Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34448969›Full record

ReviewCognitive processing2021

The neuroaesthetics of architectural spaces.

Anjan Chatterjee, Alex Coburn, Adam Weinberger

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Neurosustainability.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anjan ChatterjeePenn Center for Neuroaesthetics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA. anjan@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9092-8560
Alex CoburnUniversity of California, San Francisco, USA.
Adam WeinbergerPenn Center for Neuroaesthetics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Georgetown University · USPenn Center for AIDS Research · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BrainMagnetic Resonance ImagingBeautyBrain MappingEstheticsHumansCognitive neuroscienceNeuroaestheticsNeuroarchitectureSpace

Identifiers

PMID34448969
OpenAlexW3194408466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.