1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Communication
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 資訊呈現形式與互動性對閱聽人的影響
The impact of information presentation styles and interactivity on readers
作者 古宗儒
Ku, Tsung-Ju
貢獻者 鄭霈絨<br>廖峻鋒
Cheng, Pei-Jung<br>Liao, Chun-Feng
古宗儒
Ku, Tsung-Ju
關鍵詞 資訊圖像
資訊呈現形式
互動性
閱讀理解
認知負荷
Infographics
Information presentation style
Interactivity
Reading comprehension
Cognitive load
日期 2021
上傳時間 9-Mar-2023 18:13:13 (UTC+8)
摘要 運用聊天機器人與使用者互動溝通是目前醫療衛生單位在社群媒體進行健康資訊傳播的媒介趨勢，除了能夠讓閱聽人主動地接收與篩選資訊內容，閱聽人也能與聊天機器人平台的對話過程中，藉由互動點擊與選擇加深他們對於資訊內容的記憶。

因此，本研究以健康傳播為資訊內容的題材，為了解在聊天機器人平台的對話脈絡下，不同的資訊呈現形式與互動性差異對於閱聽人閱讀理解與認知負荷的影響，以及閱聽人認知負荷與閱讀理解之間的關係，其中，以目前常見於聊天機器人平台上應用的「純文字」與「資訊圖像」兩者，作為本研究之「不同資訊呈現形式」的變項；以閱聽人執行單一路徑點擊的「反應式」對話與多重路徑點選的「主動式」對話，作為本研究用於聊天機器人平台之「互動性差異」的變項。並以上述變項設計製作四種聊天機器人實驗樣本，依變項則為閱聽人的「閱讀理解」與「認知負荷」。本研究採受試者間設計於線上發放問卷，分別蒐集4種樣本各70人次的問卷調查結果（四種實驗樣本共280份），比較觀看四種不同實驗樣本的受測者，在健康資訊內容的閱讀理解與認知負荷上的差異。

研究結果顯示：(1)當閱聽人與聊天機器人進行「主動式」對話時，觀看「資訊圖像」形式之閱讀理解成效高於「純文字」形式；(2)當閱聽人在聊天機器人中觀看「資訊圖像」內容，進行「主動式」對話的閱讀理解成效高於「反應式」對話；(3)閱聽人觀看「純文字」形式的資訊內容，其認知負荷會高於觀看「資訊圖像」形式；而閱聽人與聊天機器人進行「反應式」對話的認知負荷則會高於進行「主動式」對話；(4)在聊天機器人平台的對話脈絡下，閱聽人的認知負荷不會影響閱讀理解。
It is a trend for many medical and health institutions uses chatbots as a carrier of health communication on social media. In addition to allowing readers to receive and filter information content actively, readers also strengthen their memory on specific information through actively clicking and choosing specific content during the dialogue with chatbot.

Therefore, this study uses health communication as the subject of information content. To understand the impact of different information presentation styles and interactivity on reader’s reading comprehension and cognitive load under the dialogue context of chatbot platform, and the relationship between reader’s cognitive load and reading comprehension, the study manipulates “text-only” and “infographics” which are commonly used on chatbot platform as the variable of “information presentation styles difference”; and the “reactive” dialogue of single path click and the “proactive” dialogue of multi-path click are used as the variables of the “interactive methods difference”. Based on the above variables, four kinds of chatbot experimental samples are designed and developed. The dependent variables are reader’s “reading comprehension” and “cognitive load” on dialoguing with the four kinds of experimental samples. This study used between-subjects design to carry out the online questionnaires, and collected the results of the questionnaire survey, 4 samples with 70 subjects each (280 survey results were collected). Finally, the study compared the differences of the reading comprehension and the cognitive load on the health information between the subjects respectively watched four kinds of experimental samples.

The findings of the study are: (1)While the reader is having a “proactive” dialogue with chatbot, the reading comprehension on watching “infographics” style is better than that on watching “text-only” style; (2)While the reader is watching the content with “infographics” style in the chatbot, the reading comprehension on “proactive” dialogue is higher than that on “reactive” dialogue; (3)The cognitive load of the readers viewing the information content with “text-only” style is higher than that with “infographics” style; and the cognitive load of the readers having a “reactive” dialogue with the chatbot is higher than that of “proactive” dialogue; (4)Under the chatbot dialogue context, the cognitive load of readers will not affect their reading comprehension.
