From sensory to neuroscience

“We are still a long way from designing specific projects exclusively guided by the brains of future space users, but Neuroarchitecture research describes common behavior patterns when faced with certain stimuli”

(Oshin Vartanian, neurocientífico)

Neuroarchitecture as a discipline is in a premature stage of consolidation where references such as those that will be reported below are beginning to be positioned, while the first points of support and essential axioms are defined on which to build an increasingly more complex system. However, despite this youth, the potential of what it proposes can undoubtedly mean a change in the development of architecture itself, finally understanding the cognitive reality of the individual beyond their own consciousness.

Two trajectories can be distinguished and their convergence and compatibility are considered in this work: an investigation that is the result of experience, intuition and philosophy, where the relevance of the symbolic is studied from the field of the sensory; and a much more recent effort in the field of neuroscience, where new insights into brain function and neural relationships are applied to the quantification of architectural spaces. In no case should they be considered as contradictory paths, but rather they will be complemented by fusing the specific cultural component of each geographical context with the physiological reality of the human body. This second parameter will be extrapolated to all populations for the mere fact of being anatomically and neurologically similar, while the cultural context will address a more specific imaginary of each environment.

intuitive origin

It is essential to begin by analyzing the origin of the theoretical aspect of Neuroarchitecture, despite the fact that this term is much more recent than the authors who influence this field. Drawing a chronological line means looking for the existing referents in each generation until going back to the origin shared with rationalism, positivism or existentialism at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. This starting point established the discussion about housing and contemporary architecture as an element that really satisfies the desires and needs of people. Consequently, this analysis has been carried out from the present to the past seeking a discursive coherence of key personalities without neglecting the specific contributions of other authors.

In 2018, “Neuroarchitektur” (Neuroarchitecture) was published by Christoph Metzger, a post-doctoral musicologist in architectural theory. The objective was to value the architecture of masters such as Frank Lloyd Wright, Peter Zumthor or Sou Fujimoto, among others, from their criticism of functionalism and their proposals for user-centered design.

This analysis makes it possible to extract parameters and elements that are repeated in their architectures, such as the interest in inducing movement, spatial orientation, the use of certain materials with tactile properties and stimulating textures or the culturally symbolic forms of their buildings, among others. With this, consensus can be established on

Christoph Metzger

Elements with a natural character (Browning, 2018)

Walking texture (Pallasmaa; Metzger, 2018)

Reverberation and noise (Nanda, 2018; Kirsh, 2018)

Color (Billmeyer and Saltzman, 1981)

Warm and cool colors (Nelson, Peleck, & Foster, 1984; Whitfield & Wiltshire, 1990; Crowley, 1993)

Color and gender (Putrevu, 2003)

Light and color (Panda, 2018) the aspects and terms of architecture that must be treated to achieve a design based on sensory stimulation.

Red light (Anderson and Magan, 2018)

Light entry (Anderson and Magan, 2018)

Sound (Browning, 2018)

One of the most influential theoretical references in the argument of the German musicologist, along with architects, philosophers and writers such as Rudolf Steiner, Alvar Aalto or Martin Heidegger, is undoubtedly

Humidity and air quality (Lindberg, 2018)

Symbolism (Pallasmaa)

Building height (Mazumder, 2018)

Neurourbanism (Adli, Fingerhut, Brakemeier & Gomez-Carrillo, 2017)

Juhani Pallasmaa. This Finnish-born architect has focused his latest work on psychology, culture and phenomenology applied to understanding architecture as a tangible extension of the interior of the human being and his own doubts about existence and reality. We could talk about a clear generational reference for Metzger and a starting point for his own research and theoretical concerns.

Pallasmaa’s obsession with the importance of perception and the tactility of the world, the corporality of architecture and the impact of the built space on the user’s psyche, finds a reference in the work of the French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty, whom also references Metzger. Described as an existentialist, he defended that “our body is in the world as the heart is in the organism; it keeps the visible spectacle constantly alive, breathes life into it and sustains it internally, and with it forms a system.” (Maurice Merleau-Ponty).

Finally, in the search for the theoretical root we can establish that the resistance against the rational and the defense of existentialism and subjectivism goes back to Gaston Bachelard, and especially in his book “La poétique de l’espace” (The poetics of space), theoretical origin of sensory architectural discourse.

