Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42296131›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Sensing nature in the city: The role of sight and sound in restorative tropical urban green spaces.

Juliana Ju Yun Hoo, Shumetha Sidhu, Kok Wei Tan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Juliana Ju Yun HooSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading Malaysia, Iskandar Puteri, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8131-4262
Shumetha SidhuSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading Malaysia, Iskandar Puteri, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8184-3813
Kok Wei TanSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading Malaysia, Iskandar Puteri, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6212-7336

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid urbanization has increased disconnection from nature, especially in cities. While research on restorative environments has largely focused on non-tropical regions, little is known about the restorative potential of tropical urban green spaces (UGSs). This study assessed the perceived restorativeness of tropical UGSs in Malaysia using 120 environmental stimuli from nature, urban, and mixed urban-nature settings. 87 participants were randomly assigned to one of the three modalities: audio-only, visual-only, or bimodal. Each participant rated a subset of 30 stimuli on perceived restorativeness. Results showed that nature and mixed urban-nature scenes were in general rated as more restorative than urban scenes. An interaction effect indicated that, in the visual-only modality, mixed urban-nature scenes were perceived as more restorative than nature scenes, while no significant differences were observed in the audio-only and bimodal modalities. Moreover, perceived restorativeness for nature scenes was comparable across bimodal, visual-only, and audio-only presentations. These findings suggest that small pockets of urban nature (e.g., tree-lined streets, rooftop gardens) can offer greater psychological restoration than wild, untamed forests. In addition, high-quality nature sounds (e.g., birdsong, flowing water) can provide restorative benefits comparable to visual exposure when access to green views is limited. Such insights can inform urban planning strategies to design more restorative and liveable cities.

Indexed as

NatureSoundAdultCitiesFemaleHumansMalaysiaTropical ClimateUrbanization

Identifiers

PMID42296131
PMCPMC13268155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.