research on architecture

• Hispanoamérica
• Work at ArchDaily
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

The Architect-Researcher: Exploring New Possibilities for the Production of Architecture

• Written by Andreea Cutieru
• Published on January 28, 2022

While research seems intrinsic to the design process, architectural research is a professional path in itself, whose purpose is to highlight scientific evidence and explore alternatives outside of pre-established norms or empirical considerations. Its purpose is to create a framework of knowledge that can inform the design to reach objectively better outcomes. The following discusses the role and state of research in architecture, some prominent areas of inquiry, and the architects or institutions that dedicate their work to these subjects.

In 2018, AIA stated that "the research available for study of architecture and buildings is disproportionate to its impact [on societies and economies] " and proposed an extensive research agenda while promoting increased investment in research and research literacy. The argument was that the way architecture addresses major technological, environmental and societal shifts "affects all levels of scale—from the individual to larger society" and thus requires research efforts at par with the implications.

Architectural Research versus Research Through Practice

Jeremy Till's canonical paper commissioned by RIBA, Architectural Research : Three Myths and One Model , argues that "architecture is a form of knowledge that can and should be developed through research", but most importantly, helps define what exactly constitutes research in architecture. In his essay, initially published in 2007, with a revised version presented in 2017, Till contradicts the idea that practice is intrinsically a form of research by saying that architecture knowledge exceeds the built object and that whatever knowledge a building contains, it is not explicitly communicated. He also critiques architecture's avoidance of research methodologies and makes a case for architectural research conducted through a paradigm specific to architecture rather than the methodologies of other fields it intersects in the process.

In his keynote lecture at KU Leuven's The Practice of Architectural Research Symposium , prof. Wilfried Wang describes architectural research as "publicly transparent, scientifically analytical and independently verifiable", thus distinguishing it from empirical ideas and assumptions stemming from daily practice. Architectural research falls under three categories: research that creates and expands knowledge, usually conducted within academia and research laboratories, applied research, designed for a specific application, transferring new pieces of knowledge into practice and project-based research.

Fields of Inquiry

Understanding how a building improves performance, influences health, or how the built environment impacts people's behaviour and cognitive functions, the potential of new technologies for architecture and construction, and material innovation are just some critical areas of study. In addition, new ideas in urbanism, studies on resilience, design interventions that reduce environmental impact, and understanding how could architecture improve equity are equally essential research needs within the field of architecture.

Neuroscience, human behaviour, health and wellbeing are currently flourishing areas of inquiry in architectural research, as the body of knowledge in these fields has expanded significantly during the last two decades. In this sense, the Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (ANFA) explores the intersection between design and behaviour, with a mission of using neuro and cognitive science research to improve the design of the built environment. The study of architecture through these lenses has also given rise to new areas of study such as environmental neuroscience and neuroarchitecture , shaping a scientific understanding of the built environment's impact on brain processes and behaviour.

Neri Oxman and her exploration of material ecology , or Jenny Sabin and her research into the application of science and biology into architecture pursue architecture innovation through transdisciplinarity and cross breedings of different areas of expertise. MIT's now discontinued Mediated Matter Group conducted research at the intersection of computational design, digital fabrication, materials science, and synthetic biology. At the same time, new technologies, whether those used in the design of buildings such as digital fabrication or technologies used in building operations are fertile ground for architectural research. Also at MIT, the Self-Assembly Lab looks to develop self-assembly and programmable material technologies, while the Sustainable Design Lab develops tools to evaluate the environmental performance of buildings. At the University of Stuttgart, Professor Achim Menges' research focuses on developing "design processes at the intersection of morphogenetic design computation, biomimetic engineering and computer-aided manufacturing", essentially working towards developing a new design and construction paradigm.

Research within the Practice

At the same time, research doesn't reside solely in academia, as some firms bring it at the forefront of their practice. Perkins+Will goes beyond the typical preoccupations of an architecture office and publishes a peer-reviewed journal twice a year for which researchers and designers investigate topics that, although might have the potential to inform future design projects, are developed outside the ordinary practice. In addition, the firm hosts several Research Labs, where, together with academics and experts in different fields, it pursues various lines of inquiry in building technology, human experience, material performance, mobility or resilience. The topics of these studies range from the impact of adaptive working behaviour on the carbon footprint, factors that reduce noise pollution in urban spaces or creating a framework of social equity indicators. Another take on research within the practice is White Arkitketer's Research Lab , whose agenda for 2020-2023 is to explore through interdisciplinary collaborations the subject of circular architecture, investigating product flows, transformation and re-use or strategies for climate positive projects.

Academic research has the shortcoming of being somewhat hermetic. While journals like Frontiers of Architectural Research disseminate works in the field of architectural research, and prestigious universities attempt to popularize their findings, they rarely penetrate through mainstream practice. Often criticized for being self-referential and inward-looking, architectural research is slowly developing its own methodologies, serving the design process in shaping a better built environment.

This article is part of the ArchDaily Topics: Architecture Without Buildings . Every month we explore a topic in-depth through articles, interviews, news, and projects. Learn more about our ArchDaily topics . As always, at ArchDaily we welcome the contributions of our readers; if you want to submit an article or project, contact us .

Image gallery

• Sustainability

想阅读文章的中文版本吗?

建筑生产者与建筑研究者，有何关系？

You've started following your first account, did you know.

You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.

Don’t miss AIA24 June 5–8! Save hundreds with special rates for AIA members & new AIA members >

AIA is empowering architects to use and engage in research to advance their firm, profession, and industry. Our research action plan includes increased investment, content prioritization from schools to firms, and improved dissemination.

AIA research goal

In a period of profound social, technological, and environmental shifts, the built environment must respond to the changing conditions facing communities, organizations, and individuals in ways that enhance human experience and well-being, minimize costs, maximize efficiency, optimize resources, and enhance quality of life.

Buildings in the United States are tremendously impactful, contributing a significant share of GDP. Architects play a critical role in the outcome of these buildings, which affect all levels of scale—from the individual to larger society. Yet the research available for study of architecture and buildings is disproportionate to its impact.

AIA is calling for:

• Increased investment through new and expanded funding, both private and public.
• Prioritize research within the architect core competencies and firm culture.
• Continue and expand dissemination of research and promote exchange of findings, as well as increase research literacy.

Our action plan

Increased investment.

We assert that research related to the built environment is underfunded considering its impact on the economy, human condition, and society at large. Architectural research is even more poorly funded.

• We will work to expand eligibility for government research grants related to including architects in research teams and/or directly funded.
• We believe industry and manufacturers should consult and engage architects in new product development and research and development efforts.
• We will enable possibilities for practicing architects to engage in relationships with academia, engage in research collaborations, and expand influence with other disciplines and industry.

Research content prioritization

AIA is committed to advancing research literacy in the profession. To do that in an impactful way, the commitment to research must extend from school all the way through practice and academic research. It is imperative that architects embrace research—both as critical consumers and, as warranted by interest and additional training, as researchers themselves. We will work to understand firm culture and provide guidance on how to adapt to changing integration of research into practice—however that is defined for a firm.

Improved dissemination

We are committed to making research more broadly available, connecting architects to where research resides.

• In its resources, AIA links to credible, vetted research. We encourage the same sharing and transparency throughout the profession.
• We are committed to helping develop consistent and useful approaches for post-occupancy evaluations, case studies, and key metrics. The AIA Knowledge Communities make contribution to research advancing the profession.
• We will continue to advance efforts to advance research literacy so that more architects can consume research within their workflows.

Explore architectural research

The AIA Upjohn Research Initiative and the AIA College of Fellows Latrobe Prize award funding to research that enhances the value of design and professional practice knowledge.

Our research agenda prioritizes research on the impact of architecture and the architectural profession beyond buildings. 

Research Labs

Self Assembly Lab

Urban Risk Lab

Architecture (un)certainty lab.

The planetary scale of life today has resulted in a radical enlargement of what it means to think architecture in the 21st century. At the same time, environmental urgencies, political entanglements, algorithmic interfaces, and cultural paradoxes keep multiplying leaving studio-focused pedagogies overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of the task. The tendency has been to reduce architecture to problem solving within the limited spectrum of professional competencies.

The ARCHITECTURE (UN)CERTAINTY LAB is dedicated to challenging architecture's epistemological and design capacities and bring the conversation back into a world of immersive ambiguities. The work that the lab promotes operates outside of subject-object and theory-practice dualities. The ARCHITECTURE (UN)CERTAINTY LAB thus identifies the classroom and seminar room, the sites of historically situated complex critical thinking, as the renewed locus of architectural education for the 21st century. It is only by first speculating on architecture at various levels - including at the scale of the global - that tomorrow’s architects can begin to imagine architecture as anything more than a limited solution to local exigencies. What is at stake is the very legitimacy of architecture in the 21st century. A(U)L is the pedagogical wing of O(U)R, [Office for (Un)certainty Research] the project-oriented studio run by Mark Jarzombek and Vikram Prakash.

Design Intelligence Lab

The Design Intelligence Lab , directed by Marcelo Coelho, is an MIT research lab inventing new forms of expression and collaboration between human and machine intelligence. Our work draws from industrial and interaction design, digital fabrication, manufacturing, and artificial intelligence to develop new kinds of objects, interactions, and networks that fundamentally expand and enhance the experiences we can develop with data and computation. 

Digital Structures

Digital Structures , a research group at MIT working at the interface of architecture, structural engineering, and computation. Digital Structures focuses on the synthetic integration of creative and technical goals in the design and fabrication of buildings, bridges, and other large-scale structures. The group is particularly interested in how digital techniques and tools can play an unexpected, collaborative role in these processes. Led by Professor Caitlin Mueller, the group is based in MIT’s Building Technology Program in the Department of Architecture, and also includes contributors from Civil and Environmental Engineering, and the Center for Computational Engineering.

Future Heritage Lab

The Future Heritage Lab collaborates with communities affected by conflict and crisis to collect and preserve histories of transcultural exchange and histories of threatened monuments, artifacts, textiles, and crafts. We design and implement civic-scale participatory ART projects that function as carriers of collective memory and as mediums to disseminate them.

Future Urban Collectives

Future Urban Collectives , led by Rafi Segal, is dedicated to an architecture for new forms of sharing and collaboration. As digital platforms and networks shift the production of space, trust, and value, Future Urban Collectives explores how architecture and urbanism can support and enhance cohabitation, coproduction, and coexistence across various scales of community. Combining digital platforms and physical design outcomes, Future Urban Collectives promotes an urban project, driven by a new kind of user and open to new programs and activities.

Infrastructure Architecture Lab

The Infrastructure Architecture Lab , directed by Arindam Dutta, conducts research on the relationships between broad, macroeconomic factors driving built infrastructure and the specificities of architectural and urban form. Lab researchers combine the knowledge frameworks and techniques of economic and planning theory with the practices of architectural design to study the real-world complexities that go into the making of infrastructure and its effects on built form.

Leventhal Center for Advanced Urbanism

The overall goal of the  MIT Norman B. Leventhal Center for Advanced Urbanism (LCAU) , co-directed by Alan Berger and James Wescoat, is to establish a new theoretical and applied research platform to transform the quality of urban life. LCAU is committed to achieving this goal via collaborative interdisciplinary research projects, intellectual discourse, leadership forums and conferences, publications, education of a new generation of leaders in the field, and a distinctive, highly influential presence at international gatherings focused on urbanism.

P-REX: The Project for Reclamation Excellence

P-REX lab at MIT (est. in 2002 as P-REX: The Project for Reclamation Excellence), is a sustained effort to redesign environments after large-scale landscape alteration has taken place, urban or otherwise. P-REX analyzes landscape systems to embed long-term sustainability and environmental intelligence in planning and design projects. We seek to find the largest possible ecological benefits for sites, across scales from local to regional.

Prototypes of Prefabrication Research Laboratory

The  Prototypes of Prefabrication Research Laboratory (POPlab) co-directed by Anton García-Abril and Debora Mesa, investigates prefabrication in the design and construction of architecture and urban environments, applying a scientific vision that results in spaces that are better thought, better engineered, and better built. The lab works at multiple scales developing technologies and systems that aim to have an impact in our built reality. In this hands-on laboratory, ideas are tested in the physical world.

Self-Assembly Lab

The  Self-Assembly Lab , directed by Skylar Tibbits, is a cross-disciplinary research lab at MIT inventing self-assembly and programmable material technologies. Our goals are to re-imagine processes of construction, manufacturing and infrastructure in the built environment.

Special Interest Group in Urban Settlement

The  Special Interest Group in Urban Settlement (SIGUS) , directed by Reinhard Goethert, links housing and community interests. We offer workshops and short courses, and carry out research stressing participatory methods in promoting affordable and equitable housing. SIGUS started in 1984, grew out of experience in developing countries, and has evolved to include the developed countries, applying a common set of issues and approaches.

Structural Design Lab

The  Structural Design Lab  at MIT is an interdisciplinary research group focused on conceptual structural design. Led by Professor John Ochsendorf, the group includes undergraduate and graduate students pursuing degrees in Civil Engineering and Architecture. Research interests include form-finding, funicular structures, structural optimization, and interactive design processes.

Sustainable Design Lab

The  Sustainable Design Lab  at MIT produces speculative and applied research that facilitates the design of resource-efficient and comfortable environments at the building and neighborhood scale. The lab's goal is to change current architectural practice by developing workflows and performance metrics that improve design solutions for occupant comfort and building energy. The Lab is led by Christoph Reinhart.

Operating as designers at the intersection of disaster management and risk engineering, hurricanes and earthquakes, ecology and infrastructure, rural and urban, research and action, the  Urban Risk Lab  is a cross-disciplinary organization of researchers and designers addressing the most challenging aspects of contemporary urbanization. We develop methods to embed risk reduction and preparedness into the design of the regions, cities and everyday urban spaces to increase the resilience of local communities. The Urban Risk Lab is directed by Miho Mazereeuw.

Virtual Experience Design Lab

The  virtualXdesign  seeks to pioneer the integration of immersive technologies into research and education. The lab brings together faculty, researchers and students across MIT to conduct cutting edge research on emerging digital technologies and to create innovative and thought-provoking projects at the intersection of design, science, and engineering. Our research reaches a broad community through our publications, presentations in prominent venues, intensive workshops, and exhibitions.

Research Areas

Aerogel insulation.

Through the DuPont MIT Alliance (DMA), an interdisciplinary team led by Profs. Leon Glicksman (PI), Lorna Gibson and Gang Chen is developing high-performance thermal insulation panels based on a formulation of silica aerogels developed at MIT. The aerogel samples perform better than commercially available products while requiring less material; meanwhile, the innovative panel design provides great structural support with minimal impact to the conductivity. This research may lead to a new high-performance thermal insulation product.

Aga Khan Program in Islamic Architecture

The Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at MIT (AKPIA@MIT) conducts a broad program of research on architectural history, landscape, water, hazards, and university campus design in the Islamic world.

Research projects include collaborative initiatives with the: -Aga Khan Development Network (architecture, landscape, hazards, heritage, water, design) - National academies of science and environmental design (water, environment, hazards, design) - MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI), TATA Fellows Program (water, environment, energy, food, design)

Architecture Representation and Computation

Principal researcher: Takehiko Nagakura Founded in 1996, the Architecture Representation and Computation Group sponsors a wide range of education and research activities to students and visiting scholars at MIT's Department of Architecture. The group's challenge is innovative use of computation for solving problems stemmed in contexts of architectural design practice. Current projects encompass software and hardware development, computer graphics content creation, and design work for architectural competitions and building projects.

Composite Architectures

Prof. Mark Goulthorpe is looking to combine digital design and fabrication logics with composite material processing to bring forwards a highly automated and lightweight base-building methodology. This looks to radically streamlining current building-procurement logic via a highly automated and unitary fabrication process, and to attain very environmentally benign yet highly resilient building envelopes and structures. This work is being carried out by a network of academic and industry partners, looking to validate performance (structural design and testing by Mark Bishop, fire engineering and testing by Prof Nick Dempsey at WPI, environmental assessment by Prof Mike Lepech at Stanford). The goal is to prove-up such new base-building technology via prototypes and pilot projects, and then to drive it into commercial production, initially targeting housing, aiming at developing world markets in particular.

Computational Making Research Group

Director: Terry Knight The Computational Making research group is articulating a new area of interdisciplinary research on the processes and practices of making across contexts and scales. In recent years, there has been growing interest in materials and material practices, and in “making” and “makers”, usually revolving around digital fabrication. Our work aims to expand the study of making beyond its current bounds. We view making as an improvisational, action-centric, embodied, and situated activity. We examine the potentials of computational theories and techniques for understanding and enhancing making activities.  

Digital Design and Fabrication

Principal researcher: Larry Sass The Digital Design and Fabrication group is a center for education and research in areas of rapid prototyping and CAD/CAM fabrication for architects and designers. The group engages faculty, students and staff in research focused on the relationship between design computing and physical output used for design representation and reflection.  

The Guastavino Project

The Guastavino Project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is dedicated to documenting and preserving the tile vaulted works of the Guastavino Company. In the late 19th and early 20th century, Rafael Guastavino Moreno and his son Rafael Guastavino Exposito were responsible for designing tile vaults in nearly a thousand buildings around the world, of which more than 600 survive to the present day.

Platform for a Permanent Modernity

The Platform for a Permanent Modernity (PPM) investigates operational templates of public form that integrate architecture, infrastructure, and landscape into elements of a lasting territorial order. Its hypothesis entails the possibility of a public reading of the territory through forms of permanence, while accommodating uncertainty and change within and around these interventions.

Shape Grammars

Principal researchers: George Stiny, Terry Knight, Takehiko Nagakura This group is engaged in a broad range of work on Shape Grammars, a visual and generative system for creating and describing designs on multiple levels. Work on shape and shape representation at the theoretical level aims at a new computational basis for design. Work on practical applications focuses on the potential of shape grammars in stylistic analysis and in the creative design process. Faculty and students are also exploring the use and development of digital and web-based technologies, computer software, and remote collaboration for supporting shape grammar applications.

The West Philadelphia Landscape Project

Director: Anne Whiston Spirn The West Philadelphia Landscape Project (WPLP) is a three-decade-long action research project, which integrates research and practice in ways that are synergistic through strategic design, planning, and education projects that restore nature and rebuild community. WPLP studies vexing problems that are usually treated separately, such as vacant urban land, polluted water, and troubled public schools, and views them as opportunities for integrated solutions rather than disconnected liabilities. It combines top-down (comprehensive) and bottom-up (grassroots) approaches. Since 1987,   WPLP has engaged many organizations and hundreds of individuals, including groups who rarely work together such as inner-city residents, middle-school children, university students, and municipal water engineers.

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Review article, the embodiment of architectural experience: a methodological perspective on neuro-architecture.

• 1 Biological Psychology and Neuroergonomics, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
• 2 Department of Architecture, Design and Media Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

People spend a large portion of their time inside built environments. Research in neuro-architecture—the neural basis of human perception of and interaction with the surrounding architecture—promises to advance our understanding of the cognitive processes underlying this common human experience and also to inspire evidence-based architectural design principles. This article examines the current state of the field and offers a path for moving closer to fulfilling this promise. The paper is structured in three sections, beginning with an introduction to neuro-architecture, outlining its main objectives and giving an overview of experimental research in the field. Afterward, two methodological limitations attending current brain-imaging architectural research are discussed: the first concerns the limited focus of the research, which is often restricted to the aesthetic dimension of architectural experience; the second concerns practical limitations imposed by the typical experimental tools and methods, which often require participants to remain stationary and prevent naturalistic interaction with architectural surroundings. Next, we propose that the theoretical basis of ecological psychology provides a framework for addressing these limitations and motivates emphasizing the role of embodied exploration in architectural experience, which encompasses but is not limited to aesthetic contemplation. In this section, some basic concepts within ecological psychology and their convergences with architecture are described. Lastly, we introduce Mobile Brain/Body Imaging (MoBI) as one emerging brain imaging approach with the potential to improve the ecological validity of neuro-architecture research. Accordingly, we suggest that combining theoretical and conceptual resources from ecological psychology with state-of-the-art neuroscience methods (Mobile Brain/Body Imaging) is a promising way to bring neuro-architecture closer to accomplishing its scientific and practical goals.