參考文獻 中文部分
Re-lab 團隊（2017）。人人都能上手的資訊圖表設計術。時報出版。
木村博之（2012）。設計的邏輯：INFOGRAPHICS 深入人心的視覺法則（楊宗訓 譯）。旗標出版。
王秀如、陳俊宏（1996）。圖表設計原理與表現形式初探。第十一屆全國技術及職業教育研討會，123-132。
王彥鈞（2017）。比較資訊圖像和一般圖文對於讀者認知負荷、情境興趣、概念理解之影響：以奈米概念為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立交通大學教育研究所。
呂琇毓（2019）。資訊圖表製作工具介面圖像輔助與編輯型式設計之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣科技大學設計系。
李杰臣（2015）打造讓人一眼看懂的視覺化圖表。果禾文化。
易敏哲、林廷宜（2018）。訊息設計近十年學術研究發展探究：2007-2017。設計學報，23(4)，45-68。
林育如（2011）。行動閱讀之資訊呈現方式對於學習者專注力、閱讀理解與認知負荷之影響研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學圖書資訊與檔案學研究所。
林鈺潔（2020）。從臨床觀點探討聊天機器人應用於心情舒緩—質性研究取向〔未出版之碩士論文〕。長庚大學智慧醫療創新碩士學位學程。
洪婉伊（2010）。國中生課外閱讀行為、閱讀媒介與閱讀理解能力之相關性研究─以嘉義縣國中一年級學生為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。南華大學出版與文化事業管理研究所。
馬翊（2020）。社群聊天機器人互動率探究與使用者行為分析〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學數位內容碩士學位學程。
張虹雯、陳金燕（2010）。憂鬱情緒當事人之求助歷程及影響因子研究。中華輔導與諮商學報，(27)，1-38。
許子凡、楊朝明、王聖文（2019）。資訊圖像概念模式及互動程度之關聯探討。設計學研究，22(1)，1-17。
許秀珠（2017）。瀏覽性與資訊類型對圖像式社群網站媒體可信度與科技信任之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立交通大學傳播研究所。
陳俊文、梁朝雲（2001）。資訊設計及其延展與應用。視聽教育雙月刊，（57），46-57。
陳思穎（2012）。台灣綜合型醫院藥袋資訊設計研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立交通大學應用藝術研究所。
黃子芸（2017）。科學新聞資訊圖像對閱讀經驗與閱讀理解之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立交通大學傳播研究所。
黃孟瑩 (2018)。資訊圖表應用於國中歷史教科書創作設計〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣藝術大學視覺傳達設計學系碩士班。
黃芸瑩（2015）。大學生憂鬱、社會支持與諮商求助態度之相關研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系。
黃思嘉（2018）。科普訊息圖文設計對不同認知風格大專校院生閱讀理解之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所。
黃毓超（2015）。適性化愛滋防治介入平台之建置與評估。衛生福利部疾病管制署104年委託科技部研究計畫（MOHW104-CDC-C-114-000304），未出版。
蔡明容（2015）。基於使用者經驗的資訊圖表評估之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。世新大學資訊傳播學研究所（含碩專班）。
蔡倖培（2018）。視覺資訊圖表與資訊傳遞之研究－以Re-lab設計個案為例研究。中華印刷科技年報，162-180。
蔣丙煌（2015）。認識憂鬱 面對憂鬱 擺脫憂鬱—憂鬱情緒障礙自助手冊。衛生福利部。
謝依霖（2018）。資訊圖表之敘事對訊息處理與態度的影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺北科技大學工業設計系創新設計碩士班。
鍾慈庭（2015）。資訊視覺圖表之表現形式對知識獲取的影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。元智大學資訊傳播學系。
顏志龍、鄭中平（2019）。給論文寫作者的統計指南：傻瓜也會跑統計。五南圖書。
蘇芳玉（2019）。成人網路健康資訊尋求行為與網路健康識能之關係研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立高雄師範大學成人教育研究所。

英文部分
Abbasi, S., & Kazi, H. (2014). Measuring Effectiveness of Learning Chatbot Systems on Student`s Learning Outcome and Memory Retention. Asian Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, 3(7), 57.
