’s Son Press, New York.
Oxman, R.E. (1990), Prior knowledge in design: a dynamic knowledge-based model of design and creativity. Design Studies, 11(1), pp.17-28.
Oxman, R. And Oxman, R. (1993), PRECEDENTS: Memory Structure in Design Case Libraries, In: Flemming, U. & Wyk, S. eds. CAAD Futures '93, pp.273-287.
Oxman, R.E. (1994), Precedents in Design: a computational model for the organization of precedent knowledge, Design Studies, 15(2),pp.117-134.
Oxman, R. E. and Shabo, A. (1999), The web as a visual design medium International Confer- ence on Information Visualiz- ation, Proceedings IEEE, London.
Oxman, R.E. (2002), The Thinking Eye: visual re-cognition in design emergence, Design Studies, 23(2), pp. 135-164.
Oxman R.E. (2003), Designing the virtual university for design, CAAD Futures,03, Taiwan.
Oxman, R.E. (2004), Think-maps: teaching design thinking in design education, Design Studies, 25(1), pp.63-91.
Paczkowski, P., Kim, M. H., Morvan, Y., Dorsey, J., Rushmeier, H., & O’Sullivan, C. (2011), Insitu: sketching architectural designs in context. ACM SIGGRAPH Asia conference proceedings.
Polya, O. (1945), How to Solve It. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Popovic, V. (2003), Expert and Novice Users Models and their Application to the Design Process. Journal of 6th Asian Design Conference, 1(1), Tsukuba, Japan.
Porter, W. L. (1988), Notes on the inner logic of designing: Two thought-experiments. Design Studies, 9(3), pp.169-180.
Portugali, J. Casakin, H. (2002), SIRN (Synergetic Inter-Representation Networks): An approach to design. In D Durling and J Shackleton (Eds.), Common ground proceedings of the Design Research Society hIternational. Stoke on Trent: Staffordshire University Press, pp.884-902.
Prensky, M. (2001), Digital Game-Based Learning, Paragon House.
Purcell, A.T. & Gero, J.S. (1998), Drawings and the design process: A review of protocol studies in design and other disciplines and related research in cognitive psychology. Design Studies, 19(4), pp.389-430.
Radford, A.D. and Gero, J.S. (1988), Design by Optimization in Architecture and Building, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Reddy, M.J. (1979), The Conduit Metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Ortony A. (Ed) Metaphor and Thought, 1, pp.284-324 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
Richards, I. A. (1936),The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford University Press: New York and London.
Ricoeur,P.,(1978). The rule of metaphor: Multi-disciplinary studies of the creation of meaning in language.: University of Toronto Press. Buffalo.
Rogers, E.M. (1962), Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rowe, P. (1987), Design Thinking. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rittgen, P. (1997), Translating Metaphors into Design Patterns, University College Boras.
Rule, W. R. (1983), Family therapy and the pie metaphor. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9(1), pp.101-103
Saffer, D. (2005), The Role of Metaphor in Interaction Design. Carnegie Mellon University, MA
Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2003), Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals, The MIT Press.
Sayers, D.L. (1941), The Mind of the Maker.London: Methuen.
Schank, R. C. (1983), Dynamic memory: A theory of reminding and learning in computers and people. Cambridge University Press.
Schank, R. C., Osgood, R., Brand, M., Burke, R., Domeshek, E., Edelson, D., Ferguson, W., Freed, M., Jona, K., Krulwich, B., Ohmaye, E. & Pryor, L. (1990),A content theory of memory indexing, Technical Report No. 2, Institute for the Learning Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Schenk, P. (1991), The role of drawing in the graphic design process. Design Studies, 12(3), pp.168-181
Schildt, G. (1989), Alvar Aalto, the mature years, New York, Rizzoli.
Schuemie, M. J., van der Straaten, P., Krijn, M., ver der Mast, C.A.P.G. (2001), Research on presence in virtual reality: a survey, CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(2), pp.183-201
Schon, D.A. (1963), The Displacement of Concepts, Tavistock, London. 