A Brief Introduction: From Pre-Neuro-Architecture to Neuro-Architecture

Before the recent development of neuro-architecture as a research field ( Eberhard and Gage, 2003 ; Eberhard, 2009b ; Ruiz-Arellano, 2015 ), many scholars studied psychological and behavioral effects of architectural experiences in their own way. If we consider architecture as “composed structural space,” three themes that reoccur in the history of architecture practice and theory are those of utilitas, firmitas, et venustas , or utility, strength, and beauty ( Pollio, 1914 ), even if this architectural triad has changed in balance and definition at different points in time. For instance, not only were the Egyptian pyramids a utility and structural achievement, but the spatial design decisions were based on beliefs about the passage from this world to the afterworld and the goal of inducing in visitors experiences related to the afterworld ( Fazio et al., 2008 , p. 27–33). Equally, the Greeks, who were deeply inspired by Egyptian culture ( Rutherford, 2016 ), refined their understanding of buildings expressed in their symmetrical and pillared architecture but continued to reserve special places in the city for buildings that were considered important, such as temples. Important buildings are situated in important places, which remains a common way of building today.

Throughout the history of architecture, from Byzantine, Islamic, Medieval and Romanesque eras to Gothic, Renaissance, and Baroque architecture, the conception of architecture continuously approximated a powerful spiritual status ( Fazio et al., 2008 , p. 1–7). Dominating cities and important religious buildings, including churches, temples, and mosques, were carefully designed according to cultural beliefs. The implicit agreement, throughout history, seems to be that architecture, through its utility, strength, and beauty, affects the human perceiver beyond the ordinary, material world as we know it because it affects the soul and mind ( Stendhal, 2010 ). The relation between divinity and architecture was also expressed by applying the laws of nature in spatial ratios and proportions expressed both through the facades and the plan of buildings [see e.g., Palladio (1965) ]. At any rate, although design decisions about the spatial structures had for a long time been guided by metaphysical views about how the space affects the perceiver, in the nineteenth century this came to change as religion, science and technology became more independent cultural forces.

With technological advancements, such as reinforced concrete, architects began exploring how beauty emerged from the structure and utility of the building itself ( Frascari, 1983 ; Frampton, 1985 ; Corbusier, 2013 ). Open spaces with wide-spanning beams and few structural elements commenced a turn toward the performance of the building. Statements of influential architects point to the importance of functionality for architectural design, such as Louis Sullivan 1 , Mies van der Rohe 2 , or Augustus Pugin 3 . Modern architecture has developed into an interdisciplinary field, taking advantage of the experience of other areas of science, and especially ergonomics has increasingly been reflected in modern architecture ( Charytonowicz, 2000 ).

Modernism made one of its marks through the famous 1910 essay by Loos (2019) in which he describes how ornamentation and art had no function and were thus redundant. In European building culture, it became customary for those influenced by these ideas to see any artistic addition or ornamentation to the interior of spaces or the exterior of buildings as superfluous and to be avoided. Instead, the focus was reoriented toward the building performance, e.g., increased window sizes, bigger open spaces, rethinking city infrastructure according to means of transportation, etc. Architects would optimize the building for its conceptual function and consequently base their design decisions on how well the building would perform. The users of the building, on the other hand, have been reduced to a matter of physical proportions ( Corbusier, 1954 ) associated with a series of assumptions on psychological and behavioral impact.

The pre-neuro-architecture belief that spatial configurations alter psychological and behavioral outcomes is clear throughout history. Designing the world meant to design human lives (including their afterlife according to the ancient Egyptians). Yet, exactly how the designed environment affects our lives remains uncovered and typically inaccessible in the writings of architects and architectural scholars. It is not the question of why we place important buildings in important places in the cities, but why we consider places to be important to begin with. If it is due to its visual exposure from within as well as from exterior vantage points, then we must acknowledge that it is based on the properties of human perception. This is precisely where neuro-architecture comes in.

Neuro-Architecture Definition and Objectives

Neuro-architecture can be seen as an emerging field that combines neuroscience, environmental psychology, and architecture to focus on human brain dynamics resulting from action in and interaction with the built environment ( Karakas and Yildiz, 2020 ). Some scholars also describe neuro-architecture as a field where architects collaborate with neuroscientists to scientifically explore the relationship between individuals and their surrounding environment ( Ezzat Ahmed and Kamel, 2021 ). Regarding the rise of this discipline, the necessity of convergence among architects and neuroscientists was first mentioned in 2003 in an interview with Eberhard and Gage (2003 ; see also Azzazy et al., 2021 ). In that year, the first academic organization focusing on neuro-architecture was formed, the Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (ANFA; Ruiz-Arellano, 2015 ).

According to Azzazy et al. (2021) , the main objective of neuro-architecture is to study the impact of the architectural environment on the neural system. Based on the understanding of how the brain perceives its surroundings, neuroscience can improve the design process, design strategies, and inform regulations that eventually improve human health and well-being in the future ( Eberhard, 2009b ; Dougherty and Arbib, 2013 ; Azzazy et al., 2021 ). One of the primary foci of this framework is to investigate peoples’ experiences in various contexts, such as the role of office space design in the reduction of stress and increase in productivity, how the design of hospital rooms enhances the recovery of patients, or how the design of churches increases the sense of awe and inspiration.

Overview of Research Paradigms and Methods in Neuro-Architecture

With the continuous development of new brain imaging technologies and new experimental paradigms over the last decades, recent neuro-architectural studies have become increasingly sophisticated. The studies can be roughly divided into two categories that either require participants to remain motionless (stationary paradigms) or that allow physical interaction with the environment (mobile paradigms). Stationary neuroimaging protocols present participants with static visual stimuli of architectural environments while they are sitting in a well-controlled laboratory or while lying in a scanner. Stationary imaging methods like magnetoencephalography (MEG), electroencephalography (EEG), or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) can reveal the neural basis of statically experiencing the built environment. While the experimental control of stationary architectural studies is often high, the ecological validity is usually low as only two-dimensional snapshots of complex three-dimensional environments are presented that do not allow any kind of interaction with the perceived environment. Mobile protocols, in contrast, allow participants to actively experience real or virtual three-dimensional artifacts with high ecological validity, at the cost of introducing noise to the recordings due to uncontrollable environments and movement-related artifacts in the few select imaging methods that are portable ( Gramann et al., 2021 ). Thus, while stationary protocols allow for experimental control they might not be able to measure the neural aspects of humans perceiving and interacting with the built environment, rendering mobile brain imaging methods an important tool to gain deeper insights into the impact of architecture on the human experience and behavior. Together, results from both stationary and mobile brain imaging approaches can complement each other and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the human brain. Several studies using stationary protocols provided first important insights into the relationship of architectural design and human brain responses. These will be introduced in the next section.

Neuro-Architecture Research Methods, Findings and Limitations

Previous studies in neuro-architecture.

Most existing neuro-architectural studies are based on stationary protocols with participants focusing on visual stimuli while being seated or lying down to measure the subjective experience of architectural aesthetics. Investigating event-related potentials (ERP) of the EEG, Oppenheim et al. (2009 , 2010) found that buildings that rank high regarding their social status as they are designed to be more important (like government buildings) or sublime (like religious buildings) have more impact on the perception of sublimity than low-ranking buildings (such as buildings associated with economy or the private life). In these studies, the hippocampus was shown to contribute to the processing of architectural ranking. Other studies discovered that participants perceived curvilinear spaces as more beautiful than rectilinear ones ( Vartanian et al., 2013 ). Using fMRI, the authors explored the neural mechanism behind this phenomenon and found that when participants made approach-avoidance decisions, images of curvilinear architectural interiors activated the lingual and the calcarine gyrus in the visual cortex more than images of rectilinear interiors. When contemplating beauty, curvilinear contours activated the anterior cingulate cortex exclusively ( Vartanian et al., 2013 ). Using the same fMRI dataset, Vartanian et al. (2015) also examined the effects of ceiling height and perceived enclosure on aesthetic judgments in architectural design. They found that rooms with higher ceilings were more likely to be judged as beautiful and activated structures involved in visuospatial exploration and attention in the dorsal stream. Open rooms were judged as more beautiful compared with enclosed rooms and activated regions in the temporal lobes associated with perceived visual motion ( Vartanian et al., 2015 ).

While visual sensory information about architectural features directly impacts architectural experience and the accompanying brain dynamics, higher cognitive processes were also shown to provoke changes in brain activity in the context of architectural experience. For example, expectations about aesthetic value moderated people’s aesthetic judgment. Kirk et al. (2009b) found that if the same image was labeled as being sourced from a gallery rather than being computer generated, its aesthetic ratings were significantly higher. The neural mechanisms involved in this difference in aesthetic ratings were traced to the medial orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and the prefrontal cortex (PFC; Kirk et al., 2009b ). Memories and experience can also moderate architectural aesthetics judgments. This was shown by Kirk et al. (2009b) who found that architects, compared with non-architects, had increased activity of the bilateral medial OFC and the subcallosal cingulate gyrus, when making aesthetic judgments about buildings, rather than faces. These results show that expertise can modulate the response in reward-related brain areas ( Kirk et al., 2009b ).

While most of the above-described studies focused on the impact of architecture on aesthetic judgments and the accompanying brain dynamics, another line of research focuses on the impact of architectural designs on people’s emotional and affective state. As there are too many studies in this area to report in detail [for an overview see Higuera-Trujillo et al. (2021) ], the following exemplary studies suffice to provide the reader with a broad sense of the research questions and imaging methods used in this field. For example, using EEG in a psychophysics experiment, Naghibi Rad et al. (2019) investigated the impact that window shapes in building facades had on the perceivers’ emotional state and cortical activity. Their behavioral results showed that rectangular, square, circular and semi-circular arches were considered as pleasant window shapes, while windows with triangle and triangular arches were determined as unpleasant. Regarding ERP results, the authors found that the effect of pleasant stimuli was larger in the left hemisphere than that of unpleasant ones ( Naghibi Rad et al., 2019 ), consistent with previous notions of lateralization with regards to emotional processes ( Dimond and Farrington, 1977 ; Reuter-Lorenz and Davidson, 1981 ; Canli et al., 1998 ). By using physiological sensors, such as EEG, Galvanic Skin Response (GSR), and eye-tracking (ET), Shemesh et al. (2021) examined the connection between geometrical aspects of architectural spaces (such as scale, proportion, protrusion, and curvature) and the user’s emotional state in expert and non-expert participants (designers and non-designers, respectively). In general, they found that large symmetrical spaces positively affect users. In addition, the more extreme a change of proportion in height P(H) or width P(W) of virtual spaces was displayed, the stronger the response of distress was observed. All physiological measurements demonstrated significantly increased signals in non-designers than those of designers. This study reflected the connection between manipulations in the geometry of the virtual space and the user’s emotional reaction, especially for non-designers ( Shemesh et al., 2021 ). Analyzing the neural response to restorative environments to investigate stress restoration, Martínez-Soto et al. (2013) found that exposure to restorative environments (like buildings with vegetation-surrounding) led to activation of the middle frontal gyrus, middle and inferior temporal gyrus, insula, inferior parietal lobe, and cuneus. Their findings reflected that endogenous, top-down, directed attention is more active during viewing of low restorative potential vs. high restorative potential environments. This article provided empirical evidence that building-integrated vegetation could be considered for architects in order to improve stress-restoration for residents. As a last example, a study by Fich et al. (2014) found that participants immersed in an enclosed virtual room without windows exhibited greater reactivity to a stress test than those in a virtual room with windows. Physiological reactions of this stress state consisted of both heightened and prolonged spikes in salivary cortisol ( Fich et al., 2014 ). This finding is also consistent with the conclusion of Vartanian et al. (2015) , who found that participants were more likely to judge open rooms as beautiful as compared to enclosed rooms.

Methodological Limitations of Existing Neuro-Architecture Research

A recent literature review in the field of neuro-architecture ( Higuera-Trujillo et al., 2021 ) provided a summary of limitations of current neuro-architectural research. The first limitation, according to the authors, is that the majority of studies are confined to architectural aesthetics, not regarding other aspects of architecture like ergonomics, affordances, or functionality. Accordingly, the authors point out that it is not possible to liken architectural experience to the artistic-aesthetic experience because the latter is only one of the components of the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture ( Higuera-Trujillo et al., 2021 ). Combining architectural ergonomics with architectural aesthetics facilitates architectural research as it leads to a more comprehensive picture of how architecture is perceived and acted upon. That is, the utility and beauty should be investigated in combination along with the underlying neural mechanism of the user interacting with the environment.

A second limitation according to Higuera-Trujillo et al. (2021) is the low ecological validity of established brain imaging methods that come with significant restrictions regarding the mobility of the participant. Data collection in stationary participants experiencing 2D images of architectural designs come with reduced ecological validity in neuro-architecture research ( Higuera-Trujillo et al., 2021 ). Experimental design and techniques that allow participants to freely explore their built environment will provide an ecological account of the psychological and behavioral phenomena underlying human-architecture interactions.

New Horizons for Architectural Neuroscience

There is a demand for new research approaches to neuro-architecture expanding the horizon for neuroscience and resulting in a wider knowledge base for architecture ( Eberhard, 2009a ). Aligned with Eberhard’s proposition, our contention is that current neuro-architecture methodology should be compatible with ecological psychology (one of many aspects of embodied cognitive sciences) and should make use of mobile brain imaging approaches in order to overcome the above-described limitations.

Architectural experiences are embodied in the sense that people physically interact with architectural spaces while moving through a building, opening doors, or taking the stairs to perceive different perspectives of the built environment through movement ( Pektaş, 2021 ). Therefore, the research object of neuro-architecture itself has inherent embodied features and the appropriate research methodology should also correspond to these embodied properties. In general, the proposed methodology for an ecologically more valid neuro-architecture should be in line with an architectural interaction process which is constituted by closely linked perception and action, and by an indispensable connection of our body, brain, and the environment. Architectural environments provide us with action possibilities ( Jelić et al., 2016 ). The possibilities to act emerge from, and are automatically processed by, our brain-body system during active exploration of our surroundings.

In what follows, we first introduce the theoretical foundation of ecological psychology to then address how ecological psychology theories can be integrated with architectural principles and how the neuro-architectural research questions can be extended from aesthetics to ergonomics within an ecological psychology framework. This offers a solution to existing limitations in current neuro-architectural research. Secondly, we will introduce Mobile Brain/Body Imaging (MoBI; Makeig et al., 2009 ; Gramann et al., 2011 , 2014 ) as one emerging brain imaging approach with the potential to improve the ecological validity of neuro-architecture research. By introducing representative MoBI studies, we will elucidate how the neuro-architectural research’s limitation with regards to brain imaging technique can be overcome.

Extending the Research Question From Aesthetics to Ergonomics Using the Framework of Ecological Psychology

Ecological psychology is an embodied, situated, and non-representationalist approach to cognition pioneered by J. J. Gibson (1904–1979) in the field of perception and by E. J. Gibson (1910–2002) in the field of developmental psychology ( Richardson et al., 2008 ; Lobo et al., 2018 ). Theorizing in psychology has traditionally relied on a number of dichotomies, including those of perception and action, of organism and environment, of subject and object, and of mind and body. The “ecological approach” as articulated by Gibson offers an alternative way of understanding psychological phenomena that challenges these concepts and categories. One illustration of this anti-dualism is evident in the name of the approach. Ecology is the branch of biological science concerned with understanding the relations that biological organisms bear to other organisms and to the environment. The Gibsonian approach is “ecological” because, in contrast with the idea that psychology studies the organism (i.e., its mind and behavior), it instead sees relations between organism and environment as the proper level of analysis: in this view, understanding the organism-environment system as a whole is the starting point for understanding mind and behavior (see e.g., Michaels and Palatinus (2014) ).

Following from this, another dichotomy rejected in the ecological approach is the one between perception and action. As it is usually conceived, perception is an “indirect” process in which meaning is attached to otherwise meaningless or ambiguous sensory information via “detailed internal representations” ( Handford et al., 1997 ; Craig and Watson, 2011 ; Rogers, 2017 ); or as the prominent cognitive scientist David Marr put it, “vision is the process of discovering from images what is present in the world and where it is” ( Marr, 1982 , p. 3). Importantly, in this understanding of perception as a matter of internally reconstructing the external world, perception is also seen as distinct and independent from action: moving around can change the input for perception, but it does not significantly alter the perceptual process itself. Ecological psychology challenges this view by treating perception and action as mutual, reciprocal, continuous and symmetrically constraining processes ( Warren, 2006 ; Richardson et al., 2008 ; Heras-Escribano, 2021 ). In the Gibsonian view, perception isn’t merely associated with action, but it is an action, a process of active exploration of the environment: “perceiving is an act, not a response, an act of attention, not a triggered impression, an achievement, not a reflex” ( Gibson, 1979 , p. 149). As a result, in contrast with the description of the visual system as extracting information about the external world from images, Gibson proposed that the visual system is itself constituted by eyes “set in a head that can turn, attached to a body that can move from place to place” ( Gibson, 1979 , p. 53). And besides being inherently active, perception is also for action—a claim that is central to the Gibsonian theory of affordances.

Affordances

“Affordance” is the term that Gibson (1966; 1977; 1979 ) coined to refer to the possibilities for action that the environment offers to a given organism or agent. For example, a chair affords sitting on, a cup affords grasping with one hand and drinking from, and a table affords supporting the cup. For Gibson, we don’t simply perceive chairs, cups and tables as such (i.e., as mere material objects), but rather we perceive the opportunities for action that those objects make possible for us. It is in this sense that, in the ecological view, perception is for action: perception is of affordances. Importantly, however, affordances are not properties of the objects in and of themselves. The uses and meaning that objects have (i.e., their affordances) are relative to some organism or other. For instance, in the examples just given, the cup only affords grasping and holding for agents that have opposable thumbs (or their functional equivalent); for other organisms, the cup affords different uses, including hiding behind or inside (e.g., for an insect) and a place within which to grow (e.g., for a plant, if the cup is used as a vase). Similarly, the chair affords sitting on, and it also affords stepping on (e.g., to change a lightbulb), but only for people of a certain height: for others (e.g., babies) the chair might afford hiding under or support for standing up, but it might be too tall for other uses.

It is for reasons such as these that affordances have been traditionally understood as relational or agent-relative properties: affordances are “relations between the abilities of organisms and features of the environment” [ Chemero, 2003 , p. 189; see also Chemero (2011) ]. In a landmark study that provided early support for this relational understanding of affordances, Warren (1984) found that the boundary between climbable and unclimbable stairways corresponds to a fixed ratio between riser height and leg length. That is, instead of the stairway having the affordance of “climbability” on its own, the affordance is rather a relational property, and one that participants in Warren’s study were found to be perceptually sensitive to Warren (1984) . This research provided a methodology called intrinsic measurement to quantify affordances, since the unit of climbability is not an extrinsic unit such as centimeters, but the unit intrinsic to the body-environment relation that depends on leg lengths ( Warren, 1984 ). In a follow-up study Warren and Whang (1987) found similar results for the visual guidance of walking through apertures like doorways or other gaps on a wall: consistent with the findings from the study on stairways, an aperture’s passability was found to correspond to an objective body-scale ratio (i.e., a relational property) that is visually perceivable ( Warren and Whang, 1987 ).

Other studies have shown that our perceptual access to such action boundaries fixed at body-scale ratios is not static, but can change over time with changes in body-scale: this varies from the short-term effect that wearing a tall wooden block under one’s shoes has on the perception of opportunities for sitting and stair climbing ( Mark, 1987 ) up to comparatively longer-term effect of bodily changes during pregnancy on (the perception of) the passability of apertures ( Franchak and Adolph, 2014 ). Interestingly, some of these and other studies have found that participants were wildly inaccurate when asked to estimate absolute properties (such as heights and widths in centimeters or inches), which suggests that the perception of affordances (i.e., agent-relative properties) is more fundamental than, and independent from, the perception of non-agent-relative properties.

As these examples illustrate, the concept of affordance undermines the dichotomy of perception and action because, in this view, perception is the active exploration of opportunities for action in the environment (i.e., affordances). Moreover, the ecological theory of affordance perception also illustrates the rejection of the dichotomies between organism and environment, subject and object: as relational properties, affordances are features of an organism-environment system as a whole rather than characteristics of the environment and environmental objects on their own. And insofar as affordances constitute the action possibilities that an object or the environment offers some agent, the ecological approach also challenges traditional separations between mind and body. In this view the functional “meaning” of an object does not belong to an immaterial mental dimension separate from the material dimension of the body, as if the mind has to interpret sensory stimulation in order to infer what might be possible to do: rather, affordances are the action opportunities that objects have for some agent (and that the agent can directly perceive) precisely because of the agent’s particular physical structure and bodily activity.

