[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
Articles Archive::
Guide for Authors::
For Reviewers::
Ethical Statements::
Registration::
Site Facilities::
Contact us::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
Copyright Policies

 

AWT IMAGE

 

..
Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly.

..
:: Volume 10, Issue 3 (Summer 2022) ::
Shefaye Khatam 2022, 10(3): 68-97 Back to browse issues page
Investigating the Effects of Architectural Space on Cognition and Brain Activities: A Systematic Review
Mahbubeh Zamani , Mehran Kheirollahi * , Mohammad javad Asghari ebrahim abad , Hasan Rezaee , Farzaneh Vafaee
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran , Dr.mehrankheirollahi@gmail.com
Abstract:   (1747 Views)
Introduction: The built environment is rapidly expanding because of the growing need for architectural spaces in urban life. However, not enough studies have been carried out about the effect of architectural space on cognition and brain activities. Earlier studies on the environmental psychology of architecture qualitatively were not able to respond to this query. However, nowadays with the emergence of the new theory of neuroscience and its connection with architecture, researchers have found valuable results shedding morelight on the ways that architectural space affects the human brain through the use of modern tools in neuroscience giving rise to a new paradigm of Neuro-architecture. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of architectural space on brain functions and human cognition by measuring brain activities. The main questions in this study were: what are the literature, key concepts, research methods, and techniques in the field of architecture and neuroscience? In addition, how many fields are such resources divided into? Materials and Methods: The present study has introduced and analyzed the available resources from 2010 to 2020 via a systematic qualitative method. Results: The resources are divided into two main categories of theoretical and experimental studies. The focus of the present study is on experimental studies indicating that the physical elements of the architectural space are generally related to the visual field, affect cognition and brain activities, and cause different emotions. Conclusion: The results revealed that these studies are classified into five general areas of stress reduction, aesthetic judgment, navigation, attention, and emphasis on visual elements and human experiences. EEG technique, fMRI, and some auxiliary tools, such as eye tracking, have been used to measure the effect of architectural space on the brain.
Keywords: Architecture, Neurosciences, Cognition
Full-Text [PDF 4715 kb]   (1673 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Systematic Review --- Open Access, CC-BY-NC | Subject: Cognitive Neuroscience
References
1. Hietanen JK, Korpela KM. Do both negative and positive environmental scenes elicit rapid affective processing? Environment and behavior. 2004; 36(4): 558-77. [DOI:10.1177/0013916503261391]
2. Edelstein, Eve A. "Neuroscience & The Architecture of Spiritual Spaces." Report of the workshop held in April, 2004.
3. Malinin LH. Will 'good' Architecture make us more creative? Examining the role of place in creative cognition. In Proceedings of the 2014 ANFA Conference; Albright, T., Cooke, G., Marks, F., Whitelaw, A., Macagno, E., Eds.; The Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture: La Jolla, CA, USA. 2014; 18-19.
4. Mormede P, Courvoisier H, Ramos A, MarissalArvy N, Ousova O, Desautes C, Duclos M. Chaouloff F, Moisan MP. Molecular Genetic Approaches to Investigate Individual Variations in Behavioral and Neuroendocrine Stress Responses, in Psycho Neuroen Docrinology. 2002; 27: 563-83. [DOI:10.1016/S0306-4530(01)00093-2]
5. Higuera-Trujillo JL, Llinares Millan C, Montanana i Avino A, Rojas JC. Multisensory stress reduction: a neuro-architecture study of paediatric waiting rooms. Building Research & Information. 2020; 48(3): 269-85. [DOI:10.1080/09613218.2019.1612228]
6. Homolja M, Maghool SAH, Schnabel MA. The Impact of Moving through the Built Environment on Emotional and Neurophysiological State-A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computer- Aided Architectural Design, Bangkok, Thailand, 2020. [DOI:10.52842/conf.caadria.2020.1.641]
7. LeDoux J. Remembrance of emotions past. In The Jossey-Bass Reader on the Brain and Learning, American Psychological Association Washington, DC, USA. 2008; 151-79.
8. Horayangkura V. Incorporating environment-behavior knowledge into the design process: an elusive challenge for architects in the 21st century. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012; 50: 30-41. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.013]
9. Lang, JT. Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. 1987.
10. Rapoport A. Human Aspects of Urban Form: towards a Man-Environment Approach to Urban Form and Design. Pergamon Press. 2016.