Schon, D.A. (1979), Generative Metaphor: A Perspective on Problem Setting in Social Policy’, in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge University Press, London.
Schon, D.A. and Wiggins, G. (1992), Kinds of seeing and their function in designing, Design Studies, 13(2), pp. 135-156.
Schon, D.A. (1983),The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York.
Segers, N. M., De Vries, B., & Achten, H. H. (2005), Do word graphs stimulate design?. Design Studies, 26(6), pp.625-647.
Seifert, C. M., McKoon, G., Abelson, R. P., & Ratcliff, R. (1986), Memory connections between thematically similar episodes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(2), pp.220-231.
Stubblefield, W.A. (), Patterns of Change in Design Metaphor A Case Study.
Sutherland, I. E. (1964), Sketch pad a man-machine graphical communication system. In Proceedings of the SHARE design automation workshop, pp. 6-329. ACM.
Simon, H. (1969), The sciences of artificial. The MIT Press; third edition edition (Oct 1, 1996).
Simon, H. A. (1983), Search and reasoning in problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 21(1-2), 7-29.
Suwa, M. & Tversky, B. (1997), What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18(4), pp.385-403. 
Suwa, M., Purcell, T. & Gero, J. (1998), Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designer’s cognitive actions. Design Studies, 19(4), pp.455-483.
Szanto, B., Pozsegovics, P., Vamossy, Z. & Sergyan, Sz. (2011), Sketch4Match-Content-based Image Retrieval System Using Sketches. 9th IEEE, SAMI2011.
Tang, H.H. & Gero, J.S. (2001), Roles of knowledge while designing and their implications forCAAD. in JS Gero, S Chase, and M Rosenman (eds), International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in ASIA (CAADIA) .
Tourangeau, R. & Stemberg, R.J. (1981), Aptness in metaphor. Cognitive Psychology, 13, pp.27-55.
Tourangeau, R. & Sternberg, R. (1982),“Understanding and appreciating metaphors.” 1982. Cognition,11, pp. 203-244.
Travers, M.D. (1996), Metaphors and Models for Computation.PhD dissertation, Media Arts and Sciences, MIT.
Tuncer, B. (2009), The Architectural Information Map: Semantic modeling in conceptual architectural design, Ph.D. dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Tuncer, B. Sariyildiz, S. (2010), Facilitating Architectural Communities of Practice. In: 28th eCAADe Conference Proceedings of Future Cities, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 707–716.
Tversky, B. (1999), What do drawing reveal about thinking? in J.S. Gero and B. Tversky (eds), Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design, Key Center of Design Computing and cognition, University of Sydney, Sydney, pp. 93-101
UzZaman, N.; Bigham, J.; and Allen, J. (2011), Multimodal summarization of complex sentences. In IUI, pp.43–52.
Van der Lugt, R. (2000), Developing a graphic tool for creative problem solving in design groups. Design Studies, 21(5), pp.505-522. 
V. Paelke. & M. Sester. (2010),“Augmented paper maps: Exploring the designspace of a mixed reality system”, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetryand Remote Sensing, 65 (3),  pp.256-265.
Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (1989), Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge university press.
Wang, J., & Yu, B. (2012), Collecting Representative Pictures for Words: A Human Computation Approach based on Draw Something Game. InWorkshops at the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
Wagner, D., Reitmayr, G., Mulloni, A., Drummond, T., & Schmalstieg, D., Member, IEEE Computer Society. (2010). Real-Time Detection and Tracking for Augmented Reality on Mobile Phones. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, VOL. 16, NO. 3, May/June.
Way, E.C. (1991), Knowledge representation and metaphor. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London. 
Weiner, E.J. (1985), Invented Worlds: The Psychology of the Arts. Harvard University Press.
Weiner, E.J. (1984), A Knowledge Representation Approach to Understanding Metaphors. Computational Linguistics, 10(1).
Winner, E. (1985), Invented Worlds: The Psychology of the Arts Harvard University Press.
Woodbury, R.F. (1991), Searching for Designs:Paradigm and Practice, Building and Environment, 26: pp.61-73.