Afify, M. K. (2018). The Effect of the Difference Between Infographic Designing Types (Static vs Animated) on Developing Visual Learning Designing Skills and Recognition of its Elements and Principles. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (ijet), 13(09), 204. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i09.8541
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1988). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. Interactive approaches to second language reading, 37-55.
Association, A. P. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). American Psychiatric Publishing.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Boguna, M., Krioukov, D., & Claffy, K. C. (2009). Navigability of complex networks. Nature Physics, 5(1), 74-80.
Burmester, M., Mast, M., Tille, R., & Weber, W. (2010). How users perceive and use interactive information graphics: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the 2010 14th International Conference Information Visualization.
Cairo, A. (2012). The Functional Art: An introduction to information graphics and visualization: Pearson Education.
Churcher, G., Atwell, E. S., & Souter, C. (1997). Dialogue management systems: a survey and overview. University of Leeds, School of Computing Research Report 1997.06. 1997.
Conklin. (1987). Hypertext: An Introduction and Survey. Computer, 20(9), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1109/mc.1987.1663693
Cook, G., & Krulwich, R. (2016). The Best American Infographics 2016. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Edition, F. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Am Psychiatric Assoc, 21.
Gagne, E. D., Gagné, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The Cognitive Psychology of School Learning. HarperCollins College Publishers.
Galligan M. (2016). “Bot” is a hilariously over-simplified buzzword. Let’s fix that. Medium. https://bit.ly/3hEdmjw
Gibson, D. (2009). The Wayfinding Handbook: Information Design for Public Places. Princeton Architectural Press.
Harrower, T., & Elman, J. M. (2012). The Newspaper Designer`s Handbook. McGraw-Hill Education.
Heeter, C. (1989). Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualizing communication. Media use in the information age: Emerging patterns of adoption and consumer use, 217-235.
Horgan, A., & Sweeney, J. (2010). Young students` use of the Internet for mental health information and support. Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing, 17(2), 117-123.
Horn, R. E. (1999). Information design: Emergence of a new profession. Information design, 2.
International Institute for Information Design, I. (2007). idX (information design exchange) Information Design: Core Competencies. Retrived Aug 18 2020, from the World Wide Web: http://www.iiid.net/
Irwin, J. W. (2007). Teaching reading comprehension processes. Pearson College Division.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K.L. (2016). Marketing Management. Pearson.
Krauss, J. (2012). Infographics: More than words can say. Learning & leading with Technology, 39(5), 10-14.
Kristoff, R., & Satran, A. (2002). Interactivity by Design. Adobe Press.
Krum, R. (2013). Cool Infographics: Effective Communication with Data Visualization and Design. Wiley.
Lankow, J., Ritchie, J., & Crooks, R. (2012). Infographics: The power of visual storytelling. John Wiley & Sons.
Locoro, A., Cabitza, F., Actis-Grosso, R., & Batini, C. (2017). Static and interactive infographics in daily tasks: A value-in-use and quality of interaction user study. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 240-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.032
López Cupita, L. A., & Puerta Franco, L. M. (2019). The Use of Infographics to Enhance Reading Comprehension Skills among Learners. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 21(2), 230–242. https://doi.org/10.14483/22487085.12963
Manickam, R., & Abdul Aziz, A. (2020). The Effectiveness of Using Infographics as an Aid for Reading Comprehension. Asia Proceedings of Social Sciences, 6(3), 226-229.
Massey, B. L., & Levy, M. R. (1999). ‘Interactive’ Online Journalism at English-Language Web Newspapers in Asia. Gazette (leiden, Netherlands), 61(6), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016549299061006005
Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of educational psychology, 86(3), 389.
Mckenna, R. (1993). Relationship Marketing: Successful Strategies For The Age Of The Customer. Basic Books.
Noar, S. M. (2008). Corcoran N. (Ed.). (2007). Communicating Health: Strategies for Health Promotion. Journal of health communication, 13(3), 303-305.
Occa, A., & Suggs, L. S. (2015). Communicating Breast Cancer Screening With Young Women: An Experimental Test of Didactic and Narrative Messages Using Video and Infographics. Journal of health communication, 21, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1018611
Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02213420
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_1
Paivio, A. (1990). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford University Press.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching Reading Comprehension. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Pimenta, S., & Poovaiah, R. (2010). On defining visual narratives. Design Thoughts, 3, 25-46.