11. Edelstein EA, Macagno E. Form follows function: bridging neuroscience and architecture. InSustainable environmental design in architecture. Springer, New York, NY. 2012; 27-41. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4419-0745-5_3]
12. Vartanian O, Navarrete G, Chatterjee A, Fich LB, Leder H, Modroño C, Nadal M, Rostrup N, Skov M. Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013; 110: 10446-53. [DOI:10.1073/pnas.1301227110]
13. Eberhard J P. Architecture and the brain: a new knowledge base from neuroscience. Greenway Communications. 2007.
14. Robinson S, Pallasmaa J. Mind in Architecture: Neuroscience, Embodiment, and the Future of Design. MIT Press. 2015. [DOI:10.7551/mitpress/10318.001.0001]
15. Zeisel J. Inquiry by Design: Environment/ Behavior/Neuroscience in Architecture, Interiors, Landscape, and Planning. 2006.
16. Edelstein E A. Building health. HERD heal Environ. Res.Des. J. 2008; 1:54-9. [DOI:10.1177/193758670800100208]
17. Nanda U, Pati D, Ghamari H, Bajema R. Lessons from neuroscience: form follows function, emotions follow form. Intelligent Buildings International. 2013; 5(sup1): 61-78. [DOI:10.1080/17508975.2013.807767]
18. Häfliger IF, John V, Passer A, Lasvaux S, Hoxha E, Saade MR, Habert G. Buildings environmental impacts' sensitivity related to LCA modelling choices of construction materials. Journal of cleaner production. 2017; 156: 805-16. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.052]
19. Ryan RM, Deci EL. On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being. Annual Review of Psychology. 2001; 52: 141-66. [DOI:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141]
20. Ryff CD, Singer BH, Dienberg Love G. Positive Health: Connecting Well-Being with Biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences. 2004; 359 (1449): 1383-94. [DOI:10.1098/rstb.2004.1521]
21. Hillier B, Hanson J. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1989.
22. Evans G W, McCoy J M. When Buildings Don't Work: The Role of Architecture in Human Health." Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1998; 18 (1): 85-94. [DOI:10.1006/jevp.1998.0089]
23. Schoenberg PLA, Ruf A, Churchill J, Brown DP, Brewer JA. Mapping ComplexMind States: EEG Neural Substrates of Meditative Unified Compassionate Awareness. Consciousness and Cognition. 2018; 57: 41-53. [DOI:10.1016/j.concog.2017.11.003]
24. Eberhard J P. Brain Landscape: The Coexistence of Neuroscience and Architecture. Oxford University Press. 2009. [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331721.001.0001]
25. Kluetsch RC, Ros T, Théberge J, Frewen PA, Calhoun VD, Schmahl C, Lanius RA. Plastic Modulation of PTSD Resting- State Networks and Subjective Wellbeing by EEG Neurofeedback. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 2014; 130 (2): 123-36. [DOI:10.1111/acps.12229]
26. Urry HL, Nitschke JB, Dolski I, Jackson DC, Dalton KM, Mueller CJ, Rosenkranz MA, Ryff CD, Singer BH, Davidson RJ. Making a life worth living: Neural correlates of well-being. Psychological science. 2004; 15(6): 367-72. [DOI:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00686.x]
27. Gegenfurtner A E M, Kok K, Van Geel A B H. de Bruin, and B. Sorger. Neural Correlates of Visual Perceptual Expertise: Evidence from Cognitive Neuroscience Using Functional Neuroimaging. Frontline Learning Research. 2017; 5 (3): 14-30. [DOI:10.14786/flr.v5i3.259]
28. Biren A. Spatial manifestations of the Human Psyche: Architecture based on neurological theories of aesthetic experience & environmental preference. InProceedings of the 2014 ANFA Conference; Albright, T., Cooke, G., Marks, F., Whitelaw, A., Macagno, E., Eds 2014; 20-1.
29. Neutra R. Survival though Design (New York: Oxford University Press. 1954.
30. Higgins J PT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011.
31. Bonshek A J. Mirror of Consciousness: Art, Creativity, and Veda. Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. 2001.
32. Jakupi AB. Landscape Architecture as Environmental Harmony. New Arch-International Journal of Contemporary Architecture. 2016; 3 (3): 43-50.
33. Fergusson L, Wells G, Kettle D. The Personal, Social and Environmental Sustainability of Jainism in Light of Maharishi Vedic Science. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2018; 1-23.
34. Travis F, Bonshek A, Butler V, Rainforth M. Can a Building's Orientation Affect the Quality of Life of the People Within? Testing Principles of Maharishi Sthapatya Veda. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 2005; 17(1): 553.
35. Osmond H. Function as the Basis of PsychiatricWard Design. Psychiatric Services. 1957; 8 (4): 23-7. [DOI:10.1176/ps.8.4.23]
36. Barker R G, Gump P V. Big School, Small School: High School Size and Student Behavior. Redwood City, California, USA: Stanford University Press. 1964.
37. Bell P A. Environmental Psychology. San Diego, California, USA: Harcourt College Publishers. 2001.
38. Mallgrave HF. The Architect's Brain: Neuroscience, Creativity, and Architecture, John Wiley & Sons, London, UK. 2010. [DOI:10.1002/9781444317275]
39. Angelidakis A. Cognitive architecture: From bio-politics to noo-politics; Architecture & mind in the age of communication and information. 010 Publishers; 2010.