Through embodied experience in architectural spaces we thus encounter possibilities for action that are linked to affective, cognitive, and physiological responses. In this sense, architecture shapes the way we perceive the environment. This should change the view on how architecture influences brain dynamics. Moreover, Warren’s (1984) research can be considered as an exemplary case to combine affordances with ergonomics in an architectural environment. The intrinsic measurement of this study demonstrates that research questions on ergonomic dimensions in architecture can be raised at the ecological scale allowing for a better understanding of the user’s interaction with the architectural environment in terms of complementarity between subjective capacities and objective properties. For instance, inspired by the above studies ( Warren, 1984 ; Mark, 1987 ; Warren and Whang, 1987 ; Franchak and Adolph, 2014 ), in neuro-architectural research the operationalization of experimental variables with regards to architectural affordances should take into account both environmental properties (such as the height of stairs, the size of the apertures, etc.) and participants’ physical capabilities (such as the height of legs, the width changes of the body during pregnancy, etc.). It is promising to investigate this complementarity between architectural properties and the users’ embodied abilities at the ecological scale and also its underlying brain dynamics. In addition, it demonstrates the potential of neuro-architectural research questions to be extended from aesthetics to ergonomics within an ecological psychology framework.

Active Exploration

As just seen, according to ecological psychology agents perceive affordances in a direct process of embodied activity: it is through the agents’ active exploration of the environment ( Michaels and Carello, 1981 ; Heft, 1989 ; Rietveld and Kiverstein, 2014 ) that affordances are perceived, rendering the embodied experience of the built environment a perception-action loop. While in the last section we described how affordances impact active exploration, we now turn to the impact of active exploration on affordances.

Architectural affordances are perceived directly when we move through the built environment. When the observer remains stationary, or when architecture is presented as an image, architectural affordances will be limited to this one specific perspective ( Heft, 2010 ). As stated by Heras-Escribano (2019) , all organisms perceive affordances directly on the condition of unrestricted exploration and sufficient ecological information in their environment. The significance of active exploration is not only reflected in the process to discover new affordances, but also in the process of modifying existing perceptual information. The popular optical illusion of the Ames room (see Figure 1 ; Ittelson, 1952 ) was discussed by Gibson to demonstrate that the illusion could be reduced through unrestricted exploration ( Gibson, 1979 ). Under a single and stationary point of observation of the Ames Room, the eye of the observer is fooled. When an observer views the Ames Room from various angles with binocular information, however, it is easy to notice the sharp sloped floor of the room. Normally, the ceiling and floor are parallel and walls are at a right angle to the ground; but when looking into the Ames Room, the observer can only assume that the room is geometric if active exploration is restricted. Once the observer discovers the abnormal conditions of the Ames room through active exploration, the observer will immediately reject their earlier assumption and also the existing illusory impression ( Gibson, 1979 ). In short, the exploratory activity is crucial for both picking up new affordances and modifying existing ones. Therefore, active exploration is the core ecological approach for investigating an agents’ perception of architectural affordances.

Figure 1. A sketch of the Ames Room. (A) Displays what the perceiver encounters from a given point. Color-codes are used throughout the diagrams. (B) Displays a conceptual plan-drawing of an Ames Room. The red dashed lines represent the field of view of the perceiver. (C) Reveals the actual conditions under which an Ames room functions. The red dashed lines represent the field of view of the perceiver, while the blue dashed lines represent the outline of a rectangle, which the Ames room illusion suggests to exist from a specific angle (A) .

The Convergence of “Exploration” and “Affordance” With Architectural Design

Ecological psychology provides us with a relational perspective to account for perception and action: perception is for action, and action is for perception. This perception-action loop is neither understood as an organism-only nor an environment-only scale, but as co-depending between organism and environment. As affordances of most environments have been designed either by ourselves (e.g., our private spaces) or by architects (e.g., public spaces), we briefly investigate how architectural affordances relate to active exploration. Providing examples of ergonomic dimensions of architectural experience, the following illustrations demonstrate the convergence of “exploration” and “affordance” with architectural design.

Affordances and active exploration are not only theoretical tenets of ecological psychology, but a practical requirement of architecture: after all, every built environment, whether natural or virtual, has affordances. Instead, we focus on features of architecture that have an inviting affordance that appeals to the physical structure of the organism and its immediate relation. Carlo Scarpa, an Italian architect, was famously known for his capacity to address the rhythm of the body by creating details that invited certain movements in a specific order. Giardino Querini Stampalia (1961–1963) uses strategic changes in the pavement from grass, to small cobblestones and concrete, to intentionally alter the velocity of the walking, moreover all stairs in the garden have each a step for either the right or the left foot [see e.g., Dodds (2000) ]. This eventually also causes different heights between steps which now also invites sitting. The rhythm and affordances of walking have then been designed by confining the actively exploring body in this case to both the velocity of the walkability and the specific order of movement for the climbability of the stairs. The very same applies to the staircase of Scarpa’s Olivetti Showroom (1958). As some of the steps are stretched so they float mid-air, they afford being used as a table or a place to sit ( Carter, 2018 ).

As a second contemporary example, consider the work of RAAAF who explicitly attempts to design the affordances of the environment to make the spaces more suitable for the designed function. Consisting of the ecological psychologist and philosopher Erik Rietveld and the architect Ronald Rietveld, the duo has produced numerous projects that demonstrate how architectural affordances can inherently be used to alter the behavior of users. For instance, the project The End of Sitting (2014) radically challenged the mainstream structure of office landscapes by altering the affordances of “working at a desk” ( Rietveld, 2016 ). Instead, RAAAF designed a physical landscape that invites various body postures suitable while working, e.g., laying, leaning, semi-crouching, and so on. Through active exploration, the users would realize that each part of the landscape provided its unique affordances. These examples all share inviting/suggestive designs that couple the agent with the environment in ways that alter neurobehavioral states.

These are only two of many cases in architecture in which a design principle with regards to active exploration and affordances were applied. We believe that since active exploration and affordances constitute our perception of the environment, including architectural design, any serious investigation of the experience of architecture must provide an active interaction with the environment under investigation. This view raises an important challenge for the field of neuro-architecture: studying the cognitive and neural basis of the effect of architectural features requires an interactive neuroimaging approach. In the next section, we demonstrate one way of overcoming this challenge.

Mobile Brain/Body Imaging as a Practical Basis for Architectural Neuroscience

Mobile Brain/Body Imaging is an emerging brain/body imaging method which allows for investigating the exploratory proposition of ecological psychology with the potential to improve the ecological validity of empirical research ( Parada and Rossi, 2021 ). Several studies in the last few years demonstrated that MoBI can be used to specifically improve the ecological validity in neuro-architectural studies by allowing for active exploration of the built environment ( Banaei et al., 2017 ; Djebbara et al., 2019 , 2021 ). In this section, we will describe how MoBI can improve the ecological validity of research within the field of neuro-architecture providing a brief introduction to the methods and a review of representative studies in the field of neuro-architecture.

Mobile Brain/Body Imaging: Definition, Main Goals and Instruments

Mobile Brain/Body Imaging is defined as a multimethod approach to imaging brain dynamics in humans actively moving through and interacting with the environment ( Jungnickel et al., 2019 ). It requires adequate hardware and software solutions to simultaneously record data streams from brain dynamics, motor behavior, and environmental events, and it requires data-driven analyses methods for multi-modal data to dissociate the brain from non-brain processes ( Makeig et al., 2009 ; Gramann et al., 2011 ). The main goal of MoBI is to model and understand natural cognition during unrestricted exploratory action in the immediate environment ( Gramann et al., 2014 ; Parada, 2018 ; Parada and Rossi, 2021 ).

Mobile Imaging means that participants should be allowed to actively explore the environment in order to reflect the neural dynamics underlying embodied cognitive processes. This necessitates small and lightweight measurement instruments. Brain/Body Imaging refers to the investigation of the neural mechanisms of cognitive processes that make use of our physical structure for cognitive goals, and the connection of mind and behavior, perception and action, and sensorimotor coupling on the ecological scale. Both brain and behavioral dynamics have to be recorded in synchrony to explore the bidirectional influence between behavior and brain dynamics. Capturing brain/body dynamics will require multiple sensors to record the different data streams and software to integrate them synchronously (see Figure 2 ).

Figure 2. The illustration depicts a MoBI setup using mobile EEG hardware combined with virtual reality and motion capture through the VR tracking system [from Djebbara et al. (2021) ; used with permission].

Studies in the real world, while providing high ecological validity, do miss control of unwanted factors and cannot simply repeat stimuli material to gain a better signal-to-noise ratio in the signal of interest. Thus, for controlled and repeated stimulus presentation, head-mounted virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) displays can be integrated in the MoBI hardware system providing an alternative for presenting participants with different environments that can be actively explored while allowing for experimental control and systematically manipulating experimental variables of interest. Furthermore, other stimulus modalities, such as auditory and tactile stimuli, could also be compatible with head-mounted VR displays ( Jungnickel et al., 2019 ).

Previous Mobile Brain/Body Imaging Studies in Neuro-Architecture

Using MoBI, Banaei et al. (2017) investigated human brain dynamics related to the affective impact of interior forms when the perceiver actively explores an architectural space. The experimental task required participants to naturally walk through different architectural spaces with interior forms extracted from a large corpus of architectural pictures. The rooms represented different combinations of interior forms derived from formal cluster analysis of pictures of the real built environment. Importantly, in order to investigate human brain dynamics related to the affective experience of interior forms during architectural exploration, multimodal data were recorded including EEG and motion capture ( Banaei et al., 2017 ).

The authors found that curvature geometries of interior forms influenced brain activity originating from the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) while the posterior cingulate cortex and the occipital lobe were involved in the processing of different room perspectives ( Banaei et al., 2017 ). This MoBI architectural neuroscience study demonstrates that both the architectural interior form (such as type, location, scale, and angle) and the exploration of the surroundings will shape the experience of the built environment, providing a neuroscientific basis for architectural design ( Banaei et al., 2017 ). Additionally, this research illustrates the potential of MoBI to investigate human brain dynamics and natural experience of participants actively exploring architectural environments.

Another MoBI study by Djebbara et al. (2019 , 2021) investigated the human brain dynamics during transitions through doors of different widths. The authors aimed to investigate how architectural affordances affect brain dynamics by creating three kinds of transitions differing in their passability. Of the three doors, only one did not afford to be transitioned. In the experimental task, implemented in VR, the participants moved from one room to a second room, passing one of the three doors connecting the rooms. The door width which could either be impassable (narrow), passable (medium), or easily passable (wide) formed the operational definition of architectural affordance in their experiment. For priming different interactions with this environment, the authors used a Go/NoGo paradigm either prompting the person to pass through the door (the Go condition), or indicating that the person should not pass through the door (NoGo condition). EEG was used to record their brain activity during the task and a Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) questionnaire was used to measure participants’ emotional experience after every trial ( Djebbara et al., 2019 , 2021 ).

The subjective reports from the SAM showed that different transition affordances influenced the architectural experience of participants. Different door widths influenced participants’ emotional experience, especially when instructed to pass through the door (i.e., forced interaction with the environment) as compared to instructions that did not require interactions with the environment. The physiological results, on the other hand, revealed that brain activity in visual sensory regions and motor areas reflected the affordance of the transition already around 200 ms, irrespective of whether participants knew that they should or should not pass into the second room. This reflects an automated processing of the affordance present in the built environment even if no further interaction with the environment is planned. In addition, differences in the post-imperative negative variation (PINV), a component of the event-related potential (ERP) of the EEG, were visible only in trials that required an interaction with the environment (Go-trials) while in the NoGo condition, this architectural affordance effect was not observed. In other words, the possible interactions with the transition automatically activated cortical areas underlying perceptual and motor responses even in the absence of planned interactions while additional affordance-specific modulations of brain activity were observed during interactions with the built environment ( Djebbara et al., 2019 , 2021 ).

The results from Djebbara et al. (2019) support the view that possibilities of imminent actions shape our perception ( Djebbara and Gramann, 2022 ). This view is consistent with the propositions of direct perception and perception-action coupling within ecological psychology ( Djebbara et al., 2019 ; Gepshtein and Snider, 2019 ). The reasons why imminent action possibilities will influence our architectural perception are that the information is exactly embedded inside imminent action and will further emerge and be perceived during the exploration process rather than a signal transformation, representation, and computation process. Much like Warren’s (1984) research helped elucidate the behavioral dimension of architectural experience, the study of Djebbara et al. (2019) is an exemplary case of integrating the theoretical framework of ecological psychology with neuro-architecture.

In short, MoBI makes it possible to discover, quantify and visualize the embodiment of human agents in an architectural environment with all relevant dimensions of architecture such as aesthetics, ergonomics and more, which can’t be realized by a stationary experimental paradigm. MoBI is an efficient technique to study natural cognition in architectural exploration. However, as the interaction with the environment can become relatively complex in terms of sensory information and motor behavior, a cautious and systematic approach is advisable. As suggested by Parada (2018) and King and Parada (2021) , the careful and incremental approach to introducing more complex environments and motor behavior, going from highly controlled setups to more ecologically valid ones, ensures the replicability and control over variables. In other words, by first identifying what to look for, e.g., cortical or behavioral features, in a highly controlled experiment, it is then possible to introduce incremental complexity and assess the quality of the more ecologically valid experiments.

Although neuro-architecture is a thriving field, there are two methodological limitations within neuro-architectural research ( Higuera-Trujillo et al., 2021 ). The existing research in the field of architectural neuroscience mainly addresses aesthetics out of many different relevant architectural aspects. The brain imaging methods that are typically used require participants to remain stationary, which prevents natural interactions with their architectural surroundings.

In the present article, we argued that concepts of ecological psychology like affordance and active exploration could extend the horizon of the research questions within neuro-architecture to include ergonomics in architecture, which widens the theoretical and empirical framework under which neuro-architectural research is conducted leading to a more comprehensive picture. That is, both the utility and beauty in architecture should be investigated including the analyses of the underlying neural mechanism. Accordingly, inspired by several empirical studies, the operational definition of variables with regards to architectural ergonomics could be established from the perspectives of the complementarity between environmental properties and the agent’s physical capacities, as well as the perception-action loop during architectural exploration. This, however, requires new technological solutions to imaging human brain dynamics during active exploration and interaction with the built environment.

Emerging brain imaging techniques like MoBI, implementing the exploration proposition of ecological psychology in experimental protocols, overcome the limitations of prevalent stationary brain imaging methods and improve the ecological validity of empirical neuroscientific research. Based on the potential of MoBI, more ecologically valid experimental research within the field of neuro-architecture can be conducted. Existing MoBI studies already show evidence of how the brain perceives its surroundings. These new insights can be used to improve architectural design strategies and regulations to eventually improve human health and well-being.

In summary, we described an integrative methodological framework to combine ecological psychology with state-of-the-art neuroscience methods for neuro-architectural empirical research, aiming at extending the horizon of the research questions in the field of neuro-architecture and improving the ecological validity of its experimental framework. This is a promising way to push the field of neuro-architecture forward.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

We acknowledge support by the German Research Foundation and Open Access Publication Fund of TU Berlin. SW was funded by a grant from China Scholarship Council (File No. 201906750020).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Bilal Arafaat for fruitful discussions and proofreading of the manuscript.

• ^ “Form follows function.”
• ^ “Less is more.”
• ^ “There should be no features about a building which are not necessary for convenience, construction or propriety” (Pugin, 1841).

Azzazy, S., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., GhaffarianHoseini, A., Naismith, N., and Doborjeh, Z. (2021). A critical review on the impact of built environment on users’ measured brain activity. Archit. Sci. Rev. 64, 319–335. doi: 10.1080/00038628.2020.1749980

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Banaei, M., Hatami, J., Yazdanfar, A., and Gramann, K. (2017). Walking through architectural spaces: the impact of interior forms on human brain dynamics. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11:477. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00477

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Canli, T., Desmond, J. E., Zhao, Z., Glover, G., and Gabrieli, J. D. (1998). Hemispheric asymmetry for emotional stimuli detected with fMRI. Neuroreport 9, 3233–3239. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199810050-00019

Carter, J. (2018). Italy on fifth ave: from the museum of modern art to the olivetti showroom. Mod. Italy 23, 103–122. doi: 10.1017/mit.2017.65

Charytonowicz, J. (2000). “Architecture and ergonomics,” in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting , Vol. 44, (Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications), 6–103. No. 33. doi: 10.1177/154193120004403305

Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecol. Psychol. 15, 181–195. doi: 10.4324/9780203726655-5

Chemero, A. (2011). Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Google Scholar

Corbusier, L. (1954). The Modulor: A Harmonious Measure to the Human Scale Universally Applicable to Architecture and Mechanics , Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Corbusier, L. (2013). Towards a New Architecture. North Chelmsford, MA: Courier Corporation.

Craig, C., and Watson, G. (2011). An affordance based approach to decision making in sport: discussing a novel methodological framework. Rev. Psicol. Deport. 20, 689–708.

Dimond, S. J., and Farrington, L. (1977). Emotional response to films shown to the right or left hemisphere of the brain measured by heart rate. Acta Psychol. 41, 255–260. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(77)90020-8

Djebbara, Z., and Gramann, K. (2022). “Architectural affordances: linking action, perception, and cognition,” in Brain, Beauty, and Art: Essays Bringing Neuroaesthetics into Focus , eds A. Chatterjee and E. Cardillo (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Djebbara, Z., Fich, L. B., and Gramann, K. (2021). The brain dynamics of architectural affordances during transition. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–15. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82504-w

Djebbara, Z., Fich, L. B., Petrini, L., and Gramann, K. (2019). Sensorimotor brain dynamics reflect architectural affordances. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 116, 14769–14778. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1900648116

Dodds, G. P. (2000). Landscape and Garden in the Work of Carlo Scarpa. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.

Dougherty, B. O., and Arbib, M. A. (2013). The evolution of neuroscience for architecture: introducing the special issue. Intell. Build. Int. 5, 4–9. doi: 10.1080/17508975.2013.818763

Eberhard, J. P. (2009a). Applying neuroscience to architecture. Neuron 62, 753–756. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.06.001

Eberhard, J. P. (2009b). Brain Landscape the Coexistence of Neuroscience and Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eberhard, J. P., and Gage, F. H. (2003). An architect and a neuroscientist discuss how neuroscience can influence architectural design. Neurosci. Q. 6–7.

Ezzat Ahmed, D., and Kamel, S. (2021). Exploring the contribution of neuroarchitecture in learning environments design “a review”. Int. J. Archit. Eng. Urban Res. 4, 102–119. doi: 10.2478/dfl-2014-0018

Fazio, M. W., Moffett, M., and Wodehouse, L. (2008). A World History of Architecture. London: Laurence King.

Fich, L. B., Jönsson, P., Kirkegaard, P. H., Wallergård, M., Garde, A. H., and Hansen, Å (2014). Can architectural design alter the physiological reaction to psychosocial stress? a virtual TSST experiment. Physiol. Behav. 135, 91–97. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.034

Frampton, K. (1985). Studies in Tectonic Culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Graduate School of Design Cambridge.

Franchak, J. M., and Adolph, K. E. (2014). Gut estimates: pregnant women adapt to changing possibilities for squeezing through doorways. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 76, 460–472. doi: 10.3758/s13414-013-0578-y

Frascari, M. (1983). “The tell-the-tale detail,” in Semiotics 1981 , ed. J. N. Deely (Boston, MA: Springer), 325–336. doi: 10.5840/cpsem198115

Gepshtein, S., and Snider, J. (2019). Neuroscience for architecture: the evolving science of perceptual meaning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 116, 14404–14406. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1908868116

Gibson, J. J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston, MS: Houghton Mifflin.

Gibson, J. J. (1977). “The theory of affordances,” in Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology , eds R. Shaw and J. Bransford (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 67–82.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MS: Houghton Mifflin.

Gramann, K., Ferris, D. P., Gwin, J., and Makeig, S. (2014). Imaging natural cognition in action. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 91, 22–29. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2013.09.003

Gramann, K., Gwin, J. T., Ferris, D. P., Oie, K., Jung, T.-P., Lin, C.-T., et al. (2011). Cognition in action: imaging brain/body dynamics in mobile humans. Rev. Neurosci. 22, 593–608. doi: 10.1515/RNS.2011.047

Gramann, K., McKendrick, R., Baldwin, C., Roy, R. N., Jeunet, C., Mehta, R. K., et al. (2021). Grand field challenges for cognitive neuroergonomics in the coming decade. Front. Neuroergonom. 2:6. doi: 10.3389/fnrgo.2021.643969

Handford, C., Davids, K., Bennett, S., and Button, C. (1997). Skill acquisition in sport: some applications of an evolving practice ecology. J. Sports Sci. 15, 621–640. doi: 10.1080/026404197367056

Heft, H. (1989). Affordances and the body: an intentional analysis of gibson’s ecological approach to visual perception. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 19, 1–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1989.tb00133.x

Heft, H. (2010). Affordances and the perception of landscape. Innovative Approaches to Research Landscape Health: Open Space: People Space Ed C W Thompson and P Aspinall 2, 9–32 Routledge: Abingdon.