Rossi, M., & Siau, K. (2000). Information Modeling in the New Millennium. IGI Global.
Schwier, R., & Misanchuk, R. (1993). Interactive Multimedia Instruction. Educational Technology Publications.
Shedroff, N. (2000). Information Interaction Design: a Unified Field Theory of Design.
Shevat, A. (2017). Designing Bots: Creating Conversational Experiences. O`Reilly Media.
Smiciklas, M. (2012). The Power of Infographics: Using Pictures to Communicate and Connect with Your Audiences. Pearson Education.
Susannah Fox (2014, January 15) The social life of health information. Pew Research Center. https://pewrsr.ch/3hPMgro
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, 12(2), 257-285.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction, 4(4), 295-312.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296.
Thissen, F., & Rager, J. G. (2004). Screen Design Manual: Communicating Effectively Through Multimedia. Springer.
Vrasidas, C., & Mcisaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649909527033
Weber, W., & Rall, H. (2012). Data Visualization in Online Journalism and Its Implications for the Production Process. https://doi.org/10.1109/iv.2012.65
Wierwille, W. W., & Eggemeier, F. T. (1993). Recommendations for mental workload measurement in a test and evaluation environment. Human factors, 35(2), 263-281.
Wouters, P., Tabbers, H. K., & Paas, F. (2007). Interactivity in video-based models. Educational psychology review, 19(3), 327-342.
Wurman, R. S. (1997). Information Architects. Graphis.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
數位內容碩士學位學程
108462006
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108462006
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 鄭霈絨<br>廖峻鋒zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Cheng, Pei-Jung<br>Liao, Chun-Fengen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 古宗儒zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Ku, Tsung-Juen_US
dc.creator (作者) 古宗儒zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Ku, Tsung-Juen_US
dc.date (日期) 2021en_US
dc.date.accessioned 9-Mar-2023 18:13:13 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 9-Mar-2023 18:13:13 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 9-Mar-2023 18:13:13 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0108462006en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/143721-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 數位內容碩士學位學程zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 108462006zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 運用聊天機器人與使用者互動溝通是目前醫療衛生單位在社群媒體進行健康資訊傳播的媒介趨勢，除了能夠讓閱聽人主動地接收與篩選資訊內容，閱聽人也能與聊天機器人平台的對話過程中，藉由互動點擊與選擇加深他們對於資訊內容的記憶。

因此，本研究以健康傳播為資訊內容的題材，為了解在聊天機器人平台的對話脈絡下，不同的資訊呈現形式與互動性差異對於閱聽人閱讀理解與認知負荷的影響，以及閱聽人認知負荷與閱讀理解之間的關係，其中，以目前常見於聊天機器人平台上應用的「純文字」與「資訊圖像」兩者，作為本研究之「不同資訊呈現形式」的變項；以閱聽人執行單一路徑點擊的「反應式」對話與多重路徑點選的「主動式」對話，作為本研究用於聊天機器人平台之「互動性差異」的變項。並以上述變項設計製作四種聊天機器人實驗樣本，依變項則為閱聽人的「閱讀理解」與「認知負荷」。本研究採受試者間設計於線上發放問卷，分別蒐集4種樣本各70人次的問卷調查結果（四種實驗樣本共280份），比較觀看四種不同實驗樣本的受測者，在健康資訊內容的閱讀理解與認知負荷上的差異。

研究結果顯示：(1)當閱聽人與聊天機器人進行「主動式」對話時，觀看「資訊圖像」形式之閱讀理解成效高於「純文字」形式；(2)當閱聽人在聊天機器人中觀看「資訊圖像」內容，進行「主動式」對話的閱讀理解成效高於「反應式」對話；(3)閱聽人觀看「純文字」形式的資訊內容，其認知負荷會高於觀看「資訊圖像」形式；而閱聽人與聊天機器人進行「反應式」對話的認知負荷則會高於進行「主動式」對話；(4)在聊天機器人平台的對話脈絡下，閱聽人的認知負荷不會影響閱讀理解。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) It is a trend for many medical and health institutions uses chatbots as a carrier of health communication on social media. In addition to allowing readers to receive and filter information content actively, readers also strengthen their memory on specific information through actively clicking and choosing specific content during the dialogue with chatbot.