40. Sussman A, Hollander JB. Cognitive architecture: Designing for how we respond to the built environment. Routledge; 2021. [DOI:10.4324/9781003031543]
41. Ruiz-Arellano M. Hawaiian Healing Center: A Weaving of Neuro-Architecture and Cultural Practices. 2015.
42. Eberhard JP, Gage FH. An Architect and a Neuroscientist Discuss How Neuroscience Can Influence Architectural Design. Neuroscience Quarterly. 2003(9):6-7.
43. ANFA. History of ANFA. 2003. Accessed 7/2018.
44. Thagard P. Cognitive Science. Stanford library. sydney.edu.au. 1996.
45. Powell JA. Is architectural design a trivial pursuit? Des. Stud. 1987; 8: 187-206. [DOI:10.1016/0142-694X(87)90016-0]
46. Höge H. Fechner's experimental aesthetics and the golden section hypothesis today. Empirical Studies of the Arts. 1995; 13(2): 131-48. [DOI:10.2190/UHTQ-CFVD-CAU2-WY1C]
47. Franz G, von der Heyde M, Bülthoff H H. An empirical approach to the experience of architectural space in virtual reality-exploring relations between features and affective appraisals of rectangular indoor spaces. Autom. Constr.2005; 14: 165-72. [DOI:10.1016/j.autcon.2004.07.009]
48. Mehta BK. Smell and the architectural experience. In Proceedings of the 2014 ANFA Conference; Albright T, Cooke G, Marks F, Whitelaw A, Macagno E., Eds. The Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture, La Jolla, CA, USA. 2014; 68.
49. Dzebic V, Perdue JS, Ellard CG. The influence of visual perception on responses towards real-world environments and application towards design. Intelligent Buildings International. 2013; 5(sup1):29-47. [DOI:10.1080/17508975.2013.807766]
50. Banaei M, Hatami J, Yazdanfar A, Gramann K. Walking through architectural spaces: the impact of interior forms on human brain dynamics. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2017; 11: 477. [DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00477]
51. Cavalcante A, Mansouri A, Kacha L, Barros AK, Takeuchi Y, Matsumoto N, Ohnishi N. Measuring streetscape complexity based on the statistics of local contrast and spatial frequency. PloS one. 2014; 9(2): e87097. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0087097]
52. Kacha L, Matsumoto N, Mansouri A, Cavalcante A. Predicting perceived complexity using local xontrast statistics and fractal information. Courr. Savoir. 2013; 16: 89-97.
53. Husserl E. Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology; Routledge Classics: London, UK. 2012.
54. Husserl E. Ideen su einer Reinen Phänomenologie und Phänomenologischen Philosophie [Ideas Relativas a una Fenomenología pura y una Filosofía Fenomenológica]; Fondo de Cultura Económica: Querétaro. Mexico. 1913.
55. Heidegger M. Pathmarks, Cambridge University Press, 1998. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511812637]
56. Lewin K. Der Richtungsbegriff in der Psychologie: Der spezielle und allgemeine hodologische Raum. Psychol. Forsch. 1934; 19: 249-65. [DOI:10.1007/BF02409743]
57. Sartre JP. L'Être et le Néant; Encyclopaedia Universalies: Paris, France. 2016.
58. Bachelard G, Champourcin E. La poética del espacio. México: Fondo de cultura económica; 1965.
59. Rasmussen SE. La Experiencia De La Arquitectura: Sobre La Percepción De Nuestro Entorno; Reverté: Barcelona, Spain. 2004.
60. Lynch K. La Imagen de la Ciudad; Gustavo Gili: Barcelona, Spain. 2008.
61. Pallasmaa J. The geometry of feeling: A look at the phenomenology of architecture. In Theorizing a new agenda for architecture, An anthology of architectural theory. 1996; 447-53.
62. Pallasmaa J. From metaphorical to ecological functionalism. In Functionalism-Utopia or the Way Forward?.1992; 8-19. Alvar Aalto Symposium.
63. Gross R. Psychology: The science of mind and behaviour 7th edition. Hodder Education; 2015.
64. Bones M, Secchiaroli G. Environmental Psychology: A Psycho-Social Introduction; Sage: London, UK. 1995. [DOI:10.4135/9781446250549]
65. Kruse L, Graumann C. (1987). Environmental psychology in Germany. In Handbook of Environmental Psychology; Bechtel, R.B., Churchman, A., Eds.; Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA. 1987; 1195-226.
66. Burke E. A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful; Simon & Brown: Pall-Mall, UK. 1909.
67. Kant I. Crítica de la Razón Pura; Tecnos: Madrid, Spain. 2004.
68. Zeising A. Neue lehre von den proportionen des menschlichen körpers: aus einem bisher unerkannt gebliebenen, die ganze natur und kunst durchdringenden morphologischen grundgesetze entwickelt. R. Weigel. 1854.