Heras-Escribano, M. (2019). The Philosophy of Affordances. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Heras-Escribano, M. (2021). Pragmatism, enactivism, and ecological psychology: towards a unified approach to post-cognitivism. Synthese 198, 337–363. doi: 10.1007/s11229-019-02111-1

Higuera-Trujillo, J. L., Llinares, C., and Macagno, E. (2021). The cognitive-emotional design and study of architectural space: a scoping review of neuroarchitecture and its precursor approaches. Sensors 21: 2193. doi: 10.3390/s21062193

Ittelson, W. H. (1952). The Ames Demonstrations in Perception; a Guide to their Construction and Use. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Jelić, A., Tieri, G., Matteis, F., Babiloni, F., and Vecchiato, G. (2016). The enactive approach to architectural experience: a neurophysiological perspective on embodiment. motivation, and affordances. Front. Psychol. 7:481. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00481

Jungnickel, E., Gehrke, L., Klug, M., and Gramann, K. (2019). “MoBI—Mobile brain/body imaging,” in Neuroergonomics The Brain at Work and in Everyday Life , eds H. Ayaz and F. Dehais 59–63. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-811926-6.00010-5

Karakas, T., and Yildiz, D. (2020). Exploring the influence of the built environment on human experience through a neuroscience approach: a systematic review. Front. Archit. Res. 9:236–247. doi: 10.1016/j.foar.2019.10.005

King, J. L., and Parada, F. J. (2021). Using mobile brain/body imaging to advance research in arts, health, and related therapeutics. J. Eur. J. Neurosci. 54, 8364–8380. doi: 10.1111/ejn.15313

Kirk, U., Skov, M., Christensen, M. S., and Nygaard, N. (2009a). Brain correlates of aesthetic expertise: a parametric fMRI study. Brain Cogn. 69, 306–315. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2008.08.004

Kirk, U., Skov, M., Hulme, O., Christensen, M. S., and Zeki, S. (2009b). Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: an fMRI study. Neuroimage 44, 1125–1132. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.009

Lobo, L., Heras-Escribano, M., and Travieso, D. (2018). The history and philosophy of ecological psychology. Front. Psychol. 9:2228. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02228

Loos, A. (2019). Ornament and Crime. London: Penguin UK.

Makeig, S., Gramann, K., Jung, T.-P., Sejnowski, T. J., and Poizner, H. (2009). Linking brain, mind and behavior. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 73, 95–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-228x.2010.01088.x

Mark, L. S. (1987). Eyeheight-scaled information about affordances: a study of sitting and stair climbing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform 13:361. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.13.3.361

Marr, D. (1982). Vision: a Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. Cambridge, MS: MIT Press.

Martínez-Soto, J., Gonzales-Santos, L., Pasaye, E., and Barrios, F. A. (2013). Exploration of neural correlates of restorative environment exposure through functional magnetic resonance. Intell. Build. Int. 5, 10–28. doi: 10.1080/17508975.2013.807765

Michaels, C. F., and Carello, C. (1981). Direct Perception. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1–208.

Michaels, C. F., and Palatinus, Z. (2014). “A ten commandments for ecological psychology,” in The Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition , ed. L. Shapiro (Abingdon: Routledge), 19–28.

Naghibi Rad, P., Shahroudi, A. A., Shabani, H., Ajami, S., and Lashgari, R. (2019). Encoding pleasant and unpleasant expression of the architectural window shapes: an erp study. Front.Behav. Neurosci. 13:186. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00186

Oppenheim, I., Mühlmann, H., Blechinger, G., Mothersill, I. W., Hilfiker, P., Jokeit, H., et al. (2009). Brain electrical responses to high-and low-ranking buildings. Clin. EEG Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 40, 157–161. doi: 10.1177/155005940904000307

Oppenheim, I., Vannucci, M., Mühlmann, H., Gabriel, R., Jokeit, H., Kurthen, M., et al. (2010). Hippocampal contributions to the processing of architectural ranking. Neuroimage 50, 742–752. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.078

Palladio, A. (1965). The Four Books of Architecture , Vol. 1. North Chelmsford, MS: Courier Corporation.

Parada, F. J. (2018). Understanding natural cognition in everyday settings: 3 pressing challenges. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 12:386. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00386

Parada, F. J., and Rossi, A. (2021). Perfect timing: mobile brain/body imaging scaffolds the 4E-cognition research program. Eur. J. Neurosci. 54, 8081–8091. doi: 10.1111/ejn.14783

Pektaş, Ş.T. (2021). A scientometric analysis and review of spatial cognition studies within the framework of neuroscience and architecture. Archit. Sci. Rev. 64, 1–9.

Pollio, V. (1914). Vitruvius, the Ten Books on Architecture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university press.

Reuter-Lorenz, P., and Davidson, R. J. (1981). Differential contributions of the two cerebral hemispheres to the perception of happy and sad faces. Neuropsychologia 19, 609–613. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(81)90030-0

Richardson, M. J., Shockley, K., Fajen, B. R., Riley, M. A., and Turvey, M. T. (2008). “Ecological psychology: Six principles for an embodied–embedded approach to behavior. In,” in Handbook of Cognitive Science , eds P. Calvo and T. Gomila (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 159–187.

Rietveld, E. (2016). Situating the embodied mind in a landscape of standing affordances for living without chairs: materializing a philosophical worldview. Sports Med. 46, 927–932. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0520-2

Rietveld, E., and Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecol. Psychol. 26, 325–352. doi: 10.1080/10407413.2014.958035

Rogers, B. (2017). Perception: A very Short Introduction. Oxford: OXFORD University press.

Ruiz-Arellano, M. (2015). Hawaiian Healing Center: A Weaving of Neuro-Architecture and Cultural Practices. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa. May 2015.

Rutherford, I. (ed.) (2016). Greco-Egyptian Interactions: Literature, Translation, and Culture, 500 BCE-300 CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shemesh, A., Leisman, G., Bar, M., and Grobman, Y. J. (2021). A neurocognitive study of the emotional impact of geometrical criteria of architectural space. Archit. Sci. Rev. 64, 394–407.

Stendhal (2010). Rome, Naples and Florence . trans. R. N. Coe. Alma Books.

Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Gonzalez-Mora, J. L., Leder, H., et al. (2015). Architectural design and the brain: effects of ceiling height and perceived enclosure on beauty judgments and approach-avoidance decisions. J. Environ. Psychol. 41, 10–18. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.006

Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., Modroño, C., et al. (2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 110(Suppl. 2), 10446–10453. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1301227110

Warren, W. H. (1984). Perceiving affordances: visual guidance of stair climbing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 10:683. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.10.5.683

Warren, W. H. (2006). The dynamics of perception and action. Psychol. Rev. 113:358.

Warren, W. H. Jr., and Whang, S. (1987). Visual guidance of walking through apertures: body-scaled information for affordances. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 13:371. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.13.3.371

Keywords : neuro-architecture, ecological psychology, mobile brain/body imaging (MoBI), methodology, aesthetics and ergonomics, ecological validity

Citation: Wang S, Sanches de Oliveira G, Djebbara Z and Gramann K (2022) The Embodiment of Architectural Experience: A Methodological Perspective on Neuro-Architecture. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 16:833528. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.833528

Received: 11 December 2021; Accepted: 30 March 2022; Published: 09 May 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Wang, Sanches de Oliveira, Djebbara and Gramann. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Sheng Wang, [email protected]

The Practice of Architectural Research: How to start

Architectural research is the organized investigation done in the architectural field by studying materials and sources to generate insights, knowledge, and understanding. This research is based on tools, competencies, and methods found in the architectural field and possesses its strategies, scope, knowledge base and tactics. Research is vital to architectural practice, as it teaches prospective architects important architectural skills in research. Exposure to research-based education for architecture students creates better development and learning experiences. Research in schools helps to create a research mentality in architects.

There was a rise in the independence of architectural theory as a discipline in the 1960s, developing the theory of architectural practice. This creates a self-referential and independent area in architecture which is separate from the world of production and the sphere of action. The break between theory and practice was stated to be linked in the 1990s through the development and use of ontological research of exemplary buildings integrated with analytical research methods. This approach was developed by architects in the academic field, and it focuses on the principles of architecture, grand narratives production and the voice of the architect.

There are three types of research approaches in architecture, with each having a distinct approach (Seppo  et al.  2002). Practice-based research and architectural design -based research are created from the architect’s theory or related disciplines. These two types of research are research approaches which are theory-based and come from scientific practice. The action research approach is the last type of architectural research; it is practice-oriented and originates from architectural practice. This article will consider methods to go about the action research approach and the architectural design-based research.

Architectural design -based research 

Create your research paper topic

Identifying a research topic is the first line of action in starting research. Architecture is a broad field of study with different research areas such as architectural history, philosophy of architecture, design theory, interpretation of architecture , etc. Reviewing from a wide perspective to a narrower perspective enables one to grasp the topic better.

Resources Gathering 

Choosing a research topic is followed by obtaining relevant data to carry out the research. This relevant data may include building codes and existing research to write discussion points. These existing studies are found in articles and journals and must be cited accordingly if used in the research paper. Research resources are also collected by the use of research questions developed, which serves as the advanced search feature.

Structure of the research paper

The detailed structuring of a research paper involves arranging the points in an orderly way for the smooth flow of the article. Abstract and introduction are the first point of call in a research paper. They are important elements of the research paper, providing the overview for a reader to continue going over the research paper.

Review the research paper

A research paper must be properly cited and reviewed after writing to correct errors within the article . This review can be done using an editing tool which helps produce grammatically correct content which is easily understandable by the reader. A proper citation of the article should be carried out to acknowledge the use of individuals’ ideas and for further reading by prospective readers.

Getting Funding | Architectural Research

Funding is a major issue in carrying out architectural research. There are numerous ways to get funding for research projects. Architectural bodies offer to fund researchers, which the funding is based on how feasible the projects are and their relevance to the architectural field. Schools also provide funding for researchers and some help researchers in finding grant opportunities.

Action research approach | Architectural Research

Research Strategy

In action research, knowledge is developed and integrated into a particular area in the architectural field. This knowledge is researched by an architectural firm, which in turn focuses its research efforts on aligning with the firm’s business strategy . Architectural research is carried out by different organizations to give the firm strategic benefits and a comparative advantage in the field. This research may focus on the technical or the material research process to create new areas of expertise for the firm or improve the current areas.

Daring during research

Architectural firms sometimes focus their research on new and revolutionary innovations as opposed to research aimed at improving the current architectural field. Research is made to test new methods and ideas, i.e., research is mistake bound and about trial and error. Risky research gives the firm a comparative advantage and can cause a big edge in business.

Networking in research

Building a network of experts and advisers focused on research in an architectural firm. This group tests and discusses new concepts which are essential in research. Networking is used to gather knowledge about new research development and new ideas across the research areas. Networking creates an ecosystem of research collaborators which create new knowledge in the field and recognize what happens in the architectural profession.

Teamwork in Research

Collaboration within a firm to carry out research in the architectural field is another dilemma for architectural firms. Architecture is an area that focuses on creativity, and such creativity can be discovered through collaboration. Teamwork should be encouraged in research as it produces new design processes and conceptual ideas through an iterative process which gives a competitive advantage to the architectural firm involved in the research.

Involving the academics | Architectural Research

The architecture academia is focused on research and development, which is an interesting area for architectural firms. Encouraging the participation of academic researchers to participate in a firm’s research through workshops . This allows for a better understanding of happenings both in academics and in architectural practice, such as the time pressures of practice and roles in research projects.

References:

• Plans, M. H. (2021) How to Write a Research Paper on Architecture: Step-by-Step Guide , maramani.com . Available at: https://www.maramani.com/blogs/home-design-ideas/research-paper-architecture (Accessed: August 4, 2022).
• efront (2016) Research in Architectural Practice – 6 ways for architects to create upstream knowledge , ACA – Association of Consulting Architects Australia . Available at: https://aca.org.au/research-in-architectural-practice-6-ways-for-architects-to-create-upstream-knowledge/ (Accessed: August 4, 2022).
• How to Write a Research Paper on Architecture (no date) Fiu.edu . Available at: https://faculty.fiu.edu/~readg/TipsLinks/HowtoWriteaResearchPaper.htm (Accessed: August 4, 2022).
• Lock, H. (2015) “How to apply for research funding: 10 tips for academics,” 10 May. Available at: https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/may/10/how-to-apply-for-research-funding-10-tips-for-academics(Accessed: August 4, 2022).
• View of How to Start a Research Program as an Architect in Academia (AIA) (no date) Iit.edu . Available at: https://prometheus.library.iit.edu/index.php/journal/article/view/45/31 (Accessed: August 4, 2022).
• Faculty of Architecture (no date) Research centres and areas of interest – Architecture – Architecture – The University of Sydney , Faculty of Architecture . Available at: https://www.sydney.edu.au/handbooks/archive/2016/architecture/postgraduate/research/research_areas_architecture.shtml.html (Accessed: August 4, 2022).
• Candid Learning (no date) Candid Learning . Available at: https://learning.candid.org/resources/knowledge-base/researchers; (Accessed: August 4, 2022).
• Dr Prem Community Writer (2019) How architecture students can benefit from research papers on architecture , Designbuzz . Available at: https://designbuzz.com/how-architecture-students-can-benefit-from-research-papers-on-architecture/ (Accessed: August 4, 2022).
• Rawat, Karmakar and Sharma (2021) “Importance of Research in Architecture,” International journal of engineering research & technology (Ahmedabad) , 10(1). doi: 10.17577/IJERTV10IS010057.
• CfP: The Practice of Architectural Research. Ghent, 8-10 October 2020 (no date) Eahn.org . Available at: https://eahn.org/2020/05/cfp-the-practice-of-architectural-research-ghent-8-10-october-2020/ (Accessed: August 4, 2022).

Chukwuebuka is an architecture student and an amateur writer using his skills to express his ideas to the world. He has written a few articles for DAPC Uniben and he is adventuring to become a popular writer.

Book in Focus: The Future of Architecture in 100 Buildings by Marc Kushner

Public Spaces: a universal perspective

Related posts.

The Role of Architectural Archives in Restoration Projects

Using meme culture to express social issues in architecture

The Theoretical Role of Soft Furnishings in Shaping Spatial Narratives

The New Architects: Designing the Future in Virtual Realms

Buildings redefining the Architectural trends

Revitalizing Vernacular Architecture

• Architectural Community
• Architectural Facts
• RTF Architectural Reviews
• Architectural styles
• City and Architecture
• Fun & Architecture
• History of Architecture
• Design Studio Portfolios
• Designing for typologies
• RTF Design Inspiration
• Architecture News
• Career Advice
• Case Studies
• Construction & Materials
• Covid and Architecture
• Interior Design
• Know Your Architects
• Landscape Architecture
• Materials & Construction
• Product Design
• RTF Fresh Perspectives
• Sustainable Architecture
• Top Architects
• Travel and Architecture
• Rethinking The Future Awards 2022
• RTF Awards 2021 | Results
• GADA 2021 | Results
• RTF Awards 2020 | Results
• ACD Awards 2020 | Results
• GADA 2019 | Results
• ACD Awards 2018 | Results
• GADA 2018 | Results
• RTF Awards 2017 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2017 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2016 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2015 | Results
• RTF Awards 2014 | Results
• RTF Architectural Visualization Competition 2020 – Results
• Architectural Photography Competition 2020 – Results
• Designer’s Days of Quarantine Contest – Results
• Urban Sketching Competition May 2020 – Results
• RTF Essay Writing Competition April 2020 – Results
• Architectural Photography Competition 2019 – Finalists
• The Ultimate Thesis Guide
• Introduction to Landscape Architecture
• Perfect Guide to Architecting Your Career
• How to Design Architecture Portfolio
• How to Design Streets
• Introduction to Urban Design
• Introduction to Product Design
• Complete Guide to Dissertation Writing
• Introduction to Skyscraper Design
• Educational
• Hospitality
• Institutional
• Office Buildings
• Public Building
• Residential
• Sports & Recreation
• Temporary Structure
• Commercial Interior Design
• Corporate Interior Design
• Healthcare Interior Design
• Hospitality Interior Design
• Residential Interior Design
• Sustainability
• Transportation
• Urban Design
• Host your Course with RTF
• Architectural Writing Training Programme | WFH
• Editorial Internship | In-office
• Graphic Design Internship
• Research Internship | WFH
• Research Internship | New Delhi
• RTF | About RTF
• Submit Your Story

Looking for Job/ Internship?

Rtf will connect you with right design studios.

Ask Yale Library

My Library Accounts

Find, Request, and Use

Help and Research Support

Visit and Study

Explore Collections

Architecture Research @ Yale: How to Research Architecture

• How to Research Architecture
• Primary Sources
• Newspaper Articles
• Biographical Info
• Dissertations & Theses
• GIS Resources Training & Support
• Images, Plans, Drawings, Maps, AV
• Building Materials, Codes, Standards
• How to Cite Your Sources
• Copyright and Fair Use

Architecture Writing Guides

WHAT EXPERT RESEARCHERS KNOW

Few buildings have had single books written about them, so expert researchers know to conduct searches for the architect's or firm's name and across the professional and popular literature for information about a particular building. 

Buildings are often categorized as subjects in library catalogs, which helps locate materials quickly. Remember to select  Subject Browse  when entering your search terms in  Orbis . Try these tips:

• Search under the full name of the building in direct order: Ex: " Guggenheim museum ". If the building has a different official name (e.g. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum), you will be re-directed to that listing, and, if there is more than one building with a similar name (e.g. Museo Guggenheim Bilbao) you will be presented with possibilities from which to choose. 
• You can also look for the building by its location: Ex:  Bilbao (Spain)
• Or enter a related term for the building, such as what it contains: Ex:  Rare book libraries  (to find the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library on Yale's campus.
• If the building has had more than one name, try all the possibilities: Ex:  Pan Am building  is now known as the MetLife building.
• If the building is known by its address, try both the numerals and the spelled-out version of the address: Ex:  154 East 89th Street  vs.  One Fifty-Four East Eighty Ninth Street
• If the building is not likely to be the subject of an entire book, try using broader categories such as "churches" or "apartment buildings", in combination with the other tips, to locate books that might have a chapter or section on the building of your research.

To find citations for articles in journals, start by looking up the building in the  Avery Index to Architecture Periodicals

Starting Your Research

Types of Resources

Books : Look for books when researching an architect, movement, or broad subject. Sometimes called "monographs", books can include bibliographies, footnotes, and indexes and often includes numerous images.

Arts Databases (Journal Articles): Look for articles in databases when you are researching a more contemporary/timely topic and more narrowly defined topics. Articles tend to be more closely focused on an argument, theory, or specific topic. Articles can be found in popular magazines (e.g,. AIA's Architecture) and can be peer-reviewed by experts, meaning extra vetting of information. Indexing in databases like the Avery Index allows simultaneous searching by subject across hundreds or thousands of magazines and journals.

Newspaper Articles : Published quickly and frequently, often documenting a particular place, easy to read

Biographical Information : Quickly look up an architect's nationality, birth and death dates, titles of major works, writings, etc.

Primary Sources: Present first-hand accounts and direct evidence, as in correspondence, diaries, or photographs

Dissertations and Theses: Find out which topics current and past scholars have researched extensively, look at their bibliographies for additional sources

Image and Video : Documentary visual evidence

• Evaluating Sources

What's the Best Resource?

• Building Types Online Includes case studies by experts, architectural drawings, and photographs of the buildings. Browsable by building type, urban context, morphological type, context type, and author.
• Primary Sources on Architecture @ Yale

Arts Librarian

Primary v. Secondary Sources

Secondary sources  interpret and analyze primary sources. Because they are often written long afterward by parties not directly involved (but who may have special expertise), they can provide historical context or critical perspectives. Secondary sources routinely include pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources.  

Depending on the subject, newspaper and journal articles can fall into both categories. For example, Paul Goldberger's architectural review of the new Citi Field and Yankee Stadium in New York is a primary source, because he is commenting directly on a current event, whereas an article surveying the history of New York City stadiums would be considered a secondary source.