Therefore, this study uses health communication as the subject of information content. To understand the impact of different information presentation styles and interactivity on reader’s reading comprehension and cognitive load under the dialogue context of chatbot platform, and the relationship between reader’s cognitive load and reading comprehension, the study manipulates “text-only” and “infographics” which are commonly used on chatbot platform as the variable of “information presentation styles difference”; and the “reactive” dialogue of single path click and the “proactive” dialogue of multi-path click are used as the variables of the “interactive methods difference”. Based on the above variables, four kinds of chatbot experimental samples are designed and developed. The dependent variables are reader’s “reading comprehension” and “cognitive load” on dialoguing with the four kinds of experimental samples. This study used between-subjects design to carry out the online questionnaires, and collected the results of the questionnaire survey, 4 samples with 70 subjects each (280 survey results were collected). Finally, the study compared the differences of the reading comprehension and the cognitive load on the health information between the subjects respectively watched four kinds of experimental samples.

The findings of the study are: (1)While the reader is having a “proactive” dialogue with chatbot, the reading comprehension on watching “infographics” style is better than that on watching “text-only” style; (2)While the reader is watching the content with “infographics” style in the chatbot, the reading comprehension on “proactive” dialogue is higher than that on “reactive” dialogue; (3)The cognitive load of the readers viewing the information content with “text-only” style is higher than that with “infographics” style; and the cognitive load of the readers having a “reactive” dialogue with the chatbot is higher than that of “proactive” dialogue; (4)Under the chatbot dialogue context, the cognitive load of readers will not affect their reading comprehension.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 謝辭 I
摘要 III
Abstract IV
目次 VI
表次 VIII
圖次 X
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 3
第三節 研究流程與步驟 3
第四節 研究範圍與限制 5
第二章 文獻探討 6
第一節 資訊呈現形式 6
第二節 互動性 16
第三節 各平台資訊呈現形式與互動性之案例 17
第四節 閱聽人資訊接收 22
第五節 小結 30
第三章 研究方法 32
第一節 研究設計 32
第二節 正式實驗流程 47
第三節 資料分析工具 48
第四章 研究結果與討論 50
第一節 受測者資料分布與量表信度檢測 50
第二節 研究問題與假設檢驗 51
第三節 開放式問題分析 61
第四節 綜合討論 73
第五章 研究結論與建議 78
第一節 研究結論 78
第二節 未來研究建議 79
參考文獻 81
附錄一 專家訪談逐字稿 90
附錄二 專家評估逐字稿 92
附錄三 完整資訊內容文本 96
附錄四 完整實驗樣本 99
附錄五 焦點團體討論逐字稿 114
附錄六 正式實驗問卷 120		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 16651483 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108462006en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資訊圖像zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資訊呈現形式zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 互動性zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 閱讀理解zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 認知負荷zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Infographicsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Information presentation styleen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Interactivityen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Reading comprehensionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Cognitive loaden_US
dc.title (題名) 資訊呈現形式與互動性對閱聽人的影響zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The impact of information presentation styles and interactivity on readersen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文部分
Re-lab 團隊（2017）。人人都能上手的資訊圖表設計術。時報出版。
木村博之（2012）。設計的邏輯：INFOGRAPHICS 深入人心的視覺法則（楊宗訓 譯）。旗標出版。
王秀如、陳俊宏（1996）。圖表設計原理與表現形式初探。第十一屆全國技術及職業教育研討會，123-132。
王彥鈞（2017）。比較資訊圖像和一般圖文對於讀者認知負荷、情境興趣、概念理解之影響：以奈米概念為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立交通大學教育研究所。
呂琇毓（2019）。資訊圖表製作工具介面圖像輔助與編輯型式設計之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣科技大學設計系。
李杰臣（2015）打造讓人一眼看懂的視覺化圖表。果禾文化。