69. Vischer FT. Kritische Gänge: Kritik Meiner Aesthetik; Cotta: Stuttgart, Germany. 1866.
70. Ash M G. Gestalt Psychology in German Culture, 1890-1967: Holism and the Quest for Objectivity; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. 1998.
71. Sheynin O. Fechner as a statistician. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 2004; 57: 53-72. [DOI:10.1348/000711004849196]
72. Osgood CE, Suci GJ, Tannenbaum PH. The Measurement of Meaning; University of Illinois Press: Urbana, IL, USA.1957.
73. Küller R. A Semantic Model for Describing Perceived Environment; National Swedish Institute for Building Research: Stockholm, Sweden,1972. ISBN 91-540-2079-4.
74. Küller R. Environmental assessment from a neuropsychological perspective. In Environment Cognition and Action: An Integrated Approach; Garling, T., Evans, G.W., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA. 1991; 111-47. [DOI:10.1093/oso/9780195062205.003.0012]
75. Russell JA, Mehrabian A. Evidence for a three- factor theory of emotions. J. Res. Pers. 1977; 11: 273-94. [DOI:10.1016/0092-6566(77)90037-X]
76. Eberhard JP. Applying neuroscience to architecture. Neuron. 2009; 62(6):753-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuron.2009.06.001]
77. Edelstein E. The Routledge Companion for Architecture Design and Practice, the Routledge Companion for Architecture Design and Practice: Established and Emerging Trends. Routledge. 2015a.
78. Arbib MA. Complex imitation and the language-ready brain. Language and Cognition. 2013; 5(2-3):273-312. [DOI:10.1515/langcog-2013-0020]
79. Sternberg EM. Healing Spaces; Harvard University Press: London, UK. 2010. [DOI:10.4159/9780674054660]
80. Papale P, Chiesi L, Rampinini AC, Pietrini P, Ricciardi E. When neuroscience 'touches' architecture: From hapticity to a supramodal functioning of the human brain. Frontiers in psychology. 2016; 7: 866. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00866]
81. Edelstein E. Neuroscience and architecture. In: The Routledge Companion for Architecture Design and Practice: Established and Emerging Trends, 2015b; 269-89.
82. Sternberg EM, Wilson MA. Neuroscience and architecture: Seeking common ground. Cell. 2006; 127(2): 239-42. [DOI:10.1016/j.cell.2006.10.012]
83. Bluyssen P M. Towards New Methods and Ways to Create Healthy and Comfortable Buildings. Building and Environment. 2010; 45 (4): 808-18. [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.020]
84. Pykett J. Brain Culture: Shaping Policy ThroughNeuroscience. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. 2015. [DOI:10.1332/policypress/9781447314042.001.0001]
85. Abdullah A, Khan IH, Basuhail A, Hussain A. A Novel Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Based Spatiotemporal Cognition Study of the Human Brain Using Clustering. Cognitive Computation. 2015; 7(6):693-705. [DOI:10.1007/s12559-015-9358-4]
86. Alarcão S M, Fonseca M J. Emotions Recognition Using EEG Signals: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing. 2019; 10 (3): 374-93. [DOI:10.1109/TAFFC.2017.2714671]
87. Bullmore E, Sporns O. Complex Brain Networks: Graph Theoretical Analysis of Structural and Functional Systems. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2009; 10 (3): 186. [DOI:10.1038/nrn2575]
88. Hasani J. The Assessment of Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of Hemispheric Preference Test. The Neuroscience Journal of Shefaye Khatam. 2016; 5(1): 1-9. [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.shefa.5.1.1]
89. Telesford QK, Simpson SL, Burdette JH, Hayasaka S, Laurienti PJ. The brain as a complex system: using network science as a tool for understanding the brain. Brain connectivity. 2011; 1(4): 295-308. [DOI:10.1089/brain.2011.0055]
90. Gottfried J A. Neurobiology of Sensation and Reward. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. 2011. [DOI:10.1201/b10776]
91. Andreassi J L. Psychophysiology: human behavior and physiological response (4th ed.). J. Psychophysiol. 2001; 40 (1): 89-91. [DOI:10.1016/S0167-8760(00)00150-1]
92. Bonner AM. The use of neurodiagnostic technologies in the 21st century neuroscientific revolution. Neurodiagn J. 2015; 55(1): 46-53. [DOI:10.1080/21646821.2015.1015364]
