ArticleScientific reports2026
Psychophysiological restoration in natural versus built cultural environments: a Chinese field-EEG study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The psychological benefits of outdoor landscape sketching in higher art education: an extended SOR perspective.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Prior research has highlighted the psychophysiological benefits of natural environments while underestimating the restorative potential of built cultural environments. Moreover, most evidence derives from laboratory studies with limited ecological validity. A field experiment compared the restorative effects of art museums and botanical gardens on psychophysiological states, using electroencephalogram (EEG) and the abbreviated Profile of Mood States (POMS). Key findings were: (1) Both environments enhanced psychophysiological well-being, with natural environments promoting physical restoration and built cultural environments fostering psychological restoration; (2) Natural environments more effectively reduced negative affect, whereas cultural environments more strongly increased positive affect; (3) Natural environments provided restorative benefits to a larger proportion of participants; (4) Changes in psychological indicators partially explained variations in physiological indicators. These results inform the strategic use of diverse environments to support mental and physical health and advance restoration research.
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.