易敏哲、林廷宜（2018）。訊息設計近十年學術研究發展探究：2007-2017。設計學報，23(4)，45-68。
林育如（2011）。行動閱讀之資訊呈現方式對於學習者專注力、閱讀理解與認知負荷之影響研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學圖書資訊與檔案學研究所。
林鈺潔（2020）。從臨床觀點探討聊天機器人應用於心情舒緩—質性研究取向〔未出版之碩士論文〕。長庚大學智慧醫療創新碩士學位學程。
洪婉伊（2010）。國中生課外閱讀行為、閱讀媒介與閱讀理解能力之相關性研究─以嘉義縣國中一年級學生為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。南華大學出版與文化事業管理研究所。
馬翊（2020）。社群聊天機器人互動率探究與使用者行為分析〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學數位內容碩士學位學程。
張虹雯、陳金燕（2010）。憂鬱情緒當事人之求助歷程及影響因子研究。中華輔導與諮商學報，(27)，1-38。
許子凡、楊朝明、王聖文（2019）。資訊圖像概念模式及互動程度之關聯探討。設計學研究，22(1)，1-17。
許秀珠（2017）。瀏覽性與資訊類型對圖像式社群網站媒體可信度與科技信任之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立交通大學傳播研究所。
陳俊文、梁朝雲（2001）。資訊設計及其延展與應用。視聽教育雙月刊，（57），46-57。
陳思穎（2012）。台灣綜合型醫院藥袋資訊設計研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立交通大學應用藝術研究所。
黃子芸（2017）。科學新聞資訊圖像對閱讀經驗與閱讀理解之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立交通大學傳播研究所。
黃孟瑩 (2018)。資訊圖表應用於國中歷史教科書創作設計〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣藝術大學視覺傳達設計學系碩士班。
黃芸瑩（2015）。大學生憂鬱、社會支持與諮商求助態度之相關研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系。
黃思嘉（2018）。科普訊息圖文設計對不同認知風格大專校院生閱讀理解之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所。
黃毓超（2015）。適性化愛滋防治介入平台之建置與評估。衛生福利部疾病管制署104年委託科技部研究計畫（MOHW104-CDC-C-114-000304），未出版。
蔡明容（2015）。基於使用者經驗的資訊圖表評估之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。世新大學資訊傳播學研究所（含碩專班）。
蔡倖培（2018）。視覺資訊圖表與資訊傳遞之研究－以Re-lab設計個案為例研究。中華印刷科技年報，162-180。
蔣丙煌（2015）。認識憂鬱 面對憂鬱 擺脫憂鬱—憂鬱情緒障礙自助手冊。衛生福利部。
謝依霖（2018）。資訊圖表之敘事對訊息處理與態度的影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺北科技大學工業設計系創新設計碩士班。
鍾慈庭（2015）。資訊視覺圖表之表現形式對知識獲取的影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。元智大學資訊傳播學系。
顏志龍、鄭中平（2019）。給論文寫作者的統計指南：傻瓜也會跑統計。五南圖書。
蘇芳玉（2019）。成人網路健康資訊尋求行為與網路健康識能之關係研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立高雄師範大學成人教育研究所。

英文部分
Abbasi, S., & Kazi, H. (2014). Measuring Effectiveness of Learning Chatbot Systems on Student`s Learning Outcome and Memory Retention. Asian Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, 3(7), 57.
Afify, M. K. (2018). The Effect of the Difference Between Infographic Designing Types (Static vs Animated) on Developing Visual Learning Designing Skills and Recognition of its Elements and Principles. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (ijet), 13(09), 204. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i09.8541
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1988). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. Interactive approaches to second language reading, 37-55.
Association, A. P. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). American Psychiatric Publishing.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Boguna, M., Krioukov, D., & Claffy, K. C. (2009). Navigability of complex networks. Nature Physics, 5(1), 74-80.
Burmester, M., Mast, M., Tille, R., & Weber, W. (2010). How users perceive and use interactive information graphics: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the 2010 14th International Conference Information Visualization.
Cairo, A. (2012). The Functional Art: An introduction to information graphics and visualization: Pearson Education.
Churcher, G., Atwell, E. S., & Souter, C. (1997). Dialogue management systems: a survey and overview. University of Leeds, School of Computing Research Report 1997.06. 1997.
Conklin. (1987). Hypertext: An Introduction and Survey. Computer, 20(9), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1109/mc.1987.1663693
Cook, G., & Krulwich, R. (2016). The Best American Infographics 2016. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Edition, F. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Am Psychiatric Assoc, 21.
Gagne, E. D., Gagné, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The Cognitive Psychology of School Learning. HarperCollins College Publishers.
Galligan M. (2016). “Bot” is a hilariously over-simplified buzzword. Let’s fix that. Medium. https://bit.ly/3hEdmjw
Gibson, D. (2009). The Wayfinding Handbook: Information Design for Public Places. Princeton Architectural Press.