93. Carlson N R. Physiology of Behavior, Physiology of Behavior. 2012.
94. Bayan L, Alipour F, Kolivand PH, Sadat Dastgheib S. Neuromarketing: The Cognitive Approaches to Consumer Behavior. The Neuroscience Journal of Shefaye Khatam. 2014; 2(4): 46-59. [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.shefa.2.4.46]
95. Pallasmaa J, Mallgrave HF, Arbib M. Architecture & Neuroscience. Tapio Wirkkala Rut Bryk Foundation, Finland. 2013.
96. Møller AR. Sensory Systems: Anatomy and Physiology. Academic Press. 2003. [DOI:10.1016/B978-012504257-4/50006-6]
97. Bar M, Neta M. Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation. Neuropsychologia. 2007; 45(10):2191-200. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.03.008]
98. Ghoshal T, Boatwright P, Malika M. The Psychology of Design. Abingdon: Routledge. 2016.
99. Vartanian O, Navarrete G, Chatterjee A, Fich LB, Gonzalez-Mora JL, Leder H, Modroño C, Nadal M, Rostrup N, Skov M. Architectural design and the brain: effects of ceiling height and perceived enclosure on beauty judgments and approach-avoidance decisions. Journal of environmental psychology. 2015; 41: 10-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.006]
100. Choo H, Nasar J L, Nikrahei B, Walther D B. Neural codes of seeing architectural styles. Sci. Rep. 2017; 7:40201. [DOI:10.1038/srep40201]
101. Nasr S, Echavarria CE, Tootell RB. Thinking outside the box: rectilinear shapes selectively activate scene-selective cortex. Journal of Neuroscience. 2014; 34(20): 6721-35. [DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4802-13.2014]
102. Welchman AE, Deubelius A, Conrad V, Bülthoff HH, Kourtzi Z. 3D shape perception from combined depth cues in human visual cortex. Nature neuroscience. 2005; 8(6): 820-7. [DOI:10.1038/nn1461]
103. Downs RM, Stea D, editors. Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. Transaction Publishers; 2017.
104. Nold C. Emotional cartography: technologies of the self. Softhook. 2009.
105. Chen Z, Schulz S, He X, Chen Y. A Pilot Experiment on Affective Multiple Biosensory mapping for possible application to visual resource analysis and smart urban landscape design. InREAL CORP 2016-SMART ME UP! How to become and how to stay a Smart City, and does this improve quality of life? Proceedings of 21st International Conference on Urban Planning, Regional Development and Information Society. CORP-Competence Center of Urban and Regional Planning. 2016; 29-37.
106. McNair M, Heuchert P, Shilony E. Profile of mood states Bibliography 1964-2002. Multi- Health- System Inc. 2003.
107. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998; 54(6): 1063-70. [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063]
108. Bear MF, Connors BW, Paradiso MA. Neuroscience: Exploring the brain: Fourth edition. Wolters Kluwer. 2016.
109. Kubben PL. Brain mapping: from neural basis of cognition to surgical applications. Surgical Neurology International. 2012; 3. [DOI:10.4103/2152-7806.101781]
110. Jalali Kondori B, Rahimian E, Asadi MH, Tahsini MR. Magnetic Resonance Tractography and its Clinical Applications. The Neuroscience Journal of Shefaye Khatam. 2014; 2(4): 71-8. [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.shefa.2.4.71]
111. Seyed Abbas SM, Zakariaee SS, Rahimiforoushani A. Es timation of Hemodynamic Response Function in the Brain and Brain Tumors: Comparison of Inverse Logis tic and Canonical Hemodynamic Response Function Models. The Neuroscience Journal of Shefaye Khatam. 2018; 6(3): 1-9. [DOI:10.29252/shefa.6.3.1]
112. Nidal K, Malik AS. EEG/ERP Analysis: Methods and Applications. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press. 2014. [DOI:10.1201/b17605]
113. Danesh Sani K, Safania AM, Poursoltani H. Identification and Prioritization of Factors Affecting Neuromarketing in Sport Based on Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The Neuroscience Journal of Shefaye Khatam. 2017; 5(3): 35-43. [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.shefa.5.3.35]
114. Zillmer EA, Spiers MV. Principles of neuropsychology. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. 2001.
115. Genco S J, Pohlmann A P, Steidl P. Neuromarketing for dummies. 1st ed. John Wiley and Sons Canada Ltd 2013; 249-68.
116. El-Nasr MS, Morie JF, Drachen A. A scientific look at the design of aesthetically and emotionally engaging interactive entertainment experiences. InAffective computing and interaction: Psychological, cognitive and neuroscientific perspectives. IGI Global. 2011; 281-307. [DOI:10.4018/978-1-61692-892-6.ch013]
117. Calvert GA, Thensen T. Multisensory integration: methodological approaches and emerging principles in the human brain. J Physiol Paris. 2004; 98:191-205. [DOI:10.1016/j.jphysparis.2004.03.018]
118. Touhami ZO, Benlafkih L, Jiddane M, Cherrah Y, El-Malki HO, Benomar A. Neuromarketing: Where marketing and neuroscience meet. African Journal of Business Management. 2011; 5(5): 1528-32.