Primary sources   present first-hand accounts or direct evidence. They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented, and can also include autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories recorded later. In the case of architects and architecture firms, this includes drawings, office records, and personal papers. At Yale, architectural archival materials are held in  Manuscripts and Archives  at the Sterling Memorial Library. Also consult the guide  Primary  Sources on Architecture @ Yale .

• << Previous: Home
• Next: How to Find Architecture Resources >>
• Last Updated: Jan 22, 2024 3:26 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/architecture

Site Navigation

P.O. BOX 208240 New Haven, CT 06250-8240 (203) 432-1775

Yale's Libraries

Bass Library

Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library

Classics Library

Cushing/Whitney Medical Library

Divinity Library

East Asia Library

Gilmore Music Library

Haas Family Arts Library

Lewis Walpole Library

Lillian Goldman Law Library

Marx Science and Social Science Library

Sterling Memorial Library

Yale Center for British Art

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

@YALELIBRARY

Yale Library Instagram

Accessibility       Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion      Giving       Privacy and Data Use      Contact Our Web Team    

© 2022 Yale University Library • All Rights Reserved

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Sensors (Basel)

The Cognitive-Emotional Design and Study of Architectural Space: A Scoping Review of Neuroarchitecture and Its Precursor Approaches

Juan luis higuera-trujillo.

1 Institute for Research and Innovation in Bioengineering (i3B), Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain; se.vpu.pmo@eranillc

2 Escuela de Arquitectura, Arte y Diseño (EAAD), Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey 72453, Mexico

Carmen Llinares

Eduardo macagno.

3 Division of Biological Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0116, USA; ude.dscu@ongacame

Associated Data

Not applicable.

Humans respond cognitively and emotionally to the built environment. The modern possibility of recording the neural activity of subjects during exposure to environmental situations, using neuroscientific techniques and virtual reality, provides a promising framework for future design and studies of the built environment. The discipline derived is termed “neuroarchitecture”. Given neuroarchitecture’s transdisciplinary nature, it progresses needs to be reviewed in a contextualised way, together with its precursor approaches. The present article presents a scoping review, which maps out the broad areas on which the new discipline is based. The limitations, controversies, benefits, impact on the professional sectors involved, and potential of neuroarchitecture and its precursors’ approaches are critically addressed.

1. Introduction

Architecture has various effects on people. Studies have been undertaken into architectural aspects most open to objectification such as those related to structure, construction, and installations of buildings. There exists a broad background with standards and norms, that supports these aspects [ 1 ]. However, these are not the only factors involved. The environment also has effects on humans at the cognitive level (understood as the processing and appraisal of perceived information) and the emotional level (understood as the adaptive reactions to the perceived information), which both operate through closely interrelated systems [ 2 ]. For example, it has been found that noise and a lack of vegetation can generate stress [ 3 , 4 ], and stress associated with the built environment can even negatively affect life expectancy [ 5 ]. Studies on specific spaces have shown a variety of cognitive-emotional impacts, such as poorer patient recoveries in hospital rooms that lack relaxing external views of greenery [ 6 ]. Thus, the architecture has cognitive-emotional repercussions.

“Designerly ways of knowing” (distinct from the best-known scientific forms of knowledge [ 7 ]) has been, traditionally, the main way to address the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture [ 8 ]. Through this way, which offers a great economy of means, architects have explored and exploited some of the perceptual foundations of the experience of space. However, it is particularly linked to subjective issues in decision-making [ 9 ], whose use may result in biases [ 10 ]. This can lead to inadequate results in responding to the users’ cognitive-emotional needs. Although many approaches have addressed this dimension of architecture, they have not overcome some of these intrinsic limitations and, in part, because of this, have not been adopted as practical design tools.

Neuroscience studies the nervous system from different areas, some of which are promising in this respect [ 11 , 12 ]. At a general level, the application of neuroscience to architecture is often termed “neuroarchitecture” [ 13 ]. Although bidirectional human-space influence, and its impact on neural activity [ 14 ], is not new, the modern recording of experimental subjects’ neural activity during exposure to physical and simulated environmental situations provides a framework for future design and studies. For example, neuroarchitecture has allowed researchers to study some design variables in-depth, which reduce the stress, previously mentioned, in hospital spaces [ 15 ]. Accordingly, the cognitive-emotional effects of architecture have been addressed through different approaches and, more recently, through neuroscience. This novel, complex transdisciplinary nature of neuroarchitecture make it important to review its progress. However, although reviews have been undertaken of the application of neuroscience to other arts, such as dance [ 16 ] to aesthetics [ 17 ] and to architectural aesthetics [ 18 ], and more recently to compile findings on the effects of architecture, as measured by neurophysiological recordings [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ], the authors’ found no previous study that reviews the application of neuroscience to architecture (sometimes referred to as “built space”) to study its cognitive-emotional dimension in a holistic and contextualised way (for which it is necessary to incorporate its precursor approaches, in a complementary way for the vision of some authors in this respect [ 23 ]). The objective of this article is to present a scoping review of neuroarchitecture and its precursor approaches. This type of literature review is aimed at mapping the broad areas in which a discipline is based.

In this sense, it is worth highlighting the shared ground between architecture, art, and aesthetics, which means that the results of the latter two may be, in some way, transferable to the former (for example, much of what has been studied on colour or geometry). Tackling this type of review requires a broad and interrelated perspective, which is characteristic of scoping reviews [ 24 ]. This is especially useful in the case of disciplines that are complex [ 25 ] and have not previously been reviewed at this level, like neuroarchitecture.

To address this broad objective, the following sub-objectives were set: (a) to provide a global vision of related scientific production, showing the trends of the different approaches in terms of type and date of publication, (b) to expose the need to investigate the impact of architecture on people, (c) to synthesise the main precursor approaches of neuroarchitecture to study the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture, (d) to overview the progress of tools and methods in neuroscience and virtual reality, on which the new discipline is based, (e) define the state of-the-art application of neuroscience to the field of art and aesthetics, due to its similarity with architecture, and (f) to describe the main context, lines of research, and specific results of the application of neuroscience to architecture. In addition, the current status of the discipline is discussed. Therefore, a literature review was conducted.

2. Materials and Methods

Literature reviews examine articles to provide further knowledge about topics [ 26 , 27 ]. There are various types. The present work was tackled by means of a scoping review [ 28 ]. This strategy aligns with alternatives to present a broad perspective on complex issues involving heterogeneous sources [ 29 ]. In addition, this leads to highly explanatory articles [ 30 ] that update professionals from different fields [ 31 ]. These updates of the state-of-the-art applications are essential to support the development of the neuroarchitecture discipline. Overall, preventative measures were taken to avoid biases, using a rigorous and transparent protocol [ 32 ]. Denyer and Tranfield’s proposals [ 33 ] were used to structure the methodology: (1) formulation of objectives, (2) locating studies, (3) selection of studies, (4) analysis and synthesis, and (5) the presentation of the results. All the phases are detailed ( Figure 1 ). The objectives of the study are described in the “Introduction” section. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [ 34 ] for systematic reviews were followed for the location and selection of the studies.

Expository and methodological structure, the PRISMA flow diagram, and its methods.

The studies were located through searches of various sources. First, the studies were found in publishers’ electronic databases (Avery index to architectural periodicals, Cogprints, Elsevier, Emerald, IEEE, NDLTD, PsycINFO, PubMed/Medline, Springer, Taylor & Francis, Urbadoc, and Wiley) and repositories (Dialnet, SciELO, Google Scholar). Second, other reference lists exist, but they contain only redundant information, including content already provided by the first lists searched: Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture ( https://www.anfarch.org/research/recommended-reading ), Neuroscience+Architecture ( http://dilab.uos.ac.kr/neuroarch/ ), and International Network for Neuroaesthetics ( https://neuroaesthetics.net/books , and https://neuroaesthetics.net/papers ). To keep the data updated, all searches were carried out four times between 28 February 2012 and 19 July 2019 (see “location of studies” in Figure 1 ). The same search terms and criteria were used throughout. It is worth highlighting some aspects. Regarding terminology, due to architecture’s artistic and aesthetic impacts, the following concepts were considered: (architecture * OR spa * OR urban * OR “town planning”) AND (neuroscien * OR percept * OR emoti * OR cogniti * OR affect *) OR neuro?architectur *; where “*” denotes truncation and “?” any character. Three criteria were stablished: language, publication category, and study type. The language criterion was that the search was to be conducted in English, Spanish, German, and Italian. This involved repeating the process with translations of the various terms. The publication-type criterion was three-fold. The most useful sources for literature reviews are usually peer-reviewed journals and conference papers [ 35 ]. Reference books were added to help address sub-objectives a, b, and c. It should be noted that, within these types of publications, no discard criteria were considered for indications of publisher quality. Thus, the suitability of references for this review was assessed independently throughout the selection process detailed below. The third criterion was that the studies had to be human-based. Given that much neuroscientific research is animal-based, this represented a significant restriction. It should be noted that, due to the temporal diversity of the approaches involved in sub-objective c, filtering by date of publication was not applied. The bibliographic references of the works retrieved were also reviewed. Therefore, these references were not localised using the above terms and language criteria. The saturation point was assumed to have been reached when most of the references were found to be redundant.

The selection process followed the bibliographic search. This consisted of four sequential actions: (1) elimination of duplicates, using Excel ( http://www.microsoft.com/excel ) and Mendeley ( http://www.mendeley.com ) software, (2) screening to evaluate relevance of the titles, and to make the final decision on inclusion, (3) abstract evaluation, and (4) full-text evaluation. Regarding the latter action, it should be noted that the criterion of “not appropriate for the review’s objective” refers to information that is irrelevant or was not considered to be of quality judging by its overall content (discarding, among other references, a number of bachelor’s or master’s degree final projects), but was not adequately filtered at the abstract stage. The criterion of “not original data” refers to information that is redundant, or for which more representative information has been found in another article by the same authors ( Figure 1 ). All the actions were centralised, to avoid mismatches in such a comprehensive reference base. The sequence made it possible to eliminate the references that did not strictly contribute to achieving the review’s objectives.

Subsequently, the information selected was analysed and synthesised. Several methods are available [ 36 ]. The content analysis synthesis framework was selected due to its ability to interpret content [ 37 ] and adapt to the heterogeneous nature of reviews [ 38 ]. Two approaches were followed. The first is to categorise and group the information we undertook as a “conventional content analysis”. The second is to recalculate and compare the information we undertook as a “summative content analysis”. The conventional content analysis was undertaken following Reference [ 39 ], which identified relevant categories. The summative content analysis was structured in two phases. The first is through compiling the neurophysiological and design aspects, and the second is by grouping these aspects. This latter analysis resulted in summary tables. Collecting the effects of different design variables can be useful for different objectives within the design and study of the cognitive-emotional dimension of the architecture. For example, in decision-making prior to experimental development (to consider variables that may influence the human response, and, among other actions, to choose the appropriate sample), to guide the analysis (to bring forward brain areas on which to focus data processing, among other actions), and even directly in design (given that some of these questions can be understood as design guidelines). A qualitative analysis software, Atlas.ti ( https://atlasti.com ), was used due to the support it offers to reviews [ 40 ]. Three researchers, who are specialists in architecture, behavioural sciences, and neuroscience, independently carried out analyses. The varied profiles of the researchers helped address the heterogeneous nature of the references and reduce the effect of possible professional deformation. The analyses were shared and discussed until consensus was reached. This gives greater reliability to the findings [ 41 , 42 ]. The content obtained from the analyses, which was focused on meeting the sub-objectives, was organised into appropriate sections.

This section synthesises the proposed sub-objectives.

3.1. Classification of References and Their Descriptive Analysis

The process identified 612 references that fulfilled the search criteria. A total of 327,058 were originally identified, with 289,146 from electronic databases, 37,635 from repositories, and 278 from reference lists ( Table 1 ).

Number of references identified in each source.

Of the 205,462 references remaining after duplicates were removed, only 520 were included after a full-text search. In addition, 92 references were added by following a review of the reference bibliography. Of the 612 references, 130 are books, 31 are book chapters, 380 are journal papers, 55 are conference papers, 6 are posters, and 10 are of other natures. Figure 2 presents the proportions chronologically.

Number of references included, based on type and publication date.

In terms of focus, 141 references of the 612 references explicitly examine the application of neuroscience to architecture. The remaining 471 focus on the precursor approaches to the cognitive-emotional study of architectural space. Two aspects are remarkable about the neuroscience in architecture approach references. First, more references might have been expected, but this can be explained by the relatively recent emergence of the topic. Most were published after 2000 and the trend seems to indicate an increase in the next few years. The second aspect focused on the high volume of recently published books. Regarding the publication dates, only first editions were considered. In addition to references that explicitly address the issue, the others were considered relevant because they mentioned, or addressed topics related to, the review’s sub-objectives.

The information in the references was categorised following the previously mentioned methodology. Each reference was able to satisfy more than one category. The categories and sub-categories are shown in Table 2 . This organisation serves as a structure for the rest of the results section (sub-objectives b to f). In this sense, Figure 3 provides a map of the general contents of this article.

Expository structure and key-concepts map of the paper.

Categories and sub-categories linked to the references.

Figure 4 provides temporal information about the sub-category references relating to approaches of the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture. The following should be noted: (1) the different approaches that have addressed the human-space relationship have enjoyed moments of greater popularity, and (2) neuroscience was applied to architecture later than to art and aesthetics. Both aspects suggest that including all the sub-categories helps address the issues that motivate this review.

Number of references included, grouped by the categorisation of the approaches to the cognitive-emotional dimension, and date of publication.

3.2. Holistic Framework of the Issue

This issue comprises various topics. Addressing it requires a holistic approach. The expository sequence follows the structure shown in Table 2 .

3.2.1. The Impact of Architecture on Human Beings and Directly Associated Research

The influence of architecture on human beings that acts of spatial planning have led to the current built space [ 43 ], which is our largest artifact [ 44 , 45 ]. Beyond its utilitarian character, architecture has complementary cognitive-emotional impacts [ 46 ]. Architecture can both elicit brain activation and modulate genetic function [ 47 ]. Consequently, changes in the environment have important impacts [ 48 ]. Its physiological and social effects should be emphasised. At the physiological level, the consequences for human development, performance, and stress are illustrative. Regarding development, a balanced environment can improve creativity [ 49 ] and cognitive function [ 50 ]. In fact, poor environmental stimulation affects brain development [ 51 ]. Environmental effects are not limited to growth stages. The environmental stimulation provoked by classroom design can improve students’ performance by using cold colours [ 52 ] or smaller spaces. As to stress, some environmental elements such as noise or the absence of vegetation have been shown to have negative consequences [ 3 , 53 ]. Among these impacts are poorer patient recovery [ 54 ] and shorter life expectancy [ 5 ]. On the other hand, in line with the concept of a “healing environment” [ 55 ], various studies have underlined the curative benefits of architecture [ 56 ]. At the social level, it has been found that, for example, the environment can promote collectivism [ 57 ], attract candidates for posts in organisations [ 58 ], and improve citizens’ sense of belonging [ 59 ] and behaviour [ 60 ]. It should be noted that the impact of environmental effects depends on the user’s sensitivity [ 61 ], and non-architectural elements may also have effects [ 62 ].

Architects have been aware of this impact [ 63 ] and that, when designing architecture, experience is designed [ 64 ]. As Aalto noted, humanising architecture involves “a functionalism much larger than the merely technical” [ 65 ]. “When I enter a space, the space enters me and transforms me” [ 66 ]. These statements make it clear that addressing the cognitive-emotional state of the users is a transcendental function of architecture [ 67 , 68 ]. Despite this, the aspects most likely to be objectified have been extensively studied, and the cognitive-emotional dimension has been underexplored [ 69 , 70 ].

The fundamental limitation of this research is that the architectural design process is very complex [ 71 ] because the myriad of design solutions (the possible configurations of all design variables) makes it impossible to test them all. In addition, the problems that the design solutions try to resolve are diverse and vary over time (e.g., the individuals’ needs from their houses can vary as they age). Although there has been extensive research into the built environment, which indicates that a certain level of analysis is possible, architectural design is infrequently, scientifically approached. Hence, the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture has formed only a small part of the formative content [ 72 ], and the implementation of the design has been mostly based on an amalgam of practices and motivations specific to the architectural project that are part of the ”designerly ways of knowing” [ 7 ].

With this as the main way of approaching the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture, more of the objectives of architectural design have shifted to more tangible and easily quantifiable issues, such as those closely related to the constructive processes of buildings. This has been pointed out from different perspectives: “Architecture and the modern cities that have been built tend to be inhumane” [ 73 ]. Have we turned our space into an economic-cosmetic product that ignores our primitive codes [ 74 ]? The importance of the built environment cannot be underestimated. “Any future construction must be preceded by a profound study of the relationships between spaces and feelings” [ 75 ]. In this sense, new tools that show the future of neuroarchitecture have been incorporated into the traditional architectural spectrum [ 76 ].

3.2.2. Base Approaches to the Cognitive-Emotional Dimension of Architecture

Architectural space has been the focus of thinking and research at the cognitive-emotional level. The concept has been addressed at different times. Therefore, knowledge of these bases allows us to contextualise current developments in the application of neuroscience to architecture and to understand the context of current practice [ 23 ]. This section exposes the base approaches organized as follows: (1) geometry, (2) phenomenology of space and geographical experience, and (3) philosophy, environmental psychology, and evidence-based design. This classification acknowledges the relationships between the base approaches.

Geometric Approach

Although users might not experience the exact dimensions of proportions, they will feel the underlying harmony [ 77 ]. Architects have worked with geometric proportions to address the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture. Thus, the geometric approach is a valid starting point from which to understand how architects work and establish bridges that can lead to the development of design tools [ 71 ].

The geometric connection between the human body and architecture has historically been addressed by two fundamental approaches, known as theomorphism and anthropomorphism. Theomorphism has existed from classical Greek architecture [ 78 ]. A well-known example is the Parthenon, fundamentally based on geometric proportions. The cognitive-emotional effect of the Parthenon’s geometric proportions is similar to that sought centuries later by architects, such as Palladio [ 79 ] and Le Corbusier [ 80 ], through a series of geometric-mathematical rules. Anthropomorphism has a long tradition. Examples are found in the classical Roman world, such as temples based on the symmetry of the human body [ 81 ], and, more recently, in the Renaissance and the Baroque periods, where human bodies appeared in some buildings [ 82 ]. However, this architecture-body metaphor has been subjected to different efforts to mathematise it, which shows that these two approaches are not mutually exclusive. For example, Alberti’s attempts to humanise space based on the geometry of the human body [ 83 , 84 ]. This line was exploited with Rationalism, as opposed to speaking architecture [ 85 ], which led to works by Klint [ 86 ], Bataille’s anthropomorphic architecture [ 87 ], the organic architecture of Zevi [ 88 ], the close association with daily human needs of Smithson [ 89 ], and Niemeyer’s [ 90 ] and Mollino’s designs directed toward life actions [ 91 ].

Many of these geometric concepts are recurring. On the one hand, geometrical relationships found to be aesthetic, such as the nine-square pattern [ 92 ], or the golden section, have been validated experimentally [ 93 ], with the latter even using virtual reality [ 94 ] and neuroscientific bases [ 95 ]. On the other hand, the new attempts to quantify geometric properties to capture the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture are worthy of mention. Among these are isovist analysis, the volume of space visible from a given point in space [ 96 ], and the application of artificial intelligence to distinguish formal categories, based on different features [ 97 ]. The recent mathematical-geometric analysis of architectural images is also noteworthy [ 98 , 99 , 100 ], through its use in architectural spaces of spatial metrics, such as edge density (number of straight and curved edges), fractal dimension (visual complexity), entropy (randomness), and colour metrics, such as hue (the dominant wavelength), saturation (the intensity of colour), and brightness (the darkness of colour). Hence, the geometric approach has not been abandoned.

The Phenomenology of Space and Geographical Experience Approach

Phenomenology is the study and description of phenomena as experienced through the senses in the first person. It is based on phenomena capable of being felt [ 101 ]. Architects have found affinities with this approach, likely because it is related to intuition.