Harrower, T., & Elman, J. M. (2012). The Newspaper Designer`s Handbook. McGraw-Hill Education.
Heeter, C. (1989). Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualizing communication. Media use in the information age: Emerging patterns of adoption and consumer use, 217-235.
Horgan, A., & Sweeney, J. (2010). Young students` use of the Internet for mental health information and support. Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing, 17(2), 117-123.
Horn, R. E. (1999). Information design: Emergence of a new profession. Information design, 2.
International Institute for Information Design, I. (2007). idX (information design exchange) Information Design: Core Competencies. Retrived Aug 18 2020, from the World Wide Web: http://www.iiid.net/
Irwin, J. W. (2007). Teaching reading comprehension processes. Pearson College Division.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K.L. (2016). Marketing Management. Pearson.
Krauss, J. (2012). Infographics: More than words can say. Learning & leading with Technology, 39(5), 10-14.
Kristoff, R., & Satran, A. (2002). Interactivity by Design. Adobe Press.
Krum, R. (2013). Cool Infographics: Effective Communication with Data Visualization and Design. Wiley.
Lankow, J., Ritchie, J., & Crooks, R. (2012). Infographics: The power of visual storytelling. John Wiley & Sons.
Locoro, A., Cabitza, F., Actis-Grosso, R., & Batini, C. (2017). Static and interactive infographics in daily tasks: A value-in-use and quality of interaction user study. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 240-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.032
López Cupita, L. A., & Puerta Franco, L. M. (2019). The Use of Infographics to Enhance Reading Comprehension Skills among Learners. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 21(2), 230–242. https://doi.org/10.14483/22487085.12963
Manickam, R., & Abdul Aziz, A. (2020). The Effectiveness of Using Infographics as an Aid for Reading Comprehension. Asia Proceedings of Social Sciences, 6(3), 226-229.
Massey, B. L., & Levy, M. R. (1999). ‘Interactive’ Online Journalism at English-Language Web Newspapers in Asia. Gazette (leiden, Netherlands), 61(6), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016549299061006005
Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of educational psychology, 86(3), 389.
Mckenna, R. (1993). Relationship Marketing: Successful Strategies For The Age Of The Customer. Basic Books.
Noar, S. M. (2008). Corcoran N. (Ed.). (2007). Communicating Health: Strategies for Health Promotion. Journal of health communication, 13(3), 303-305.
Occa, A., & Suggs, L. S. (2015). Communicating Breast Cancer Screening With Young Women: An Experimental Test of Didactic and Narrative Messages Using Video and Infographics. Journal of health communication, 21, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1018611
Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02213420
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_1
Paivio, A. (1990). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford University Press.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching Reading Comprehension. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Pimenta, S., & Poovaiah, R. (2010). On defining visual narratives. Design Thoughts, 3, 25-46.
Rossi, M., & Siau, K. (2000). Information Modeling in the New Millennium. IGI Global.
Schwier, R., & Misanchuk, R. (1993). Interactive Multimedia Instruction. Educational Technology Publications.
Shedroff, N. (2000). Information Interaction Design: a Unified Field Theory of Design.
Shevat, A. (2017). Designing Bots: Creating Conversational Experiences. O`Reilly Media.
Smiciklas, M. (2012). The Power of Infographics: Using Pictures to Communicate and Connect with Your Audiences. Pearson Education.
Susannah Fox (2014, January 15) The social life of health information. Pew Research Center. https://pewrsr.ch/3hPMgro
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, 12(2), 257-285.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction, 4(4), 295-312.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296.
Thissen, F., & Rager, J. G. (2004). Screen Design Manual: Communicating Effectively Through Multimedia. Springer.
Vrasidas, C., & Mcisaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649909527033
Weber, W., & Rall, H. (2012). Data Visualization in Online Journalism and Its Implications for the Production Process. https://doi.org/10.1109/iv.2012.65
Wierwille, W. W., & Eggemeier, F. T. (1993). Recommendations for mental workload measurement in a test and evaluation environment. Human factors, 35(2), 263-281.
Wouters, P., Tabbers, H. K., & Paas, F. (2007). Interactivity in video-based models. Educational psychology review, 19(3), 327-342.
Wurman, R. S. (1997). Information Architects. Graphis.		zh_TW