119. Azzazy S, Ghaffarianhoseini AH, GhaffarianHoseini A, Naismith N, Doborjeh Z. A critical review on the impact of built environment on users' measured brain activity, Architectural Science Review. 2020; 1-17. [DOI:10.1080/00038628.2020.1749980]
120. Karakas T, Yildiz D. Exploring the influence of the built environment on human experience through a neuroscience approach: A systematic review. Frontiers of Architectural Research. 2020; 9(1): 236-47. [DOI:10.1016/j.foar.2019.10.005]
121. De Paiva A, Jedon R. Short-and long-term effects of architecture on the brain: Toward theoretical formalization. Frontiers of Architectural Research. 2019; 8(4):564-71. [DOI:10.1016/j.foar.2019.07.004]
122. Franz J. Towards a spatiality of wellbeing. InSchool Spaces for Student Wellbeing and Learning. Springer, Singapore. 2019; 3-19. [DOI:10.1007/978-981-13-6092-3_1]
123. Uttley J, Simpson J, Qasem H. Eye-tracking in the real world: Insights about the urban environment. InHandbook of Research on Perception-Driven Approaches to Urban Assessment and Design. IGI Global. 2018. 368-96. [DOI:10.4018/978-1-5225-3637-6.ch016]
124. De Paiva A. Neuroscience for architecture: how building design can influence behaviors and performance. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture. 2018; 12(2):132-38. [DOI:10.17265/1934-7359/2018.02.007]
125. Tvedebrink TD, Jelic A. Getting under the (ir) skin: Applying personas and scenarios with body-environment research for improved understanding of users' perspective in architectural design. Persona Studies. 2018; 4(2): 5-24. [DOI:10.21153/psj2018vol4no2art746]
126. Ibrahimi N, Ruci G. Human brain and real estate: analyzing the relationship between qualitative space and price. Int. J. Real Estate. 2018; 1: 86-95.
127. Kambli N, Godin I, Kabzamalova E. Wellness by design: thoughts on reshaping Brussels' public realm. J. urban Des. Ment. Heal. 2018; 5-13.
128. Anna OG. Contemplative Landscapes: Toward Healthier Built Environments. Environment and Social Psychology. 2018; 4(2).
129. Rahimi FB, Levy RM, Boyd JE, Dadkhahfard S. Human behaviour and cognition of spatial experience; a model for enhancing the quality of spatial experiences in the built environment. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2018; 68: 245- 255. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2018.08.002]
130. Mo¨ystad O. Cognition and the built environment. In: Routledge Research in Planning and Urban Design. Routledge. 2017.
131. Erkan I. Effects on the design of transport systems of pedestrian dynamics. Higway Engineering. 2017:17-33. [DOI:10.5772/intechopen.70496]
132. McIntosh AR, Jadavji NM. Application of Neuroscience Principles for Evidence- Based Design in Architectural Education. J. Young Invest. 2017; 33 (4). [DOI:10.22186/jyi.33.4.71-76]
133. Devlin A S, Andrade CC. Quality of the Hospital Experience: Impact of the Physical Environment. 2017; 421-40. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-31416-7_23]
134. Coburn A, Vartanian O, Chatterjee A. Buildings, beauty, and the brain: a neuroscience of architectural experience. J. Cogn. Neurosci.2017; 29: 1521-31. [DOI:10.1162/jocn_a_01146]
135. Jelic A, Tieri G, De Matteis F, Babiloni F, Vecchiato G. The enactive approach to architectural experience: a neurophysiological perspective on embodiment, motivation, and affordances. Front. Psychol. 2016; 7: 481. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00481]
136. Gillen V. Access for All! Neuro-architecture and Equal Enjoyment of Public Facilities. Disability Studies Quarterly. 2015; 35(3). [DOI:10.18061/dsq.v35i3.4941]
137. Robinson S. John Dewey and the dialogue between architecture and neuroscience. Architect. Res. Q. 2015; 19: 361-7. [DOI:10.1017/S1359135515000627]
138. Jelic A. Designing "pre-reflective" architecture. Ambiances. 2015. [DOI:10.4000/ambiances.628]
139. Montello DR. Spatial cognition and architectural space: Research perspectives. Architectural Design. 2014; 84(5): 74-9. [DOI:10.1002/ad.1811]
140. Ellis EV, Gonzalez EW, McEachron DL. Chronobioengineering indoor lighting to enhance facilities for ageing and Alzheimer's disorder. Intelligent Buildings International. 2013; 5(sup1):48-60. [DOI:10.1080/17508975.2013.807764]
141. Dougherty BO, Arbib MA. The evolution of neuroscience for architecture: introducing the special issue. Intelligent Buildings International. 2013; 5: 4-9. [DOI:10.1080/17508975.2013.818763]