One of the first studies into subjective space was Husserl’s exposition of his ideas about the external world [ 102 ]. Heidegger continued with these influences in “Being and Time” [ 103 ], addressing the spatiality of humans and the concept of “Stimmung” (or state of mind), which is fundamental for understanding subjective space: “being impregnated by an environment”. Some of the first explicit formulations were made by References [ 104 , 105 ], focusing on vital space. Some of the advances were compiled in “Situation” [ 106 ]. Later, the concepts of hodological space and distance including the way in which people evaluate the routes with the preference being based on subjective and objective influences, were introduced by Lewin [ 107 ], and developed by Sartre [ 108 ]. Bachelard [ 109 ] developed his space poetics, a concept widely embraced in the theory of architecture, that seeks to explain the human being’s relationship with the world through poetic images. Rasmussen [ 110 ] presented a phenomenological vision of architecture, which exemplified the syncretism between phenomenology and architecture. Bollnow [ 111 ] presented concepts involved in subjective space: “[...] Unlike mathematical space, subjective space is characterised by its lack of homogeneity”. This is because subjective space derives from the human’s relationship with space. This has led, even, to suggestions that objective space does not exist because it is always perceived [ 112 ]. These concepts (objective space and subjective space) have been embraced by many authors in different approaches to the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture. At the same time, the concepts have been developed in geographical experience [ 113 ], and have practical applications in urban planning [ 114 ]. Lynch work [ 115 ], which shows the influence of environmental psychology on the phenomenology of space, is representative of its beginnings [ 116 ]. More recently, Pallasmaa, influenced by previous authors, examined the phenomenology of space in architecture [ 117 , 118 ] that claimed architecture takes account of the human biological dimension. Pallasmaa’s line here is shared with Holl and Pérez-Gómez [ 119 , 120 ]. The phenomenology of space has more recently gained momentum under new approaches based on the concept of atmospheres [ 121 , 122 ]: quasi-things, without discrete or visible limits, that exist because of our emotional encounter with the environment [ 123 , 124 ]. Thus, the phenomenology of space and geographical experience have not been neglected.

The Philosophy, Environmental Psychology, and Evidence-Based Design Approach

Psychology addresses the behaviours and mental processes involved in its experience [ 125 ]. Its focus on space is “environmental psychology” [ 126 , 127 ]. Environmental psychology takes phenomenology as one of its substrates [ 128 ]. Hence, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish them nor is it easy to discern the philosophical origins of environmental psychology [ 129 ].

It is illustrative to consider philosophical milestones. Burke [ 130 ] presented an influential philosophical exposition on aesthetics, theorising about beauty through psychophysiological concepts. Burke’s ideas attracted the attention of Kant, who identified space and time as the mental structure of things that we know [ 131 ]. A series of works contributed to the expansion of psychology. Among these are Zeising, who combined geometry and psychology [ 132 ], art, physiology, and emotion linked by Friedrich Theodor Vischer [ 133 ] and Robert Vischer [ 134 ] (who coined the term “einfühlung”: aesthetic empathy, the process through which humans project their emotions onto objects), Fechner, who combined physiology and psychology [ 135 ], Wundt [ 136 ] and Stumpf [ 137 ], who combined psychophysiology and philosophy. Later, Wertheimer, Koffka, and Köhler (students of Stumpf) established gestalt psychology [ 138 ]. Gestalt psychology established principles, or laws, [ 139 ] about the organisation of scenes ( Table 3 ). Many design professionals, including architects, have often embraced these principles. It is noteworthy that Koffka [ 140 ] studied the organisation of the visual field, and Köhler developed the concept of “isomorphism” including the correlation between experience and neural activity [ 141 ] and experience as a sensory sum [ 142 ]. At this historic point, the connections between psychology and neuroscience were evident. Although subsequent studies may have rejected some of these findings, some have been accepted and the works themselves have been recognised as meritorious [ 143 ].

Compilation of some gestalt principles.

One of the advantages of environmental psychology for addressing the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture is its evaluation instruments. Semantic differential is among the most used [ 144 ]. This is based on the idea that a concept can acquire meaning when a sign (word) provokes the response associated with what it represents, which suggests the existence of an underlying structure. The models of Küller [ 145 , 146 , 147 ] and Russell & Mehrabian [ 148 ], which described the affective-emotional states elicited by the experience of space, should be highlighted. One of its first applications was in architecture [ 149 ]. More recently, it has been used to quantify the relative importance of different design variables [ 150 ]. In this respect, it should be noted that some variables, such as the presence of vegetation and illumination, have been examined, but others, such as those focused on spatial geometry, have been less explored (probably, in part, because of the experimental difficulty involved in modifying them in a controlled manner). Semantic differential has also been used in the context of Kansei engineering, which is a product development method that translates the underlying structure into configurations of variables [ 151 ]. It has been applied in different contexts, including the architectural [ 152 , 153 , 154 ] and urban planning [ 153 , 155 ].

A more practical application of the tools available in environmental psychology is an evidence-based design (EBD) approach: “the process of basing decisions about the built environment on credible research” [ 156 ]. Its origins can be found in the medical field, as an extension of evidence-based medicine [ 157 ] to architectural design [ 158 ]. Illustrative are the plan analyses [ 159 ] and post-occupancy evaluations [ 160 ]. Since Ulrich demonstrated the influence of the environment on patient recovery [ 6 ], it has been widely applied in healthcare spaces [ 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 ]. One of the reasons that EBD is so widely used is that it is available for any organisation [ 167 ]. Various aspects have been studied. For example, some aspects include reducing pain [ 168 ] and stress [ 169 ], improving rest [ 170 ], spatial orientation [ 171 ], wandering [ 172 ], privacy and security [ 173 ], social cohesion [ 174 ], overall well-being and satisfaction [ 175 ], and the design of children-tailored environments [ 176 ]. Table 4 compiles effects generated by different design variables, according to different studies both in environmental psychology and EBD.

Effects generated by variables or aspects of architectural design frequently studied in the environmental psychology and EBD approach.

3.2.3. New Tools in Architectural Research and Practice

The base approaches, in general, have two limitations: (1) the validity of the selected stimuli, and (2) the applicability of the evaluations. Regarding the stimuli, although representations may be valid [ 199 ], they are limited. For example, photos and videos, frequently used, offer little interactivity. This reduces virtual immersion [ 200 ] and impoverishes the experience. When environmental simulation differs from reality, the results can be distorted. Moreover, these stimuli do not allow environmental parameters to be controlled. Regarding evaluations, self-reports are prone to bias [ 201 ], as they record only the conscious aspects of human responses. This is important, given that most cognitive and emotional processes occur at the unconscious level [ 202 ]. Taking these points into account, the results must be contextualised.

Regarding new approaches to the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture, we try to overcome these limitations. New research tools provide: (1) artificial stimuli that are more similar to physical, real stimuli (in the represented spaces), and (2) new, more objective evaluations of cognitive-emotional responses. Virtual reality (VR) is frequently used to provide stimuli. VR simulates environments in a realistic, immersive, and interactive way [ 203 ] under controlled laboratory conditions [ 204 ]. As for evaluation, neuroscience and its related technologies allow researchers to record and interpret human behavioural, physiological, and neurological reactions [ 205 ], providing high levels of objectivity [ 206 ] and continuous monitoring [ 207 , 208 ]. Although neuroscientific techniques have been available for decades, their application is currently expanding.

Neuroscience

Neuroscience focuses on the brain and nervous system [ 209 ]. On the basis that normal human brains are very similar, neuroscience has provided insights into the functioning of the nervous system [ 210 , 211 ]. Resorting to the brain is starting from the root [ 212 ]. Neuroscience has different areas of expertise [ 213 ]. This has allowed its results, methodologies, and tools to also have an implication on issues directly related to other disciplines. For example, cognitive neuroscience, behavioural neuroscience, neurophysiological neuroscience, and sensory neuroscience shed light on perception in general [ 214 ] and on space in particular [ 215 ]. Given neuroscience’s applicability to architecture [ 216 ], the discipline can contribute to quantifying architecture’s impact on humans [ 217 , 218 ]. Thus, designs that contribute to their users’ quality of life can be produced [ 219 , 220 ].

However, human nervous system studies have had few avenues to explore human brain function. They have generally been limited to examining patients with neural injuries or suffering from neurodegenerative diseases [ 221 ]. Studies into the effects of neuronal injuries on art production have followed this approach [ 222 ]. For example, it has been found that frontotemporal dementia changes musical taste [ 223 ], that damage to the amygdala impairs the identification of sad music [ 224 ], and that damage to one hemisphere causes spatial neglect on the opposite side in drawings [ 225 , 226 , 227 ]. Paradoxically, neuronal injuries can sometimes improve artistic skills [ 228 , 229 , 230 ]. Due to the paucity of this form of study, they have sometimes been considered “informative anecdotes” [ 17 ]. The clearest conclusions have only been able to be drawn after the joint analysis of cases [ 231 ].

Neuroimaging techniques open new paths. Based on the non-invasive recording of brain responses [ 232 , 233 ], they allow observation of the responses of healthy individuals under controlled conditions. From their first applications to art, studies have made substantial progress [ 234 , 235 ]. These techniques are essential in the exploration of the neural processes involved in art generation and appreciation. Various tools are used to obtain the recordings [ 236 ] from the central (CNS), the autonomic (ANS), and the somatic (SNS) nervous systems.

The CNS is made up of the brain and the spinal cord. The tools most commonly used to study CNS functions in living humans are functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), electroencephalography (EEG), and magnetoencephalography (MEG). fMRI measures neuronal activity indirectly by detecting changes in magnetic properties related to blood flow [ 237 ]. Although its temporal resolution is poor, fMRI yields better spatial resolution and deep structure identification than other methods. fMRI has been used to study aspects such as memory [ 238 ]. EEG measures electric field fluctuations due to the ionic currents generated by neuronal activity in the brain, mainly the cortical areas because they are the most superficial [ 239 ]. The analysis of the recordings generally involves the classification of power spectral densities within defined frequency bands, on the basis that the brain is made up of different networks that operate at its frequency, and the relationships between these networks [ 240 ]. The high temporal resolution of EEG allows the analysis of stereotyped fluctuations generated by discrete stimuli [ 241 ]. EEG has been used to study, for example, mental workload [ 242 ]. In contrast, MEG measures the magnetic fields generated by the ionic current [ 243 ]. Although its infrastructure has drawbacks (MEG equipment is not wearable or portable), the skull and scalp distort the magnetic fields less than the electric. This advantage makes MEG a powerful tool for exploring the functions of deeper cellular structures, such as the hippocampal’s role in cognition [ 244 ]. In parallel, it is possible to stimulate brain areas using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which is a technique used in various fields [ 245 ].

The ANS, which is part of the peripheral nervous system, controls involuntary actions. The tools most commonly used to study ANS function monitor electrodermal activity (EDA, called Galvanic Skin Response, or GSR), heart rate variability (HRV), and pupillometry. EDA measures variations in electrodermal properties, particularly electrical conductivity [ 246 ]. Sudomotor activity is related to sympathetic nervous system activity [ 247 ], so it is appropriate for tracking arousal [ 248 ]. EDA has been used to study attention [ 249 ]. HRV measures the variation in time between heartbeats [ 250 ]. HRV measurements are generally grouped into time-domain and frequency-domain with both having clinical and cognitive-emotional significance [ 251 ]. It has been used to study issues such as stress [ 252 ]. Pupillometry is the measurement of the diameter of the pupil of the eye [ 253 ]. Although the pupil diameter is directly affected by a light level, it has also been related to arousal [ 254 ] and cognitive load [ 255 ]. While ANS activity has been considered insufficient to study the nuances of emotion [ 256 ], it has more recently been favoured [ 257 ].

The SNS is the part of the peripheral nervous system associated with voluntary movement. Eye tracking and electromyography (EMG) are commonly used tools. Eye tracking is the measure of gaze movement [ 258 ]. Eye movements, to an extent, identify the focus of our attention (voluntary and involuntary), and are influenced by cognitive-emotional states [ 259 ]. Various metrics are used to measure eye movements, based on the parametrization of the movements [ 260 ]. For example, eye tracking has been used to study engagement [ 261 ]. EMG measures the electrical activity of the muscles [ 262 ]. To measure facial expressions related to emotion [ 263 ], recordings are usually made of the corrugator supercilii [ 264 ] and the zygomaticus major [ 265 ], which are muscles strongly influenced by emotional valence [ 266 ]. Thus, EMG has been frequently used to study basic emotions [ 267 ]. There is, in addition, automatic image-based facial expression recognition (facial coding). Some architectural studies have applied physical eye tracking [ 268 , 269 , 270 ] and eye tracking simulated by software [ 271 ] and facial coding [ 272 ].

Given the complexity of neural activity, these tools are insufficient to fully explain it. However, they offer information about its bases and are compatible with other approaches. They make a contribution that, in architecture, recalls the optimism that Frampton attributed to the technique to “replace the devalued motives [...] of our environment and turn it into an authentic place” [ 273 ].

Virtual Reality

Environmental simulations are representations of actual environments [ 274 ]. There are different types [ 275 ]. VR generates interactive real-time computer representations that replace the visual information normally provided by the physical world and create the feeling of “being there” [ 276 ]. It is possible, though seldom done, to create virtual representations using other sensory channels. This type of stimulation is especially interesting. For example, head transfer function (a response to how a sound emitted from a point is received after the sound arrives at the listener) is involved in how we perceive physical and virtual environments [ 277 ]. Hapticity plays an important role in the supramodal experience of architecture [ 278 ], and smell has important cognitive-emotional effects in certain situations, such as stress reduction [ 15 ].

Various devices are used to reproduce VR formats. It is common to classify them according to immersion: the degree to which the hardware isolates the user from the physical world [ 279 ]. Thus, there are non-immersive devices, such as computer monitors, semi-immersive devices, such as the cave automatic virtual environment (CAVE), and fully-immersive devices, such as head-mounted displays (HMDs). Greater immersion generates a greater sense of presence, that is, the user’s perceptual illusion of non-mediation [ 280 , 281 ]. Greater presence also involves the allocation of more brain resources for cognitive/motor control [ 282 ]. Although non-immersive devices inherently offer the advantage of collaborative viewing [ 283 ], the majority of current interests focus on the other two types of device and HMDs are now within reach in terms of usability and affordability [ 284 ]. This increasing popularisation has contributed to VR being used in other fields.

In architecture, VR has given rise to an explosion of applications [ 285 ]. VR allows us to modify variables in the same space in isolation and record human interaction with the environment, quickly and at low cost [ 286 ]. VR, thus, is an optimal tool for evaluating human responses to architecture [ 287 ] at both behavioural and neurophysiological levels [ 288 , 289 ] and even its cartographic representation [ 290 ]. For example, it has been used to study relationships between experience and space variables [ 291 ], facilitate design decision-making [ 292 ], and assess accessibility [ 293 , 294 ] and orientation inside buildings [ 295 ], including in emergency situations [ 296 ]. Thus, VR provides knowledge beyond that provided by the physical world.

The interactivity inherent in VR gives rise to a fundamental aspect that should be addressed: navigation. Two components of navigation are usually discussed: wayfinding and travel [ 297 ]. Wayfinding is the cognitive process of establishing a route [ 298 , 299 ]. It has been suggested that wayfinding performance in virtual environments is poorer than in physical environments [ 300 , 301 ]. The travel component, related to the task of moving from one point to another, has been found to be strongly affected by the navigation metaphor used to perform the navigation. Many navigation metaphors, classified as physical or artificial, are available. Physical metaphors are varied. For example, room-scale based metaphors, such as real walking inside a physical space, is the most naturalistic metaphor but is highly limited by the physical tracked area [ 302 ]. Motion-based metaphors, such as walking-in-place, is a pseudo-naturalistic metaphor where the user performs virtual locomotion, while remaining stationary (e.g., moving the hands), to navigate [ 303 ], or redirected walking, known as a metaphor where users perceive they are walking while they are unknowingly being manipulated by the virtual display, which allows navigation in an environment larger than the physical tracked area [ 304 ]. Artificial metaphors facilitate direct movements using joysticks, keyboards, or similar devices [ 305 ]. Among these are teleportation-based metaphors, which allow users instantaneous movement to a selected point [ 306 ]. There is no consensus as to which is the most appropriate [ 307 ]. Since navigation can radically condition space perception and, therefore, subsequent human responses, it is a key aspect that needs to be considered.

However, VR does have some problems. These are generally of a technical nature, such as the previously discussed navigation [ 308 , 309 ], level of detail [ 310 ], and negative symptoms and effects [ 311 ]. In architecture, an important limitation is that, although VR can be combined with auditory and tactile stimulation [ 312 ], the richness of the experience is limited [ 313 ]. A simulation will always be a simulation [ 314 ], an abstraction of a complex reality [ 315 ], and, thus, VR cannot reproduce physical environments [ 316 ]. Therefore, studies that employ VR must be validated in physical environments [ 317 , 318 , 319 ]. Despite these drawbacks, synthetic environments have been shown to elicit behavioural responses similar to physical environments [ 320 ] and VR has its uses in various fields [ 321 ] and, in particular, in architecture. It is a tool for architects and cognitive scientists interested in spatial perception and cognition.

Combined Neuroscientific and Virtual Reality Technologies

Neuroscience and VR can be combined [ 322 ]. This combination allows researchers to develop virtual environments and record the neurophysiological and behavioural responses of experimental subjects [ 323 , 324 , 325 , 326 , 327 , 328 ]. It has been suggested that this combination is more rigorous than research in physical settings using self-reports [ 329 ]. This is attractive for neuropsychological research [ 330 ] and architecture [ 331 ]. Thus, combined VR/neuroscience techniques are increasingly being used to examine the psychological [ 332 ] and neural bases of different aspects of the human-space relationship [ 333 ]. The techniques are being used in visuomotor [ 334 ] and spatial learning [ 335 ], evaluations of cognitive rehabilitation [ 336 ], assessments of social situations [ 337 ], training in simulated environments [ 338 ], quantification of sense of presence [ 339 ], and studies exploring the neurophysiological foundations of cognitive-emotional states, such as arousal [ 340 , 341 , 342 , 343 ], stress [ 344 , 345 , 346 , 347 ], and fear [ 348 , 349 ]. The combined approach allows us to evaluate the cognitive-emotional influence of architecture from a new perspective [ 350 ].

3.2.4. The Cognitive-Emotional Dimension of Architecture Measured through Neuro-Aesthetics

Neuroscientific and virtual reality technologies have been extensively used in experiments in the related fields of art and aesthetics. They have provided a very valuable source of results and methodologies. The discipline derived from applying neuroscience to aesthetics has been called “neuro-aesthetics”. Neuro-aesthetic research is an example of how technologies can contribute to the study of art [ 351 , 352 ] and, since architecture shares lines of action with art and aesthetics, understanding the most illustrative innovations that have taken place in art and aesthetics represents an important new knowledge source for architecture [ 353 ]. However, although a certain degree of extrapolation could be presumed, it should be noted that the current state of development of neuroarchitecture does not yet make it possible to determine to what extent extrapolation is possible. Below, we discuss some landmarks that have been considered of special importance and affinity with architecture, considering contributions from different artistic contexts and, therefore, sensory modalities.

Psychology has developed various levels of analysis over the last century [ 354 ]. Some of these analytical levels have focused on the “objective” and “subjective” aspects that influence the aesthetic experience [ 93 ].

Among the “objective” aspects related to the characteristics of objects are: (1) symmetry, (2) centre, (3) complexity, (4) order, (5) proportion, (6) colour, (7) context, and (8) processing fluency. Table 5 presents some effects and, where appropriate, related neurophysiological activity (RNA) and their Brede Database WOROI (a hierarchically structured directory of brain structures) codes. Many of these objective aspects have been approached intuitively, from different artistic disciplines, but applying a psychological approach provides new knowledge that can be of interest both to artists and researchers. For example, symmetry, which has been used frequently from early times in some architectural trends and styles, has been associated with faster cognitive processing of stimuli, but also with a certain aesthetic rigidity. Other less studied aspects are typicity [ 355 ] and semantic content, as opposed to formal qualities [ 356 ] and style [ 357 ]. Many of these aspects are grouped in Ramachandran and Hirstein’s [ 358 ] theory of aesthetic experience. This conceptualises eight principles: peak shift effect, isolating single clues, perceptual grouping, contrast, perceptual problem solving, generic viewpoint, metaphor, and symmetry.

Effects generated by the “objective” aspects frequently studied in psychology applied to art. The table incorporates some points about the neuronal activities involved (the nomenclature of the sources is followed, and WOROI codes are added).

