基于老年人视觉辨识能力的社区标识适老设计

doi:10.11996/JG.j.2095-302X.2026051188

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

随着我国人口老龄化进程的日益加速，构建无障碍与认知友好型社区环境已成为提升老年人生活质量、独立生活能力与安全感的重要议题，其中社区环境标识作为空间指引与信息交互的核心载体，其信息可达性与视觉易读性直接影响着老年人的出行便利及社会参与。本研究从老年人感知与理解标识时的图标辨识与语义匹配两类关键认知过程出发，旨在系统揭示我国社区老年人在典型环境标识辨识能力上的差异特征及其深层影响因素。为此，在北京、上海、重庆及成都4个代表性城市展开了前后对比实验，共采集到735名社区老年人的有效图标认知数据，考察了26个典型社区环境标识在图标辨识和语义匹配2个任务维度下的正确率表现。研究结果表明，受教育程度与两类任务的表现关联性最强，高学历群体在图标辨识与语义理解上均表现出显著更高的识别率；而在语义匹配任务中，不同年龄段的识别率呈现出明显的组间差异，其中60岁年龄组的语义识别正确率显著高于70岁和80岁年龄组，而70岁与80岁2个年龄组之间的认知表现则较为接近。基于上述发现，本研究针对实验中辨识正确率低于80%的高误读社区空间标识进行了系统性的适老化优化设计，后续再测试实验表明，重构后的标识在老年群体中的辨识正确率大幅提升了12.1%~25.3%。进一步揭示了老年人对环境视觉符号的认知加工规律与个体差异，并为未来适老化社区标识系统的规范化设计以及认知友好型社区的建设提供了切实可行的科学依据与实操指引。

关键词: 标识设计, 适老化设计, 视觉认知, 图标辨识, 语义匹配

Abstract:

With the accelerating aging process in China, building an accessible and cognitive-friendly community environment has become a crucial initiative to enhance older adults’ quality of life, independent living capabilities, and sense of security. As the core vehicle for spatial guidance and information interaction, community environmental signage directly affects older adults’ mobility and social participation through its information accessibility and visual legibility. Grounded in the two key cognitive processes involved when older adults perceive and comprehend signs-icon recognition and semantic matching-the aim was to systematically reveal the differential characteristics and underlying factors influencing Chinese community-dwelling older adults’ ability to recognize typical environmental signs. To this end, pre- and post-test comparative experiments were conducted across four representative cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing, and Chengdu), and valid icon-recognition data were collected from 735 community-dwelling older adults. Recognition accuracy was evaluated for 26 typical community environmental signs across both icon recognition and semantic matching dimensions. The results showed that educational attainment was most strongly associated with performance in both tasks, with significantly higher recognition rates observed among participants with higher education in both icon recognition and semantic comprehension. In the semantic matching task, distinct inter-group differences emerged across age brackets: the semantic-recognition accuracy of participants in their 60s was significantly higher than that of participants in their 70s and 80s, while cognitive performance between the 70s and 80s groups was relatively comparable. Based on these findings, systematic age-friendly optimization redesign was performed for frequently misinterpreted community signs with pre-test accuracy rates below 80%. Subsequent re-testing revealed that the re-designed signs increased recognition accuracy among older adults by 12.1% to 25.3%. The findings further revealed the cognitive processing patterns and individual variations of older adults regarding visual environmental symbols, and provided practical scientific evidence and actionable design guidelines for the standardized development of age-friendly community signage systems and the development of cognitively friendly communities.

Key words: signage design, age-friendly design, visual icon, signage recognition, semantic matching

中图分类号:

李哲林, 董诗语, 崔嘉, 熊志勇, 王文煜, 仝牧. 基于老年人视觉辨识能力的社区标识适老设计[J]. 图学学报, 2026, 47(5): 1188-1195.

LI Zhelin, DONG Shiyu, CUI Jia, XIONG Zhiyong, WANG Wenyu, TONG Mu. Design optimization of community signage for the elderly: an analysis of visual recognition factors[J]. Journal of Graphics, 2026, 47(5): 1188-1195.