142. Mallgrave HF. Architecture and Embodiment the Implications of the New Sciences and Humanities for Design. Routledge. 2013. [DOI:10.4324/9780203071144]
143. Bacevice, PA, Ducao A. Use of biometric data and EEG to assess architectural quality of two office spaces: a pilot experiment. Intelligent Buildings International, 2020; 1-22. [DOI:10.1080/17508975.2021.1921683]
144. Shemesh, A, Leisman, G, Bar M., Grobman, YJ. A neurocognitive study of the emotional impact of geometrical criteria of architectural space. Architectural Science Review. 2021; 64(4), 394-407. [DOI:10.1080/00038628.2021.1940827]
145. Hu M, Roberts J. Built Environment Evaluation in Virtual Reality Environments-A Cognitive Neuroscience Approach. Urban Science. 2020; 48: 1-16. [DOI:10.3390/urbansci4040048]
146. Djebbara Z, Fich L B, Petrini L, Gramann K. Sensorimotor brain dynamics reflect architectural affordances. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019; 116(29): 14769-78. [DOI:10.1073/pnas.1900648116]
147. Hekmatmanesh A, Banaei M, Haghighi KS, Najafi A. Bedroom design orientation and sleep electroencephalography signals. Acta Medica International. 2019; 6(1):33. [DOI:10.4103/ami.ami_60_18]
148. Murcia G, Ortiz MJ, Lo'pez-Gordo M.A, Ferra'ndez JM, Sa'nchez Ferrer F, Ferna'ndez E. Neural representation of different 3D architectural images: an EEG study. Integr. Comput. Aided Eng. 2019; 26: 197-205. [DOI:10.3233/ICA-180591]
149. Vijayan VT, Embi MR. Probing phenomenological experiences through electroencephalography brainwave signals in neuroarchitecture study. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability. 2019; 6(3): 11-20. [DOI:10.11113/ijbes.v6.n3.360]
150. Yin J, Arfaei N, MacNaughton P, Catalano PJ, Allen JG, Spengler JD. Effects of biophilic interventions in office on stress reaction and cognitive function: A randomized crossover study in virtual reality. Indoor Air. 2019; 29(6):1028-39. [DOI:10.1111/ina.12593]
151. Erkan İ. Examining wayfinding behaviours in architectural spaces using brain imaging with electroencephalography (EEG). Architectural Science Review. 2018; 61(6):410-28. [DOI:10.1080/00038628.2018.1523129]
152. Ergan S, Shi Z, Yu X. Towards quantifying human experience in the built environment: A Crowdsourcing based experiment to identify influential architectural design features. Journal of Building Engineering. 2018; 20, 51-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.jobe.2018.07.004]
153. Shemesh A, Talmon R, Karp O, Amir I, Bar M, Grobman YJ. Affective response to architecture-investigating human reaction to spaces with different geometry. Architectural Science Review. 2017; 60(2): 116-25. [DOI:10.1080/00038628.2016.1266597]
154. Bermudez J, Krizaj D, Lipschitz DL, Bueler CE, Rogowska J, Yurgelun-Todd D, Nakamura Y. Externally-induced meditative states: an exploratory fMRI study of architects' responses to contemplative architecture. Frontiers of architectural research. 2017; 6(2):123-36. [DOI:10.1016/j.foar.2017.02.002]
155. Zhang X, Lian Z, Wu Y. Human physiological responses to wooden indoor environment. Physiology & behavior. 2017; 174: 27-34. [DOI:10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.02.043]
156. Vecchiato G, Jelic A, Tieri G, Maglione AG, De Matteis F, Babiloni F. Neurophysiological correlates of embodiment and motivational factors during the perception of virtual architectural environments. Cognitive processing. 2015; 16(1): 425-9. [DOI:10.1007/s10339-015-0725-6]
157. Vannucci M, Gori S, Kojima H. The spatial frequencies influence the aesthetic judgment of buildings transculturally. Cognitive neuroscience. 2014; 5(3-4): 143-9. [DOI:10.1080/17588928.2014.976188]
158. Martı'nez-Soto J, Gonzales-Santos L, Pasaye E, Barrios FA. Exploration of neural correlates of restorative environment exposure through functional magnetic resonance. Intell. Build. Int. 2013; 5: 10-28. [DOI:10.1080/17508975.2013.807765]
159. Eberhard JP. Sustainability and neuroscience. InSustainable Environmental Design in Architecture. Springer, New York, NY. 2012. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4419-0745-5_1]
160. Turk MR, Amr A, Al Rawi O. A school designed to improve student's brain activity using integrated neuro-architectural design aspects (qeeg-vr). In Proceedings of the 2018 ANFA Conference; The Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture: La Jolla, CA, USA. 2018; 146-7.
