ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
A design-integrated framework for neuroarchitectural research.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper presents a multi-stage framework that integrates architectural design logic with empirical testing across representational scales. This exploratory, practice-driven research paradigm seeks to bridge disciplinary divides between (1) empirical rigor and situated experience, (2) visual abstraction and embodied spatial engagement, and (3) neuroscientific measurement and architectural meaning. Through a systematic reassessment of dominant methodological assumptions in current neuroaesthetics and neuroarchitectural studies, with curvature serving as a test case, the paper develops a three-phase experimental approach comprising image-based evaluation (Phase 1), object-based interaction (Phase 2), and full-scale immersive experience (Phase 3), supported by a stimulus-generation pipeline rooted in spatial logic and architectural composition. The paper details the design rationale and implementation of stimuli across all phases. Findings from Phase 1 are briefly presented to (i) illustrate the framework's capacity to generate perceptually distinct stimuli and reveal recurring evaluative patterns, including foreground-sensitive preferences for curvature under controlled figure-ground manipulations; and (ii) inform the methodological calibration and design logic of subsequent Phase 2 and Phase 3 investigations, which are currently ongoing and are presented in terms of methodological structure and exploratory potential. Rather than treating the architectural environment as a passive object of evaluation, the framework positions it as a generator of perceptual, affective, and behavioral data within an iterative research process. Scalable and adaptable, this approach supports collaborative investigations across multiple contexts and offers a pathway for advancing neuroarchitectural research and progressively increasing ecological validity. Several key terms are employed in their architectural sense to support cross-disciplinary dialogue.
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.