图/表 12

参考文献 23

[1]	CALORI C, VANDEN-EYNDEN D. Signage and wayfinding design: a complete guide to creating environmental graphic design systems[M]. 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2015: 19-60.
[2]	ARIAS-FLORES H, VALENCIA-ARAGÓN K, SANCHEZ- GORDON S, et al. Evaluating signage accessibility for individuals with visual impairments: a case study in Ecuador[C]// The 18th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Cham: Springer, 2024: 382-392.
[3]	World Health Organization. China country assessment report on ageing and health[M]. Geneva: WHO, 2015: 9-52.
[4]	葛畅, 杨晶, 张元乐. 面向老旧小区改造的标识系统“失智友好”分级设计方法研究[J]. 设计, 2024, 37(21): 42-46.
	GE C, YANG J, ZHANG Y L. Research on the “dementia-friendly” grading design method of signage system for the renovation of old residential community[J]. Design, 2024, 37(21): 42-46 (in Chinese).
[5]	贾巍杨, 王小荣. 天津市公园无障碍标识设计调研与分析[J]. 风景园林, 2015(3): 67-72.
	JIA W Y, WANG X R. Survey & analysis on park accessible signs design in Tianjin city[J]. Landscape Architecture, 2015(3): 67-72 (in Chinese).
[6]	DENG L J, ZHANG B L, SHI G Y, et al. Elderly users’ perceptions of signage systems from tertiary hospitals in Guangzhou[J]. Heliyon, 2024, 10(3): e25003. DOI URL
[7]	ARDITI A. Rethinking ADA signage standards for low-vision accessibility[J]. Journal of Vision, 2017, 17(5): 8. DOI PMID
[8]	SANO A. Touchscreen smartphone user interfaces for older adults[J]. Scholarly Horizons: University of Minnesota, Morris Undergraduate Journal, 2017, 4(2): 7.
[9]	WANG Z Y, CHO J Y. Older adults’ response to color visibility in indoor residential environment using eye-tracking technology[J]. Sensors, 2022, 22(22): 8766. DOI URL
[10]	LESCH M F, HORREY W J, WOGALTER M S, et al. Age-related differences in warning symbol comprehension and training effectiveness: effects of familiarity, complexity, and comprehensibility[J]. Ergonomics, 2011, 54(10): 879-890. DOI PMID
[11]	HENDERSON S E, LOCKHART H A, DAVIS E E, et al. Reduced attentional control in older adults leads to deficits in flexible prioritization of visual working memory[J]. Brain Sciences, 2020, 10(8): 542. DOI URL
[12]	BROWN L J E, ADLAM T, HWANG F, et al. Computer-based tools for assessing micro-longitudinal patterns of cognitive function in older adults[J]. Age, 2016, 38(4): 335-350. DOI URL
[13]	ZHONG T S, LI S Y, LIU P Q, et al. The impact of education and occupation on cognitive impairment: a cross-sectional study in China[J]. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 2024, 16: 1435626. DOI URL
[14]	WOLFE J M. Guided search 6.0: an updated model of visual search[J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2021, 28(4): 1060-1092. DOI
[15]	WOGALTER M S, LAUGHERY K R. Warning! Sign and label effectiveness[J]. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1996, 5(2): 33-37. DOI URL
[16]	张宁, 王倩颖. 基于能力需求匹配模型的老年图标设计[J]. 包装工程, 2022, 43(6): 103-109, 133.
	ZHANG N, WANG Q Y. Icon designing based on ability demand matching model for the elderly[J]. Packaging Engineering, 2022, 43(6): 103-109, 133 (in Chinese).
[17]	彭宁玥, 薛澄岐. 基于特征推理的图标搜索特性实验研究[J]. 东南大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 47(4): 703-709.
	PENG N Y, XUE C Q. Experimental study on characteristics of icon searching based on feature inference[J]. Journal of Southeast University (Natural Science Edition), 2017, 47(4): 703-709 (in Chinese).
[18]	钱晓帆, 杨颖, 孙守迁. 图标形象度影响早期识别进程: 来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理科学, 2014, 37(1): 27-33.
	QIAN X F, YANG Y, SUN S Q. Exploring the effects of icon concreteness on the recognition process: an event-related potential study[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2014, 37(1): 27-33 (in Chinese).
[19]	闫蕴之. 图标设计元素的认知加工及其交互作用研究[D]. 广州: 广东工业大学, 2022.
	YAN Y Z. Research on cognitive processing and interaction of icon design elements[D]. Guangzhou: Guangdong University of Technology, 2022 (in Chinese).
[20]	MCDOUGALL S J P, CURRY M B, DE BRUIJN O. Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance for 239 symbols[J]. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 1999, 31(3): 487-519. DOI URL
[21]	SUN L, XU Y, TENG S J, et al. Research into the visual saliency of guide signs in an underground commercial street based on an eye movement experiment[J]. Sustainability, 2022, 14(23): 16062. DOI URL
[22]	中国标准化研究院, 国家铁路局, 北京视域四维城市导向系统规划设计有限公司. 公共信息导向系统规划设计指南[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2020.
	China National Institute of Standardization, State Railway Administration, Beijing Horizon Four Dimensional Urban Guidance System Planning and Design Co., Ltd. Public information guidance systems-guidelines for planning and design[S]. Beijing: China Standard Press, 2020 (in Chinese).
[23]	YAN Z Y, YE J Y, LI W J, et al. GPT-ImgEval:a comprehensive benchmark for diagnosing GPT4o in image generation[EB/OL]. [2025-06-01]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.02782.

题号与名称	选项 A	选项B	选项C
1.禁止鸣喇叭
2.注意行人
3.当心落物
4.当心触电
5.应急避难所
6.紧急医疗站

题号与名称	选项 A	选项B	选项C
1.禁止鸣喇叭
2.注意行人
3.当心落物
4.当心触电
5.应急避难所
6.紧急医疗站

题号	选项
7	□随手关门 □当心夹手 □开门 □禁止触摸
8	□禁止通行 □注意安全 □当心滑倒 □运动场所
9	□电灯开关 □消防设施 □禁止触摸 □火警报警按钮
10	□注意火灾 □消火栓 □手提式灭火器 □禁止携带易燃物品
11	□禁止使用轮椅 □停车场 □可使用轮椅 □无障碍停车位
12	□照明灯 □应急电话 □视频监控区域 □保持安静
13	□可回收物 □厨余垃圾 □其他垃圾 □有害垃圾
14	□紧急出口 □安全通道 □禁止堆放杂物 □禁止入内

题号	选项
7	□随手关门 □当心夹手 □开门 □禁止触摸
8	□禁止通行 □注意安全 □当心滑倒 □运动场所
9	□电灯开关 □消防设施 □禁止触摸 □火警报警按钮
10	□注意火灾 □消火栓 □手提式灭火器 □禁止携带易燃物品
11	□禁止使用轮椅 □停车场 □可使用轮椅 □无障碍停车位
12	□照明灯 □应急电话 □视频监控区域 □保持安静
13	□可回收物 □厨余垃圾 □其他垃圾 □有害垃圾
14	□紧急出口 □安全通道 □禁止堆放杂物 □禁止入内

年龄段	图标辨识正确率	语义匹配正确率	人数
60~69岁	0.569±0.017	0.606±0.018	159
70~79岁	0.542±0.015	0.504±0.018	194
80~89岁	0.500±0.031	0.439±0.038	51