Open Access
Volume 40, Number 5, October 2022
Page(s) 1133 - 1144
Published online 28 November 2022
  1. WANG Y, YU S, MA N, et al. Prediction of product design decision making: an investigation of eye movements and EEG features[J]. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 2020, 45(8): 1–10 [Google Scholar]
  2. DORST K. Co-evolution and emergence in design[J]. Design Studies, 2019, 65: 60–77. [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. MCDONNELL J. Design roulette: a close examination of collaborative decision-making in design from the perspective of framing[J]. Design Studies, 2018, 57: 75–92 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. QI J, HU J, PENG Y H. Integrated rough VIKOR for customer-involved design concept evaluation combining with customers' preferences and designers' perceptions[J]. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 2020, 46: 101138 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. YANG Yanpu. Kansei evaluation method of product form design based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and particle swarm optimization[J]. Journal of Graphics, 2021, 42(4): 680–687. [Article] (in Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  6. PEI Huining, TAN Zhaoyun, HUANG Xueqin, et al. Application of concept hierarchy development in multi-attribute decision-making method of product conceptual design[J/OL]. (2021-09-14)[2021-10-15]. [Article] (in Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  7. GUO F, LI M, HU M, et al. Distinguishing and quantifying the visual aesthetics of a product: an integrated approach of eye-tracking and EEG[J]. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 2019, 71: 47–56. [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. FENG Yixiong, LOU Shanhe, WANG Xupeng, et al. Research on performance-oriented perceptual image evaluation method for customized products[J]. Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2020, 56(9): 181–190. [Article] (in Chinese) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. MARKUS H. The modified kansei engineering-based application for sustainable service design[J]. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 2020, 79: 102985 [Google Scholar]
  10. SUN Yu, YAO Peiyang, WAN Lujun, et al. Multiple attribute decision making method based on weights aggregation and relative dominance relation[J]. Control and Decision, 2017, 32(2): 317–322. [Article] (in Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  11. ZHOU Jiamin, WANG Zhanqing. Method of dynamic hybrid multi-attribute decision based on triangular fuzzy numbers[J]. Journal of Wuhan University of Technology, 2014, 36(1): 121–124. [Article] (in Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  12. KRUGER C, NIGEL C. Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes[J]. Design Studies, 2006, 27(5): 527–548. [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. RODRÍGUEZ R M, MARTINEZ L, HERRERA F. Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making[C]//Foundations of Intelligent Systems, Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing, 2011: 287–295 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. LI Deyi, MENG Haijun, SHI Xuemei. Membership clouds and membership cloud generators[J]. Journal of Computer Research and Development, 1995, 32(6): 15–20. [Article] (in Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  15. DI Peng, NI Zichun, YIN Dongliang. A multi-attribute decision making optimization algorithm based on cloud model and evidence theory[J]. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2021, 41(4): 1061–1070. [Article] (in Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  16. LI Deyi. Uncertainty in knowledge representation[J]. Journal of Engineering Science in China, 2000, 2(10): 73–79. [Article] (in Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  17. WANG Yingchao, JING Hongwen, ZHANG Qiang, et al. A normal cloud model-based study of grading prediction of rockburst intensity in deep underground engineering[J]. Journal of Rock and Mechanics, 2015, 36(4): 1189–1194. [Article] (in Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  18. XU Xuanhua, WU Huidi. Approach for multi-attribute large group decision-making with linguistic preference information based on improved cloud model[J]. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 2018, 32(1): 117–125. [Article] [Google Scholar]
  19. SAATY T L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures[J]. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1977, 15(3): 234–281 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. WU Yuhua, ZHU Wei, LI Xinquan, et al. Interval approach to analysis of hierarchy process[J]. Journal of Tianjin University, 1995, 28(5): 700–705. [Article] (in Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  21. QU Bing, XIAO Rucheng, ZHONG Jian, et al. Application of improved AHP and group decision theory in bridge assessment[J]. Journal of Central South University, 2015, 46(11): 4204–4210. [Article] (in Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  22. SAATY T L, VARGAS L G. Models, methods, concepts and applications of the analytic hierarchy process[M]. 2nd ed. New York: Springer, 2001: 27–34 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. OSSADNIK W, SCHINKE S, KASPAR R H. Group aggregation techniques for analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: a comparative analysis[J]. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2015, 25(2): 421–457 [Google Scholar]
  24. YOU Jianxin, CHEN Yuting, GONG Huaping, et al. Improving FMEA based on cloud model and hierarchical agglomerative clustering[J]. Journal of Tongji University, 2021, 49(4): 599–605. [Article] (in Chinese) [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.