161. Goldstein R N. Architectural design and the collaborative research environment. Cell .2006; 127: 243-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.cell.2006.10.007]
162. Babiloni F, Cherubino P, Graziani I, Trettel A, Bagordo G, Cundari C, Borghini G, Aricö P, Maglione AG, Vecchiato G. The great beauty: A neuroaesthetic study by neuroelectric imaging during the observation of the real Michelangelo's Moses sculpture. In2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. 2014; 6965-8. IEEE. [DOI:10.1109/EMBC.2014.6945230]
163. Barrett P, Sharma M, Zeisel J. Optimal spaces for those living with dementia: Principles and evidence. Building Research & Information. 2019; 47(6):734-46. [DOI:10.1080/09613218.2018.1489473]
164. Hollander J, Foster V. Brain responses to architecture and planning: A preliminary neuro-assessment of the pedestrian experience in Boston, Massachusetts. Architectural Science Review. 2016; 59(6): 474-81. [DOI:10.1080/00038628.2016.1221499]
165. Bruce V, Green P R, Georgeson M A. Visual Perception: Physiology, Psychology and Ecology; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA. 2003.
166. Bourdieu P. Social space and symbolic power. Sociological theory. 1989; 7(1):14-25. [DOI:10.2307/202060]
167. Ebrahem S. Exploring the phenomenological perception of the architectural spatial experience. SHARED BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES. 2018.
168. Poldrack RA. Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? Trends Cogn. Sci. 2006; 10: 59-63. [DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.004]
169. Cela-Conde CJ, Agnati L, Huston JP, Mora F, Nadal M. The neural foundations of aesthetic appreciation. Progress in neurobiology. 2011; 94(1):39-48. [DOI:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2011.03.003]
170. Winkielman P, Cacioppo JT. Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2001; 81(6): 989. [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.989]
171. Andreasen ME. Make a safe environment by design. Journal of gerontological nursing. 1985; 11(6):18-22. [DOI:10.3928/0098-9134-19850601-06]
172. Jacobsen T, Buchta K, Kohler M, Schroger E. The primacy of beauty in judging the aesthetics of objects. Psychol. Rep. 2004; 94, 1253-60. [DOI:10.2466/pr0.94.3c.1253-1260]
173. Scharf B, Carterette E, Friedman M P. Handbook of perception. Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1987; 111-31.
174. Clay F. The origin of the aesthetic emotion. Sammelbände Int. Musik. 1908; 9: 282-90.
175. Zumthor P, Madrigal P, Binet H. Pensar la arquitectura. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili. 2004.
176. Rakic P. Neurogenesis in adult primate neocortex: An evaluation of the evidence. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2002; 3: 65-71. [DOI:10.1038/nrn700]
177. Livingston RB. Brain mechanisms in conditioning and learning. Neurosci. Res. Program Bull. 1966; 4: 349-54.
178. Kozbelt A. Tensions in naturalistic, evolutionary explanations of aesthetic reception and production. New Ideas Psychol. 2017; 47: 113-20. [DOI:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2017.03.006]
179. Holl S. Fenomenología de la arquitectura, cuestiones de percepción. Gustavo Gili: Barcelona, Spain, ISBN 9788425224058. 2011.
180. Djebbara Z. Incentive architecture: Neural correlates of spatial affordances during transition in architectural settings. SHARED BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES. 2018.
181. Kriegeskorte N, Simmons WK, Bellgowan, PS, Baker CI. Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: The dangers of double dipping. Nat. Neurosci. 2009; 12: 535-40. [DOI:10.1038/nn.2303]
182. Picard RW. Affective Computing; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA. 2000. [DOI:10.7551/mitpress/1140.001.0001]
183. Marín-Morales J, Higuera-Trujillo JL, Greco A, Guixeres J, Llinares C, Gentili C, Scilingo EP, Alcañiz M, Valenza G. Real vs. immersive-virtual emotional experience: Analysis of psycho-physiological patterns in a free exploration of an art museum. PloS one. 2019; 14(10): e0223881. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0223881]
184. Swaab D. Somos Nuestro Cerebro; Plataforma: Barcelona, Spain. 2014.
185. Ackerman D. Una Historia Natural de los Sentidos. Anagrama. Barcelona. Spain. 1992.



XML   Persian Abstract   Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

zamani M, kheirollahi M, asghari ebrahim abad M J, rezaee H, vafaee F. Investigating the Effects of Architectural Space on Cognition and Brain Activities: A Systematic Review. Shefaye Khatam 2022; 10 (3) :68-97
URL: http://shefayekhatam.ir/article-1-2293-en.html


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 10, Issue 3 (Summer 2022) Back to browse issues page
مجله علوم اعصاب شفای خاتم The Neuroscience Journal of Shefaye Khatam
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.06 seconds with 45 queries by YEKTAWEB 4652