Among the “subjective” aspects, related to personal factors, are: (1) emotional state, (2) familiarity and novelty, (3) pre-classification, and (4) others of a social nature. Table 6 summarises some effects. These aspects complement the objective aspects, and play an important role [ 397 ]. Subjective aspects have been addressed using different evaluation instruments, which highlights the variety of psychological tools available for application to art. For example, tools such as fMRI and EEG have been recently used to study the neuro-behavioural effects of familiarity and novelty of stimuli, whose impacts on aesthetic judgement were already known at the psychometric level. In fact, neuroscience is advancing rapidly [ 398 ]. Since the first event-related potentials in aesthetic judgment studies were published in 2000, a large number focused on aesthetics in painting have appeared [ 399 ]. Later, specific aspects of painting and other forms of artistic expression were addressed [ 400 ]. A growing trend exists that is revealing the neurophysiological bases of the (previously discussed) objective and subjective aspects that influence the aesthetic experience.

Effects generated by the “subjective” aspects frequently studied by psychology applied to art. The table incorporates some points about the neuronal activities involved (the nomenclature of the sources is followed, and WOROI codes are added).

Distinctions are normally made between the neurophysiological foundations of attention, judgement, and emotion [ 432 ]. Table 7 summarises some effects. Taking attention, it has been found that visual processing occurs both in parallel and hierarchically [ 433 ], as more complex issues are gradually solved [ 434 ]. In terms of artistic judgement, there are two stages known as a general impression of works at around 300 ms and a deeper aesthetic evaluation at around 600 ms [ 435 ]. Regarding emotion, aesthetics is a complex experience that involves different affective-emotional processes that activate reward-related brain regions [ 436 ]. Reward is understood as the positive value attributed to something [ 437 ]. Hemispheric specialisation has also received attention [ 438 ]. Some studies have seemed to suggest that there are asymmetric functions in the brain hemispheres, and while they might be activated by the same stimuli, they react in different ways [ 439 ]. Thus, while two parts of the brain might be activated by the same stimuli, only one would be the final controller. However, aesthetic experience involves different aspects [ 440 ], processed through the same systems used in other areas [ 441 ]. In this sense, mirror neurons are interesting. Mirror neurons are activated both when carrying out an action and when observing it. The observers’ neurons “mirror” (hence, the name) the behaviour of the individual carrying out an action, as if the observers themselves were performing it. It has been suggested that the behaviour of mirror neurons is important to social life-linked cognitive capacities, such as empathy [ 442 ], but also to the empathic understanding of art [ 443 ], and, therefore, in the specific context of architecture [ 444 ].

Neurophysiological foundations of the aesthetic experience (the nomenclature of the sources is followed, and WOROI codes are added).

Neural activities have been identified in relation to aspects studied in psychology. Table 6 and Table 7 display some of these. The fact that the structures involved are both subcortical and cortical, which are commonly associated with emotion and reason, is the basis of romantic hypotheses about the complexity of art, and the difficulty of producing beauty, in comparison to perceiving it. Given the close coordination between these structures [ 480 ], it would make sense to accept that the interaction between the structures is both bottom-up and top-down [ 481 ].

Different models establish links between studies. On the one hand, the psychological model of Leder [ 482 ] emphasised the interdependence of emotion and aesthetic judgment (they occur simultaneously: the first is the source of aesthetic preference, the second is the output of affective-emotional states) and established five phases of aesthetic experience (perception, explicit classification, implicit classification, cognitive mastering, and evaluation). On the other hand, the Chatterjee neuroscientific model [ 483 ] proposes that, in addition to affective-emotional output, there is a decision-making process. The model establishes five phases (processing of simple components, attention to prominent properties, attention modulation, feed-back/feed-forward processes uniting the attentional and attributional circuits, and intervention of the emotional systems). The fundamentals of the Chatterjee’s model have recently been contextualised in architecture [ 484 ]. Both frameworks represent the aesthetic experience, and have been useful for interpreting later results [ 485 ]. However, further research is needed.

3.2.5. Neuroscience in Architecture

Neuroscience is being incorporated into the study of the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture [ 486 ]. Seen in retrospect, certain gestalt psychology-influenced developments link the use of neuroscience in architecture [ 487 ]. Von Hayek’s work [ 488 ] and Arnheim’s research [ 489 ] into the psychology of art and perception of images are examples. Beyond gestalt, and, strictly outside art, Reference [ 490 ] made a contribution to the application of neuroscience to behaviour by developing a theory of how complex psychological phenomena can be produced by brain activity. Paired with his ideas, Neutra made one of the first more explicit contemporary formulations of the incorporation of neuroscientific knowledge into architecture [ 491 ]. He explained that architecture should satisfy the neurological needs of its users by incorporating the research available into the development of architectural designs. In addition, inspirational is the holistic understanding of human life that Moholy-Nagy expected from architects [ 492 ]. The point at which this knowledge began to be accessible to architects, according to some authors [ 493 ], was with the publication of “The Embodied Mind” [ 494 ]. In this work, the authors coined the term “neurophenomenology,” and tried to reconcile the scientific approach with experience [ 495 ]. In this sense, Einfühlung has also acquired a neuroscientific substrate in recent years. Freedberg & Gallese [ 443 ] proposed that mirror neurons are responsible for what certain phenomenology authors called “resonance”. In this way, neuroscience applications, compared to base approaches, offer substantial benefits [ 496 ].

Two lines stand out in the exploration of architecture’s bases: the design process, and the experience of architecture [ 497 ]. The first line has been widely developed in art in general, and has made progress in the architectural field such as in proposals on how to incorporate the knowledge derived from neuroscience’s application to architecture into the design process [ 498 , 499 , 500 ], and in studies into brain development generated by acquired expertise [ 405 , 501 ]. These studies share common ground with neuro-aesthetic research. Frequently examined aspects of the second line are orientation, light, and acoustics. Orientation is part of the daily activity of most people [ 502 ]. Studies of diverse natures have tried to explain the principles involved in wayfinding [ 503 , 504 , 505 ] with VR being an effective tool [ 506 ]. These studies have direct relevance when it comes to improving navigation strategies. There is a long tradition of using light for aesthetic purposes. Since the discovery of the eye’s photoreceptive ganglion cells, and their influence on circadian rhythms [ 507 , 508 ], light-centred studies have been complemented by health-focused research [ 509 ]. The application of the recommendations based on the results of light-based research could improve the experience of users, especially those with time/light challenges (e.g., night shift workers) [ 510 ]. Regarding acoustics, there is a relationship between noise and consequences for humans at different levels [ 511 ]. For example, studies have been undertaken into stress recovery during exposure to sounds of a different quality [ 512 ]. Leaving aside artistic arguments, the treatment of space acoustics is of considerable importance. In addition to these aspects (orientation, etc.), studies that identify the mechanisms of exposure to restorative environments should be highlighted [ 513 ], as should studies into the quantification, based on neurophysiological measures, of the effects of restorative environments in interior [ 514 ] and exterior spaces [ 515 , 516 ], the capture of the emotional impact of museum experiences [ 517 , 518 , 519 , 520 ], the modification of recommended house design variables [ 521 ], and works with mixed design aspects [ 522 ]. The results of some studies appear in Table 8 . Beyond the relative prominence of wayfinding studies, in this table, it can be seen that some variables attract more attention (as do environmental psychology and EBD). The variable contours and ornament, which is a basic architectural design aspect, stands out. These advances show the usefulness of the neuro-architectural approach to the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture [ 523 , 524 , 525 ]. However, although neuroscientific research is extensive and rigorous, its application to architecture is an emerging discipline [ 526 , 527 ]. Thus, there are, as yet, few practical works exclusively focused on improving architectural design. The efforts are dispersed, and a common framework has yet to be established.

Neurophysiological foundations of the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture, and the neuro-behavioural effects generated by architectural design variables studied in the application of neuroscience to architecture.

4. Discussion

Based on the scoping review of neuroarchitecture and its precursor approaches, four aspects of the application of neuroscience to architecture were identified: (1) limitations of the approaches, (2) the problems in addressing the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture, (3) ways to solve the problems, and (4) the limitations of this work.

4.1. Limitations of the Approaches to the Study of Cognitive-Emotional Dimension of Architecture

The study of the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture is complex. New approaches are helping to overcome the limitations of the base approaches and to identify data that can support the validity of design proposals. However, neither approach is without its limitations.

The base approaches to the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture are generally limited in relation to the environmental stimuli and the evaluation systems used. The new approaches, to an extent, try to overcome these limitations by incorporating VR and neuroscience. Their application to aesthetics and art provides a basis for their application to architecture. However, the fact that art and architecture are related fields does not make them equivalent. Thus, the extrapolation of other knowledge bases to architecture must be undertaken with caution. These aspects are discussed below at ontological, epistemological, and methodological levels.

At an ontological level, the limitations are derived from the perceptual breadth of the experiences. Two deficiencies stand out: (1) the modality of the stimuli used, and (2) the aspects studied. The first limitation involves unimodality. Previous studies have generally focused on the visual domain [ 570 ]. Although most of the information we process is in the visual domain [ 571 , 572 ], limiting the exposure to only unimodal stimuli in architecture reduces the richness of the experience [ 573 , 574 ]. The second limitation fundamentally involves beauty and pleasure. On the one hand, although beauty plays a central role in people’s concept of aesthetics, art, and, therefore, architecture [ 575 ]. Non-beautiful works can be art [ 576 ]. On the other hand, although pleasure may be derived from the aesthetic or artistic experience [ 577 ], pleasurable feelings may be generated for reasons outside the work of art or architecture. Thus, beauty and pleasure are not enough [ 578 ].

At the epistemological level, the limitations derive from the difficulty of explaining these experiences in exclusively physiological terms. Two stand out: (1) the neurology-experience relationship, and (2) the various influential aspects. The first limitation generates the risk of drawing invalid inferences since a brain area can be related to several processes [ 579 ]. Emotions are especially complex in this regard [ 580 ]. The second limitation relates to the number of aspects that influence artistic and aesthetic experiences [ 221 ]. These experiences may seem simple because they are simple to recognize, but not at a neuro-psychological level.

At a methodological level, the limitations derive from the wide variety of stimuli and the many ways in which works can be displayed. Two stand out: (1) procedural conflicts and (2) technical restrictions. The first limitation involves several questions. On the one hand, ceteris paribus logic sacrifices the complexity of the stimuli. In addition, the rigidity of neuroimaging protocols and the laboratory context can alter results. On the other hand, the multiple cognitive-emotional processes involved do not occur simultaneously [ 581 ], which may misalign the causal assignment of the recordings. The second limitation relates to the restrictions associated with neurophysiological recording technologies such as the immobility of fMRI. Although these limitations can now be considerably addressed using other devices, such as wearable EEG caps [ 582 ] and recordings that can be made outside the laboratory [ 583 , 584 , 585 ], they must be taken into account. The limitations all contribute to the lack of a commonly accepted methodology. In a certain way, this lack also obstructs the understanding between different research groups and the comparability of results. While sometimes studies might provide divergent results, it may be because they are reflecting different components of the experience [ 586 ]. This leads to the point that the results are also difficult to extrapolate into design guidelines for practical application in architecture.

4.2. Problems in Addressing the Cognitive-Emotional Dimension of Architecture

In addition to the limitations discussed above (applicable to the entire domain of art and aesthetics), there are more specific architecture-based limitations. Mainly two: (1) it is not possible to liken architecture to the artistic-aesthetic, and (2) the experience is not one-off. The first limitation arises from the depth of the architectural function. Architecture tries to meet broad human needs [ 587 ]. Although architecture is one of the “Fine Arts” [ 588 ], the artistic-aesthetic experience is only one of the components of the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture. The second limitation is that architecture is an experiential continuum [ 589 ]. The transition from one space to another can condition the experience [ 590 ], with the “architectural narrative” being significant [ 560 ]. In addition, peripheral vision is of special importance [ 591 ]. In fact, architecture could be experienced in two ways: intellectually, through focal processing, and in terms of atmosphere, through ambient processing [ 592 ]. Furthermore, architecture engages all sensory modalities [ 278 , 593 ], so the visual is insufficient to describe it [ 96 ]. This is very important in terms of the study of sensory interaction [ 594 ]. Both limitations impede the fragmentation of the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture, which encourages the tendency toward case studies [ 595 ]. In summary, the application of neuroscience to other fields must be cautiously extrapolated to architecture.

The debate on the universality of art should not be forgotten [ 596 , 597 ]. Fundamentally, a perspective based on objective principles might be considered [ 598 ], but differences between individuals makes the artistic experience widely subjective [ 599 ], which is a circumstance echoed in architecture [ 600 ]. To deploy ideas about the universality of art requires retrospective exposition. To begin with, art has developed in parallel with human evolution [ 601 ]. It is an exclusively human capacity apart from the structures that some animals produce based on their genetic programming [ 493 ]. This is not a reference to the denaturation of art [ 602 ], but to its human focus. The key point is that the brain adapts to the environment [ 603 ], which is a process known as “neuroplasticity” [ 604 ]. Thus, our artistic (and, therefore, architectural) experience is conditioned by biological and environmental factors [ 605 ], with the latter having a major impact [ 606 ]. Additionally, human brains may change through pathologies (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease). Achieving universal art or architecture may not be possible. In fact, there is less agreement when it comes to judging artifacts than natural elements [ 607 ]. However, all humans have innately similar brains [ 608 , 609 ], which allows bridges to be built between individuals, societies, and times [ 610 ]. Therefore, some common architectural design guidelines may be developed.

4.3. Beyond the Current State: The Challenges Facing Neuroarchitecture and Its Constituent Disciplines

Hitherto, there has been no general study of the foundations underlying the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture. In this sense, neuroarchitecture has potential. The new discipline makes a contribution to an architecture that supports the cognitive-emotional dimension [ 611 ], and does not fall into the reductionism of exclusively aspiring to provide relaxation [ 92 ]. This might embrace the contemporary emphasis on sustainability and the social dimension [ 612 ]. The examples are as varied as the spaces: hospitals that contribute to healing [ 613 ], classrooms that support cognitive processes [ 614 ], work environments that encourage collaboration [ 615 ], museums perceptually adapted to the works that they house [ 583 ], restaurants where multisensory integration enhances the gastronomic experience [ 616 ], and, among others, urban planning activities [ 617 , 618 , 619 , 620 ], where one of the challenges lies in the diversity of groups. Designing for specific groups, including those with specific pathologies such as dementia [ 621 , 622 , 623 ], involves a frontal confrontation with design for the masses. The success of the different applications of neuroarchitecture will, in part, depend on the ability of its constituent disciplines to overcome its inherent challenges.

User experience is the main issue in VR. Increasing the capacity of VR set-ups to generate the illusion of being in a place (characterised as “place illusion”), and the credibility of the scenarios, to meet the viewer’s expectations (characterised as “plausibility illusion”), is crucial. Although there is limited understanding what affects the sense of presence, there is consensus on two factors, known as exteroception and interoception. Exteroception factors, which are directly related to the experimental set-up (such as interactivity), increase the sense of presence particularly in virtual environments not designed to induce specific emotions [ 624 ]. Interoception factors, defined by the content displayed, increase the presence if the user feels emotionally affected [ 625 ]. For example, previous studies have found a strong correlation between arousal and presence [ 626 ]. This suggests that, in neuroarchitecture, both factors may be critical. There is a robust interdisciplinary community [ 627 ] that is certainly helpful in meeting this challenge. Furthermore, neuroarchitecture and VR share a synergistic relationship in which the former can help us understand and improve virtual spaces with which we interact more.

The analysis of neurophysiological data is challenging [ 628 ]. Affective computing, which is an interdisciplinary field based on psychology, computer science, and biomedical engineering [ 629 ], will likely play an important role. Several studies have focused on identifying the cognitive-emotional state of subjects by using machine-learning algorithms and by achieving high levels of accuracy [ 630 , 631 ]. Many neuroimaging techniques have been used [ 632 ]. Affective computing can be transversally applied to many human behaviour topics. Although one of the first applications of affective computing was to neuroeconomics research due to the important relationship that has been found between emotions and decision-making [ 633 ], there are revealing and important examples of its application to architecture [ 634 ]. In fact, very recent applications in virtual architectural spaces have produced encouraging results [ 635 , 636 , 637 ]. For neuroarchitecture, the definition of neurophysiological indices in relation to the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture would contribute to the development of an actual architectural design tool. These would allow the effect of the architecture on users to be measured in an easy-to-interpret way (e.g., stress through neurophysiological measures expressed in well-defined ranges). The fact that these indices have not yet been fully developed and made available for academic and professional use is one of the reasons that may be holding back the growth of neuroarchitecture. Developed in real time, these could even contribute to adapting spaces to emotional states [ 638 ] (for example, automatically modify the lighting of the environment in order to respond to a stressful situation of its user). In this matter, the combination with virtual reality could potentially present yet another facet of the synergy between neuroimaging and virtual reality techniques. For example, by means of augmented reality displayed on HMDs, the user could be stimulated to reduce their stress without physically modifying variables of the environment (which could affect other users who do not meet the same needs). Thus, neuroarchitecture would not only help to answer questions about the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture, but also to develop a technological layer that supports our cognitive-emotional processes [ 639 ].

However, humans are not just neurological entities. Thus, it is not surprising that the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture has been approached from such different directions. The polyhedral nature of the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture means that a solution can hardly be derived from one source. Although neuroscience applied to architecture helps to answer questions about the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture, it does not hold all the answers. Moreover, architecture has traditionally been based on designerly ways of knowing. The architect intuitively explores and exploits some of its perceptual foundations. This offers an economy of means that, sometimes, is ahead of science [ 640 ]. Thus, if the ultimate goal is to improve architecture, attention must be paid to both the bases and execution. To do this, it will be necessary to take into account how architects work. “Scientists and artists need to identify common ground” [ 641 ]. Only in this way will it be possible to develop the broad and deep knowledge needed to generate a true design tool.

4.4. Limitations of the Work

The present study has some limitations. Fundamentally, (1) the work may be over-exhaustive, and (2) possible significant references were not discovered. Exhaustiveness is due to the multiple disciplines involved. Although some overlap exists, the integration of the approaches examined offers a broad view of the issue. As for undiscovered references, it is possible that some interesting works have not been addressed including “grey literature” [ 642 ].

5. Conclusions

The application of neuroscience to architecture is gaining prominence. The term “neuroarchitecture” seems to work in a promotional sense, likely, in part, due to the tendency to consider neuroscientific content credible [ 643 ]. However, it does not seem appropriate at other levels such as computerised searches (mixed with neural architectural issues or artificial intelligence), conceptual (does not do justice to neuroscience or architecture), and technical (does not make clear if it includes works not strictly based on neurophysiological recordings). The ease in translating the term into different languages, and the amount of documentation generated, makes it difficult to adopt more appropriate terms, such as “emotional architecture” or “mental architecture”.

In another vein, neuroarchitecture is often decontextualized without considering its main precursor approaches. This creates biases about its current possibilities and future developments and, as with social sciences [ 644 ], neuroscientific applications generate some controversy. From some conservative points of view, accepting external guidelines infringes on issues deeply established in the project process. Most of the changes generate neophobic impulses, and the advent and development of neuroarchitecture may mark a paradigm shift. However, the application of neuroscience to architecture is not intended to reduce design to universal standards. Understanding the fundamentals on the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture does not make it less relevant nor will it remove the need for architects. It will only complement their tool set, that already includes tools (more or less used in practice), such as geometry, phenomenology, geographical experience, philosophy, and, more recently, psychological and EBD approaches. The knowledge offered by neuroarchitecture will help more broadly meet users’ needs. A building might not collapse due to poor cognitive-emotional adaptation, but its users might. Although it will take years to design projects entirely using principles and knowledge derived from neuroscientific explorations of the built environment, today, we can take steps to improve the human cognitive-emotional response in the built architectural environment. This includes modifying existing spaces and improving decision-making for the design of new spaces. The combination of advances in neuroscience and environmental simulation will expand the impact of the new discipline. The next great architects may be those who can embrace, without prejudice, these new possibilities. The challenge looks exciting.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.L.H.-T. Methodology, J.L.H.-T. Formal analysis, J.L.H.-T., C.L., and E.M. Investigation, J.L.H.-T., C.L., and E.M. Writing—original draft preparation, J.L.H.-T. Writing—review & editing, J.L.H.-T. Visualization, J.L.H.-T. Supervision, C.L. and E.M. Project administration, J.L.H.-T. Funding acquisition, C.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This work was supported by the Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad of Spain (Project BIA2017-86157-R). The first author is supported by funding from Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad of Spain (PRE2018-084051), and the Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (John Paul Eberhard Fellow).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Request information

Class of 2024 | Harnessing AI for Architecture

Eight Questions with Masters of Science in Architecture Graduate Asif Zeshan

“We need to open up a world of possibilities where the role of the architect evolves from being the sole creator to a collaborator with advanced technology and I feel inspired to be part of research on the topic.”