Source: plataformaarquitectura.cl

Source: arquine.com

From the beginning of the 20th century to the present day we can distinguish architects and artists directly or indirectly linked to these ideas whose contributions are worth mentioning. Thus we find historical references such as the writer as well as Norwegian designer C. NorbergSchulz; the Egyptian architect Hassan Fathy, whose sensitivity to tradition is especially noteworthy; the American Steven Holl with more recent works such as the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, focused on internal routes and the spatial orientation of the user; the artist J. Turrell with works such as “Skyspace”, in Lech am Arlberg (Austria); and many others like A. Siza himself, J. Utzon, etc. Additionally, we can find current figures such as the Japanese architect and professor Sou Fujimoto with works such as the Final Wooden House or the N and NA houses where ideas of materiality, transparency or permeability are experimented with; the Vertical Forest project by the architect Stefano Boeri, which brings direct contact with nature to a block of flats in Milan; or the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne by the Bates Smart collective, where stimulating spaces are developed for children admitted to these medical facilities. The different approaches to the cognitive and sensory issue make this architecture a very varied field.

On the other hand, from the last third of the 20th century until today, we find the contributions of neuroscience as a scientific input on this field, many of which influenced the last mentioned examples.

First of all, it should be noted that, due to the premature nature of the research carried out in this field, the term Neuroarchitecture is yet to be consolidated. Thus, we find similar denominations such as “neuroscience applied to architecture” or “neuromorphic architecture”, all pointing in any case to the need to work together with architecture. To carry out this work, the use of the term Neuroarchitecture is chosen due to its greater extension and acceptance in both fields.

As a whole, neuroscience seeks to understand from different points of view the functioning of the nervous system and its elements, as well as the interaction between them, in order to find biological bases that explain the behavior and cognitive processes of the human being. The development of new techniques for evaluating brain activity has allowed this discipline to study the influence of the environment on neuronal plasticity and the behavioral changes it causes, constituting a specific field for neuroscientists. As previously mentioned, the human environment is mainly the built environment, so this branch is closely linked to design and architecture as a field of study and application.

Neuroscience as an independent discipline in favor of Neuroarchitecture takes on special importance as a result of the studies carried out by Dr. Fred Gage. Neuroscientist and director of the “Salk Institute for Biological Studies” in California, a complex designed by the architect Louis Kahn, discovered in 1998 that the brain continues to produce neurons during adulthood, contrary to previous theories that considered that this was exclusive to the childhood. This discovery leads us to consider that the anatomical configuration of the brain can vary depending on the vital experiences that the individual undergoes throughout his life (Gage, 1998). Mark Rosenzweig, a psychologist of North American origin, reached similar conclusions when studying this neuroplasticity in animals, corroborating what was established by Gage. It is crucial to understand the concept of neuroplasticity to grasp the possibilities it opens up in the field of architecture, thus discovering procedures that achieve a real and materializable impact on users.

Source: newswise.com

Source: laarquitectura.blogspot.com

The interaction with the environment and the cognitive processes cause a constant alteration of the neuronal configuration, so that a greater neuroplasticity, that is, a greater adaptability of our brain, makes this process more effective. In addition, throughout our lives, those stimuli that become more repetitive or continuous strengthen the synaptic connections between the neurons that interpret them, while the neurons whose stimulus disappear, end up dying because they are not necessary, thus reducing our ability to adapt. Consequently, maintaining a high variety of stimuli favored by the environment makes it possible to preserve greater neuroplasticity for a longer time, having a positive impact on the person’s mental and cognitive well-being and on their ability to adapt to new vital conditions. Obviously, genetic predisposition plays a fundamental role in this entire process, but it has been shown that it is a characteristic of our neuronal system.

In the current scientific context we can talk about different referents for Neuroarchitecture from all over the world. The Salk Institute (USA) itself continues to concentrate a large part of the leadership due to the large volume of neuroscientists and studies that deal with this matter, but also research groups from other universities such as the “Neuroarchitecture Research Group LENI” of the Polytechnic University of Valencia ( Spain) or the University of Aalborg (Denmark) are dealing with this matter.

Undoubtedly, a turning point was the foundation in 2003 of “The Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture” in San Diego with the aim of “promoting and disseminating knowledge that links neuroscience research with a better understanding of human responses to built space”. Every two years this association organizes conferences that bring together architects and neuroscientists from all over the world to present the different advances and discoveries and thus reach common conclusions that can be translated into architecture. The results obtained in barely a decade, as will be detailed later, are truly encouraging, while maintaining an effort to unify and solidify a discipline that for a time was considered dispersed (Metzger, 2018: 8).

