ReviewCognitive processing2021
The neuroaesthetics of architectural spaces.
Review in Cognitive processing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- An isolation ward's architectural blueprint for prompt infectious disease prevention.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Bridging Space Perception, Emotions, and Artificial Intelligence in Neuroarchitecture.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- A design-integrated framework for neuroarchitectural research.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Biophilic design, neuroarchitecture and therapeutic home environments: harnessing medicinal properties of intentionally-designed spaces to enhance digital health outcomes.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- The edge orientation entropy of natural scenes is associated with infant visual preferences and adult aesthetic judgements.PloS one · 2025Article
- Neurosustainability.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- A Review of AI Cloud and Edge Sensors, Methods, and Applications for the Recognition of Emotional, Affective and Physiological States.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Application of Neuroscience Tools in Building Construction - An Interdisciplinary Analysis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People in developed countries spend over 90% of their time in built environments. Yet, we know little about its pervasive and often hidden effects on our mental state and our brain. Despite growing interest in the neuroscience of architecture, much of this scholarship has been descriptive. The typical approach is to map knowledge of the brain onto constructs important to architecture. For a programmatic line of research, how might descriptive neuroarchitecture be transformed into an experimental science? We review the literature outlining how one might consider experimental architecture first by examining the role of natural features in architectural settings. We then turn to the human experience of occupants, and hypothesized that aesthetic responses to architectural interiors reduce to key psychological dimensions. Conducting Psychometric Network Analysis (PNA) and Principal Components Analysis (PCA) on responses to curated images, we identified three components: coherence (ease of organizing and comprehending a scene), fascination (informational richness and generated interest), and hominess (personal ease and comfort). Coherence and fascination are well-established dimensions for natural scenes. Hominess was a new dimension related to architectural interiors. Central to all three communities in the PNA was emotional valence. We also reanalyzed data from an earlier fMRI study in which participants made beauty and approach-avoidance decisions while viewing the same images. Regardless of task, the degree of fascination covaried with neural activity in the right lingual gyrus. In contrast, coherence covaried with neural activity in the left inferior occipital gyrus only when participants judged beauty, and hominess covaried with neural activity in the left cuneus only when they made approach-avoidance decisions. The visual brain harbours hidden sensitivities to architectural interiors that are captured by the dimensions of coherence, fascination, and hominess. These findings represent first steps towards an experimental neuroarchitecture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.