Masters of Science in Architecture graduate Asif Zeshan feels that the architecture community is due for a transformation to keep up with emerging technology. The MS.Arch program provided him the opportunity to dive into research on the topic, bringing his passions to life.

Q: What brought you to CAPLA to study as a master's student? A: After beginning my professional journey in Bangladesh in 2020 after earning my bachelor's degree, I dove into both academia and the professional world. This experience intensified my long-held passion for merging technology with architecture. However, a noticeable reluctance to embrace the latest technological innovation in my local market piqued my curiosity. Was this just a local trend or a broader global industry pattern? This question led me to seek a platform where I could explore these dynamics deeper. Enter CAPLA at the University of Arizona, whose dedication to pioneering solutions for real-world architectural challenges immediately struck a chord with me. 

The MS.Arch program, with its flexible and comprehensive curriculum, emerged as the perfect avenue for me to not only engage with international architectural trends, but also to make a substantial contribution to the field. This culmination of experiences and aspirations naturally pointed me towards choosing CAPLA for my master's studies, marking it as the next exciting chapter in my journey.

Q: What got you interested in doing research? A: My fascination with research in design tech was sparked by recognizing architecture as more than a process-driven profession. In school and professional life, we're trained to follow steps, optimize processes with tools and software and often focus on aesthetics or established norms. Architecture's true potential lies in its capacity for real-world problem-solving and quantifiable solutions. This realization hit me during my journey through traditional architectural education, professional roles and teaching. Architecture, at its core, is dynamic, requiring not just tech-savviness, but innovation in the very tools and frameworks we use. With the rapid evolution of technology, I saw a gap and an opportunity. We need to evolve from merely using technology to being the innovators of our own architectural tech. This understanding propelled me into design tech research, driven by a desire to push boundaries and harness technology's full potential for our unique problem-solving needs. It's about shaping the future of architecture, where we're creators and innovators, not just practitioners.

Q: Describe your research project.  A: My research dives into the transformative potential of artificial intelligence in reshaping the architectural design process. Traditionally, humans have been the sole architects of our built environment, naturally placing our needs at the forefront. However, AI introduces a paradigm shift. It should not just be perceived as a design assistant, but a new form of intelligence that perceives humans as one element within the design ecosystem, rather than the central focus. This perspective is crucial as we confront global challenges like climate change, massive migrations, pollution and dwindling energy resources. My project explores how synthetic intelligence can redefine our approach to design, envisioning a future where AI challenges and innovates our conventional design processes to address real-world issues.

Q: Why is this project important to you? A: This project holds great significance to me as it navigates the intersection of AI and architecture, a domain ripe with potential, yet often approached with apprehension. While a lot of architects fear AI being a job threat as an automating agent of the design process, I view it as a catalyst for elevating our design capabilities. Imagine leveraging it to generate thousands of design iterations, each addressing different aspects of a problem, or using it to refine our initial sketches. This technology doesn't replace our creativity. Instead, it amplifies it, allowing us more time for critical design thinking and access to a vast reservoir of knowledge. We need to open up a world of possibilities where the role of the architect evolves from being the sole creator to a collaborator with advanced technology and I feel inspired to be part of research on the topic.

Q: What are your career goals? A: My career goals revolve around being a catalyst for change in the field of architecture. I aspire to engage in both professional and academic research, aiming to redefine the traditional confines of space design. My vision is to evolve the role of architects from primarily aesthetic-driven artists to multifaceted problem solvers who value artistry while addressing real-world challenges. Additionally, I'm driven to contribute to education, instilling this holistic approach in the next generation of architecture professionals. Ultimately, I seek to be at the forefront of projects that challenge and expand our conceptual and processual boundaries in architecture.

Q: How is your experience in this program setting you up for success in the future? A: My experience in the "Emerging Building Technology" concentration of MS.Arch has been a perfect blend of technology and discipline-specific learning. It allowed me to delve into advanced simulation techniques and fabrication tools, aligning with my initial goals for the program. Beyond this, the program's flexibility enabled me to explore AI fundamentals and research computation courses from other departments, crucial for my future in design tech research. I've also had the privilege of publishing my first academic research under expert guidance and was honored with nominations for data science fellowships from the Arizona Institute for Resilience and Data Science Institute . These experiences and opportunities are shaping me into a well-rounded design research professional, laying a solid foundation for my future endeavors in this exciting field.

Q: What have you found most unique about this program? A: The most unique aspect of this master's program, for me, lies in its specialized and accelerated nature, perfectly tailored to my educational journey. Coming from a rigorous five-year bachelor's program focused on licensure, I sought a master's curriculum that would deepen my knowledge in specific areas of interest within the discipline. This program stands out by offering that exact opportunity, a rarity among institutions. Additionally, its STEM designation is a crucial feature, opening doors for extended professional experiences in the U.S., which is instrumental for my growth as both a researcher and a professional.

Q: What advice do you have for prospective students? A: Describing graduate study as merely “demanding” doesn't quite capture it. It's a rigorous blend of meticulousness and multi-tasking, requiring a well-tuned balance of study, work and personal life. My key advice for prospective students would be to engage in thoughtful self-reflection before diving into a program. Identify what truly ignites your professional passion. This clarity is crucial in selecting a program that resonates with your interests. The MS.Arch program, for instance, offers remarkable openness and flexibility, which is fantastic, but can also feel daunting. Use self-reflection to hone a specific focus within your chosen field. This approach will not only guide you in selecting relevant courses and research areas, but will also pave a clear path towards a career that genuinely aligns with your passions and aspirations.

Subscribe to The Studio

Sign up for CAPLA's monthly e-newsletter to get the latest news and events, insights from faculty and leadership, profiles of students and alumni and more.

Subscribe Now

Latest CAPLA News, Projects and Profiles

CAPLA's Teresa Rosano Wins Prestigious Gerald J. Swanson Teaching Excellence Award

The University of Arizona has awarded Teresa Rosano, an assistant professor of practice in the School of Architecture, the Gerald J. Swanson Prize for Teaching Excellence. The award recognizes excellence in undergraduate teaching.

Class of 2024 | Paving Your Own Way

Emma Hughes came to CAPLA from Phoenix and found the BLA program amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Hear about her CAPLA experience as part of the first BLA graduating class this May.

Tradition Meets Innovation

On the grounds of frank lloyd wright's only college campus..

The study of architecture at Florida Southern isn’t confined to textbooks; it’s about living and breathing the principles of architecture, guided by the legacy of Wright and other architectural pioneers.

WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT FSC'S ARCHITECTURE DEGREE?

Complete the form below for a detailed program plan, application information, and personalized financial aid options.

Why Florida Southern?

Florida Southern's Bachelor of Architecture professional degree prepares you to become a certified architect by studying the expanded role of architecture in today's culture, economy, and technology.

With FSC's hands-on approach to education, you'll forge your path in the field. And, through the close mentorship of experienced architects, you'll be equipped with a blend of creativity and technical ability that sets you apart.

Here's why you should join us:

Get Hands-On

Connect with professionals, graduate ready to excel.

The School of Architecture will begin by offering an undergraduate architecture degree program, and the master's architectural degree program will begin in 2028; thusly, students can progress straight through to earn their graduate degree. Florida Southern College will commence the search for a Dean to lead the new School of Architecture in June 2024.

Walk in Wright's Footsteps

Florida Southern's campus, located in the heart of Central Florida, boasts the most extensive single-site collection of the master's work, including his famous Water Dome and his only planetarium.

As such, our curriculum pays homage to Frank Lloyd Wright's vision of harmony with nature, blending historic preservation with sustainability. Prepare for the future of architecture while staying rooted in timeless principles.

We'll Support You Every Step of the Way!

• Academic advising and tutoring
• Professional mentoring
• Architecture-focused support for your library research and writing
• Scholarship support to help you pursue your dream

A Living and Learning Laboratory of Architecture

This innovative program offers exceptional opportunities to immerse yourself in the field, connect with industry leaders, and gain hands-on experience.

Research on the Architecture of National Highway Toll Clearing and Settlement System Under the Background of “VAT Reform”

• Conference paper
• First Online: 22 May 2024
• Cite this conference paper

• Rongjie Lin 38 &
• Yingping Wang 38  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering ((LNEE,volume 1181))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Green Intelligent Transportation System and Safety

In accordance with the policies of the State Administration of Taxation regarding the “VAT Reform” for toll highways, this paper employs enterprise architecture analysis methods to systematically outline the approach for constructing the national highway toll clearing and settlement system. It specifies the system's business architecture, application architecture, data architecture, and technological architecture. The research outcomes fulfill the demand for issuing value-added tax invoices for highway tolls under the context of “VAT Reform” and effectively guide the construction of toll highway clearing and settlement systems at the ministerial level, enhancing the systematic and stable development of these systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

The Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation of the People's Republic of China (2016) Notice on the comprehensive implementation of the pilot reform to replace business tax with value-added tax

Google Scholar  

The Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation of the People's Republic of China (2016) Notice regarding the deduction of value-added tax for toll road fees

Jin Tao, Shu-quan Z, Ming-tao LI, Gen-xing Y (2009) On IT planning method driven by enterprise architecture [J]. Comp Appl Sof (12):164–166

Han Y, Zhang S, Zhang X-H (2017) Overall framework top down design research of national trunk highway network monitoring and emergency system [J]. Highway Engineering 42(4):115–119

Che H, Yang B, Hui-fen X, Fan Y-Q (2020) Top-level architecture design of smart city based on enterprise architecture [J]. Technology of loT&AI 3(6):16–21

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Transport Planning and Research Institute Ministry of Transport, Beijing, 100028, China

Rongjie Lin & Yingping Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yingping Wang .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Transportation Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China

Wuhong Wang

School of Vehicle and Energy, Yanshan University, Qinghuangdao, Hebei, China

Lisheng Jin

Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Lin, R., Wang, Y. (2024). Research on the Architecture of National Highway Toll Clearing and Settlement System Under the Background of “VAT Reform”. In: Wang, W., Jin, L., Tan, H. (eds) Smart Transportation and Green Mobility Safety. GITSS 2022. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 1181. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-2443-7_38

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-2443-7_38

Published : 22 May 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-97-2442-0

Online ISBN : 978-981-97-2443-7

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• myState on Mississippi State University
• Directory on Mississippi State University
• Alumni & Friends

Mississippi State architecture students receive travel awards for international research

Contact:  Christie McNeal

STARKVILLE, Miss.—A junior architecture student at Mississippi State will get a chance to broaden her global perspective with help from a $20,000 Aydelott Travel Award.

Yuria J. Sloane of Charleston, South Carolina, plans to travel this summer to Bolivia, Japan, New Zealand and Norway to research the use of architecture as a tool of oppression and liberation for indigenous communities. Her itinerary includes studies of architect Freddy Mamani's El Cholets in El Alto, Bolivia; the Okinawa Prefectural Museum by Ishimoto Architectural and Engineering Firm in Naha, Okinawa; architecture firm Tennent Brown’s Te Wharehou o Waikaremoana in Te Urewera, New Zealand; and architects Christian Sunby’s and Stein Halvorsen’s Sameting in Karasjok, Norway.

“Receiving this award has been eye opening to the possibilities of architectural work outside of traditional practice,” Sloane said. “I have never had an opportunity presented that allowed me to research something so personally important to me. It has inspired me to possibly follow a research-focused path during my schooling and beyond.”

Assistant Professor Silvina Lopez Barrera will advise Sloane in her research.

“Being of an indigenous group myself, I have found myself drawn to buildings with deep cultural motivations,” Sloane said. “When we think about modern examples of indigenous architecture, we cannot ignore the social elements that surround them and their ability to have a platform in the architecture industry. I settled on my topic because I think it is important to look at how architecture was used to harm and can now be used to repair.”

The $2.4 million endowment—established by late Memphis architect Alfred Lewis Aydelott and his wife Hope Galloway Aydelott—provides an award each year to four architecture students currently enrolled in the professional architecture degree programs at Mississippi State, as well as the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville; Auburn University; and the University of Tennessee.

Additionally, rising senior architecture major Anna Rives Gully of Starkville is receiving a $4,750 Trussell Travel Award sponsored by MSU School of Architecture alumnus Ted T. Porter to support her research on Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum in Berlin, Germany. She will be specifically looking into how the building addresses and fits into the societal context of Berlin, defined by World War II and the Holocaust. Gully will further her contextual understanding of World War II in Europe through additional travels to Austria and Prague.

“The Aydelott and Trussell Travel Awards provide amazing opportunities for our students to experience architecture throughout the world,” said School of Architecture Director and F.L. Crane Professor Karen Cordes Spence. “We are extremely fortunate to have this support for students and are grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Aydelott and Mr. Porter for making this possible.”

MSU’s School of Architecture offers the state’s only professional architecture degree accredited by the National Architectural Accrediting Board. Learn more at  www.caad.msstate.edu . Explore similar opportunities available to current architecture students at  caad.msstate.edu/current-students/architecture/fellowships-awards .

Monday, May 20, 2024 - 10:51 am

Research Centers

• Fred Carl, Jr. Small Town Center
• Gulf Coast Community Design Studio

Alumni / Friends

• Advisory Boards
• Alumni Events
• Alumni News
• Featured Supporters
• Keep In Touch
• Architecture News
• Building Construction Science News
• Interior Design News
• Photo Collections
• Upcoming Events
• Admissions Questions
• CAAD Directory
• Office Contacts

Architecture

(662) 325-2202

(662) 325-2970

Building Construction Science

(662) 325-8305

Interior Design

(662) 325-0530

Dean's Office

(662) 325-5150

• Find College of Architecture, Art, and Design on Facebook
• Find College of Architecture, Art, and Design on Instagram
• Find College of Architecture, Art, and Design on X Twitter
• Find College of Architecture, Art, and Design on YouTube
• Find College of Architecture, Art, and Design on Vimeo

• Latest news
• UCL in the media
• Services for media
• Student news
• Tell us your story

UCL and Sweden launch pioneering collaboration in NeuroDesign and NeuroArchitecture

20 May 2024

UCL researchers are to partner with RISE, Research Institutes of Sweden, to explore how the human brain interacts with built environments, and how understanding this can help design sustainable surroundings that enhance people’s health and wellbeing.

Academics from UCL’s Faculty of Brain Sciences and The Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment signed a new Memorandum of Understanding with RISE colleagues on 16 May 2024 outlining their plans to work together across these interdisciplinary fields.

Together they aim to identify specific risk and resilience factors in architecture and design, and how these impact cognition, behaviours, and emotions in their inhabitants, to help shape future living environments and positive outcomes.

The initiative is a direct example of the new bilateral innovation and research agreement between Sweden and the UK, focusing on a shared commitment to outstanding scientific research and sustainable development.

Professor Hugo Spiers, Vice-Dean for Enterprise in UCL Brain Sciences said: “New UCL facilities for simulating real environments (e.g. UCL PEARL*) and mobile brain recording make it possible for us now to gain a much richer understanding of how the human brain is impacted and supported by the built environment. Working with RISE will enable us to connect these new research tools with innovations in implementation of health and sustainable environments, to improve human health and wellbeing.”

Isabelle Sjövall, Neurodesigner and Brain Researcher at UCL Institute of Behavioural Neuroscience, said: “We know that the surrounding environment significantly impacts people's mental health and quality of life to a large extent. However, more research is needed to investigate how different factors in the built environment relate to one another and affect health and wellbeing, taking a holistic perspective into consideration. Identifying specific risk- and resilience factors in architecture and design, and how these impact cognition, behaviours, and emotions, have groundbreaking potential to help shape future living environments and positive outcomes.” 

Dr Fiona Zisch (UCL Bartlett School of Architecture), Programme Director of UCL’s Design for Performance and Interaction MArch, added: “The arts, humanities, and design fields have a rich history of intersecting with and being informed by relevant disciplines studying mind, brain, and body. Twentieth century interdisciplinary work across architecture, design, technology, and the brain sciences has already yielded substantial knowledge which is now being expanded further into transdisciplinary research that integrates further fields of study and more ecologically rich approaches. This is and will be enabling further insights and innovations, leading to more diverse and inclusive understandings of the interplay between different environments and their inhabitants.”

RISE is the Swedish research institute and innovation partner for every part of society, collaborating internationally across industry, academia and the public sector.

The new initiative brings together the diverse expertise and innovative culture of Sweden and the UK, illustrating their shared dedication to outstanding scientific research and sustainable development.  

Sweden's reputation as a pioneer in adopting and implementing innovative solutions complements the UK’s strong research infrastructure. Our groundbreaking laboratories, emphasising interdisciplinary research across neuroscience, architecture and psychology, will help to cultivate a comprehensive understanding of how the b uilt environment influences health and wellbeing.

Carina Carlman, Director of Research and Business Development at RISE, said: “By deepening the understanding of NeuroArchitecture and NeuroDesign, we can identify keys and tools to shape future living environments in a way that supports health and wellbeing. We address these challenges by collaborating for providing new insights into how conscious design choices can help balance risk and resilience factors, promoting healthier living on a global scale.”

The team's work is strongly aligned with the United Nations' Global Goals, which focus on human, ecological and economic sustainability. Through their joint vision to address urgent challenges by offering new perspectives on how conscious design choices can better balance risk and resilience factors in the built environments, they hope to contribute to healthier living environments for people and planet.

• * Person Environment Activity Research Laboratory, London (PEARL)
• Professor Hugo Spiers’ academic profile
• Dr Fiona Zisch’s academic profile
• UCL Faculty of Brain Sciences
• The Bartlett, UCL’s Faculty of the Built Environment
• RISE, Research Institutes of Sweden
• UCL and Europe

Professor Hugo Spiers with UCL and RISE colleagues at the launch of the new MoU

Media contact

Sophie vinter.

Tel: +44 (0)20 3108 7787

Email: s.vinter [at] ucl.ac.uk

• News Releases

IPK research team uncovers mechanism for spikelet development in barley

Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research

The study offers new insights into the function of ALOG family members in regulating meristem activity and inflorescence development in barley.

Credit: IPK Leibniz Institute/ T. Schnurbusch

The inflorescence architecture of crop plants like barley is predominantly regulated by meristem activity and fate, which play a critical role in determining the number of floral structures for grain production. Spikelets are the basic reproductive unit of grass inflorescences. The identity and determinacy of many grass meristems are partially determined by a group of genes expressed specifically at organ boundaries, which can form local signalling centres that regulate adjacent meristem fate and activity.

These genes are critical for establishing and maintaining organs. Proteins regulate diverse cell identities, axillary meristem initiation, and proper development of neighbouring organs and tissues.

In this study, the research team characterised a barley spikelet developmental mutant, extra floret-a ( flo.a ). flo.a produced extra spikelets and fused glumes due to the defective establishment of organ boundaries, which separate meristems from developing organs, such as inflorescence meristem and developing spikelet primordia.

The gene HvALOG1 plays a crucial role in maintaining the inflorescence architecture of barley. On the one hand, the boundary-localized protein is associated with signals that confer proper development of the spikelet meristem (i.e. non-cell autonomously); on the other hand, it controls boundary formation between floral organs (autonomously). “We show that mutations in HvALOG1 lead to the production of extra spikelets and are linked to the fusion of floral organs derived from improper boundary formation”, says Guojing Jiang, first author of the study.   

“Our study offers new insights into the function of ALOG family members in regulating meristem activity and inflorescence development in barley”, says Prof. Dr. Thorsten Schnurbusch. “These findings may contribute to our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying inflorescence development and may have implications for crop improvement.”

The identification of the wheat gene ALOG-1 and its function during spikelet development has been described in the co-published article by Gauley et al. , who show that wheat ALOG-1 is not expressed in the spikelet meristem but produces extra spikelets in the mutant, which is consistent with the effect found in barley. “Our joint results reveal an important and conserved mechanism of ALOG1 in specifying spikelet meristem determinacy and maintaining the characteristic spike-type inflorescence of cereals in Triticeae grasses”, says Prof. Dr. Thorsten Schnurbusch.

Current Biology

10.1016/j.cub.2024.04.083

Article Title

Non-cell Autonomous Signaling Associated with Barley ALOG1 Specifies Spikelet Meristem Determinacy

Article Publication Date

22-May-2024

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.