ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Is scenery mandatory for restoration? Attention restoration without visual nature elements.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An experimental study of the acute effects of visual and olfactory nature stimuli on task performance.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Beyond beneficial or ineffective: three-way decision modeling of image-level affective responses to restorative environment design.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study examines the contribution of non-visual nature elements in attention restoration, addressing a gap in research that often prioritizes visual stimuli. While previous studies emphasize visual components, this research investigates whether attention restoration can occur in the absence of visual input. Methods: A within-subject experiment involving 47 participants compared three conditions: a multisensory nature-like environment (visual, auditory, olfactory, and tactile stimuli), a similar environment without visual stimuli, and a control condition with no nature-like stimuli. Results: A discrepancy between subjective and objective measures was observed. Although self-reported restoration was improved by the existence of visual stimuli, both multisensory nature-like conditions promoted significant physiological benefits (parasympathetic activation and sympathetic deactivation were indicated from heart rate variability and electrodermal activity) with no substantial differences between the presence or absence of visual stimuli. No statistical significance was found in cognitive measures among all conditions. Discussion: These findings challenge the vision-centric paradigm of restorative environments and highlight the potential of auditory, olfactory, and tactile stimuli to independently foster physiological recovery. By incorporating multisensory elements of nature, this study underscores the importance of non-visual modalities in restorative design. Practical implications include the development of restorative environments for urban spaces or healthcare settings where visual access to nature is limited.
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.