Despite this, neuroscience experts consider that “we are still a long way from designing specific projects guided exclusively by the brains of future space users, but Neuroarchitecture research describes common behavior patterns when faced with certain stimuli” (Oshin Vartanian, neuroscientist). The studies carried out do not focus on the specific individual for whom a certain project would be developed, but instead analyze repetitive responses to a stimulus in diverse population groups, establishing conclusions of general application. However, the intention is to achieve greater precision, which is why the new studies pose three questions to be resolved in order to begin to systematize the process: what element should we analyze? how to restrict the element to parse? And how to measure the impact of this element?

The starting point of many of the studies comes directly from the theory of architecture, from the lexicon used in this discipline to define different elements. The objective is to find exactly which pieces stimulate the different parts of the brain and the range in which they act based on the intrinsic properties of each one. For example, we find a study from the University of Aalborg which outlines a first analysis of the impact of transitions on the behavior of users when crossing spaces of lesser or greater height and with variations in the opening of those transitions.

However, secondly, the problem arises when trying to isolate a certain parameter for study trying to prevent other variables from interacting and distorting the answers obtained. A conceptual contradiction is produced since in a certain way it seeks to understand not only the effect of an element, such as furniture, spatial proportion, lighting or materials; rather, it is known that the cognitive responses of the set differ from those recorded separately. The tests that are carried out should then search for increasing complexity until coordinated readings of all the variables are obtained, identifying how they are related to each other.

Third, new measurement systems such as electroencephalography (EEG) (Fig. 1.8, 1.10), eye-tracking systems or gaze tracking (Fig. 1.9), as well as the entire family of wireless devices measuring vital signs (metabolism, heart rate, sweating and skin conductivity, respiration, cortisol level, etc.) allow the subject to be removed from the testing laboratory. This prevents the volunteer from being influenced by the mere fact of being observed, and allows them to be exposed to much more precise and truthful physical or virtual reality environments to measure their reactions. Less and less invasive tools have been developed, which in turn are capable of collecting better information, partially leaving aside the questionnaires to which the study volunteers were offered on a subjective basis, since “physiological reactions to environmental stimuli can be undetectable by human consciousness or observation. Biofeedback instrumentation measures used in psychological studies can identify certain changes and conditions of body functions and well-being that may be outside the awareness of humans and therefore cannot be validly identified or assessed using only verbal and observational measures.” (Ulrich, 1986).

Despite all the unknowns still to be resolved, neuroscience continues to advance in its studies, reaffirming or responding to what is established by sensitive architecture.

Global approach “Movement”

Movement

Transitions

Spatial orientation and memory

Openings

Three-Dimensional Displacement - Stairs

Sheltered corner

Indoor-outdoor relationship

Interior height

Spatial approach “The corner”

Object approach “Furniture”

Material approach “Beyond the visual”

Outside nature

Gradual growth and contrast

Changes of perspective and views

Acute angles and straight shapes

Symbolism

Spatial reconfiguration

Abstract art and cognition

Wood, brick and ceramic

Elements with a natural character

Walking texture

Reverberation and noise

Color

Warm and cold colors

Color and gender

Light and color

Red light

Inmaterial approach “The intangible” Change of scale “Neurourbanism”

Light input

Sound

Humidity and air quality

Symbolism

Height of buildings

Neurourbanism

(Metzger, 2018) (Newman, 2018)

(Akil, 2018)

(Djebbara, 2018) (Metzger, 2018)

(Metzger, 2018; Bachelard, 1958)

(Akil, 2018)

(Joan Meyers-Levy y Rui Zhu, 2007)

(Chen-Yen Chang y Ping-Kun Chen, 2005) (Alex Coburn, 2018) (Nanda, 2018) (Ochoa, 2019)

(Pallasmaa) (Nanda, 2018) (Aviv, 2014; Freedborg y Gallese, 2007)

(Pallasmaa)

(Browning, 2018) (Pallasmaa; Metzger, 2018) (Nanda, 2018; Kirsh, 2018) (Billmeyer y Saltzman, 1981) (Nelson, 1984; Whitfield, 1990; Crowley, 1993) (Putrevu, 2003)

(Panda, 2018) (Anderson y Magan, 2018) (Anderson y Magan, 2018)

(Browning, 2018) Lindberg, 2018)

(Pallasmaa)

(Mazumder, 2018)

(Adli, Fingerhut, Brakemeier y Gomez-Carrillo, 2017)

Madera, ladrillo y cerámica

Elementos con carácter natural Textura al andar Reverberación y ruido Color

Colores cálidos y fríos Color y género

Enfoque material “Más allá de lo visual”