Woodbury, R.F., Wyeld, T.G., Shannon, S.J., Roberts, I.W., Radford, A., Burry, M., Skates, H., Ham, J. Datta, (2001),“The Summer Games”, Proceedings of 19th eCAADe, Helsinki (Finland), pp.293-297
Woodbury, R.F., Shannon, S.J. & Radford, A. (2001), Games in Early Design Education: Playing with Metaphor. Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures 2001 Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference held at the Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Wu, Z., Ke, Q., Isard, M., and Sun, J. (2009), Bundling Features for Large Scale Partial-DuplicateWeb Image Search, IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
Wurman, Saul Richard. (1989), Information Anxiety. New York:Doubleday.
Xiao, J., Zhang, X., Cheatle, P., Gao, Y., & Atkins, C. B. (2008), Mixed-initiative photo collage authoring. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on Multimedia, pp. 509-518. ACM.
Yang, L. C. (2004), Exploring Visual Information with Puzzle Rules-A Design Collage Approach, National Yunlin University of Science & Technology, Douliu, Yunlin, Taiwan.
Zhong, Wu., Qifa, Ke., Michael, Isard. & Jian, Sun. (2009), Bundling Features for Large Scale Partial-DuplicateWeb Image Search, IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
Zhu, X., Goldberg, A., Eldawy, M., Dyer, C., and Strock, B. (2007), A text-to-picture synthesis system for augmenting communication. In AAAI, pp.1590–1595.

王鴻祥（2011）, 隱喻設計, 台北：國家圖書館出版。
林長駿（2004）, Puzzle Server ─ 設計程序紀錄、分享、組織的架構, 設計運算研究碩士,國立雲林科技大學。
林建華譯（2011）, 佐佐木睦朗著, 技術與藝術的融合, 建築學的教科書: 14位當代日本建築名家講座, 台北：漫遊者文化事業股份有限公司。
林建業譯（1998）, 維特魯威著, 建築十書, 台北：洪葉大城北。
孫式文( 2012 ), 創意與隱喻：來自日常生活的創新, 2012產業創新研討會, 政治大學。
孫式文( 2012 ), 圖像設計與隱喻閱讀, 新聞學研究, Vol.110, (TSSCI)。
楊麗綺（2004）, 運用 Puzzle Rule 探討視覺資訊探索運算之可能性研究─以設計拼貼為例, 國立雲林科技大學設計運算研究所。
鄭元培（2008）, 運用心智圖法與多點觸控的實體互動介面探索設計拼貼之研究, 國立雲林科技大學設計運算研究所。
賴怡成 （2006）, 動態想法地圖：輔助分散式想法連結之研究, 博士論文, 國立交通大學土木工程系所。
賴怡成, 羅嘉惠 （2011）,探索輔助想法收斂思考之研究, 第二屆南京大學＋淡江大學建築教育學術研討建築研究成果發表會。
羅嘉惠, 賴怡成, 張登文（2009）, 探索設計生產過程中的想法連結模式, 中華民國建築學會第二十一屆第二次建築研究成果發表會, NSC-98-2221-E-032-046-。
羅嘉惠, 賴怡成（2010）, 隱喻，設計行為過程中的置換現象, 中華民國建築學會第二十二屆第一次建築研究成果發表會。
羅嘉惠, 賴怡成（2010）, 隱喻置換-連結到衍生-初探隱喻置換設計過程中的連結機制, 中華民國建築學會第二十二屆第二次建築研究成果發表會。
羅嘉惠, 賴怡成（2011）, AB之間 -連結到衍生-初探隱喻置換設計過程中的連結機制, 中華民國建築學會第二十三屆第二次建築研究成果發表會（優良論文獎）。
羅嘉惠, 賴怡成, 張登文（2012）, 從草繪到隱喻置換的連結模式初探, 中華民國建築學會第二十四屆建築研究成果發表會。
饒見維（1994）, 知識場域：認知、思考予教育的統合理論,台北：五南。