Buildings, Beauty, and the Brain: A Neuroscience of Architectural Experience

TLDR: In this paper, the authors suggest that this nascent field of neuroarchitecture is at a pivotal point in which neuroscience and architecture are poised to extend to a neuroscience of architecture, and draw lessons from recent developments in neuroaesthetics to suggest how neuro-architectures might mature into an experimental science.

Abstract: A burgeoning interest in the intersection of neuroscience and architecture promises to offer biologically inspired insights into the design of spaces. The goal of such interdisciplinary approaches to architecture is to motivate construction of environments that would contribute to peoples' flourishing in behavior, health, and well-being. We suggest that this nascent field of neuroarchitecture is at a pivotal point in which neuroscience and architecture are poised to extend to a neuroscience of architecture. In such a research program, architectural experiences themselves are the target of neuroscientific inquiry. Here, we draw lessons from recent developments in neuroaesthetics to suggest how neuroarchitecture might mature into an experimental science. We review the extant literature and offer an initial framework from which to contextualize such research. Finally, we outline theoretical and technical challenges that lie ahead.

Figures

Figure 2. The aesthetic triad. Adapted from Chatterjee and Vartanian (2014).

Figure 1. The Vitruvian triad.

Full text

$50=,9:0;@6- ,55:@3=(50($50=,9:0;@6- ,55:@3=(50(
"*/63(93@64465:"*/63(93@64465:
,<96,;/0*: <)30*(;065: ,5;,9-69,<96:*0,5*,"6*0,;@

<03+05.:,(<;@(5+;/,9(05,<96:*0,5*,6-9*/0;,*;<9(3<03+05.:,(<;@(5+;/,9(05,<96:*0,5*,6-9*/0;,*;<9(3
?7,90,5*,?7,90,5*,
3,?6)<95
:/05%(9;(50(5
51(5/(;;,91,,
$50=,9:0;@6- ,55:@3=(50(
(51(54(034,+<7,55,+<
6336>;/0:(5+(++0;065(3>692:(;/;;7:9,76:0;69@<7,55,+<5,<96,;/0*:'7<):
 (9;6-;/,06,;/0*:(5+,+0*(3;/0*:64465:,<96:*0,5*,(5+,<96)0636.@64465:(5+
;/,,<96:*0,5*,:64465:
!,*644,5+,+0;(;065%!!!,*644,5+,+0;(;065%!!
6)<953,?%(9;(50(5:/05/(;;,91,,51(5<03+05.:,(<;@(5+;/,9(05,<96:*0,5*,6-
9*/0;,*;<9(3?7,90,5*,6<95(36-6.50;0=,,<96:*0,5*,7(@
#/0:7(7,90:76:;,+(;"*/63(93@64465:/;;7:9,76:0;69@<7,55,+<5,<96,;/0*:'7<):
69469,05-694(;06573,(:,*65;(*;9,76:0;69@76)6?<7,55,+<

<03+05.:,(<;@(5+;/,9(05,<96:*0,5*,6-9*/0;,*;<9(3?7,90,5*,<03+05.:,(<;@(5+;/,9(05,<96:*0,5*,6-9*/0;,*;<9(3?7,90,5*,
):;9(*;):;9(*;
)<9.,6505.05;,9,:;05;/,05;,9:,*;0656-5,<96:*0,5*,(5+(9*/0;,*;<9,79640:,:;66--,9)0636.0*(33@
05:709,+05:0./;:05;6;/,+,:0.56-:7(*,:#/,.6(36-:<*/05;,9+0:*07305(9@(7796(*/,:;6(9*/0;,*;<9,
0:;646;0=(;,*65:;9<*;0656-,5=09654,5;:;/(;>6<3+*65;90)<;,;67,673,:D6<90:/05.05),/(=069
/,(3;/(5+>,33),05.&,:<..,:;;/(;;/0:5(:*,5;C,3+6-5,<96(9*/0;,*;<9,0:(;(70=6;(37605;05
>/0*/5,<96:*0,5*,(5+(9*/0;,*;<9,(9,760:,+;6,?;,5+;6(5,<96:*0,5*,6-(9*/0;,*;<9,5:<*/(
9,:,(9*/796.9(4(9*/0;,*;<9(3,?7,90,5*,:;/,4:,3=,:(9,;/,;(9.,;6-5,<96:*0,5;0C*058<09@,9,>,
+9(>3,::65:-9649,*,5;+,=,3674,5;:055,<96(,:;/,;0*:;6:<..,:;/6>5,<96(9*/0;,*;<9,40./;
4(;<9,05;6(5,?7,904,5;(3:*0,5*,&,9,=0,>;/,,?;(5;30;,9(;<9,(5+6--,9(5050;0(3-9(4,>692-964
>/0*/;6*65;,?;<(30A,:<*/9,:,(9*/05(33@>,6<;305,;/,69,;0*(3(5+;,*/50*(3*/(33,5.,:;/(;30,
(/,(+
0:*07305,:0:*07305,:
06,;/0*:(5+,+0*(3;/0*:B,<96:*0,5*,(5+,<96)0636.@B,<96:*0,5*,:
#/0:;,*/50*(39,769;0:(=(03()3,(;"*/63(93@64465:/;;7:9,76:0;69@<7,55,+<5,<96,;/0*:'7<):

Buildings, Beauty, and the Brain: A Neuroscience
of Architectural Experience
Alex Coburn
1,2
, Oshin Vartanian
3
, and Anjan Chatterjee
1
Abstract
■
A burgeoning interest in the intersection of neuroscience
and architecture promises to offer biologically inspired insights
into the design of spaces. The goal of such interdisciplinary
approaches to architecture is to motivate construction of envi-
ronments that would contribute to peoples’ flourishing in be-
havior, health, and well-being. We suggest that this nascent
field of neuroarchitecture is at a pivotal point in which neuro-
science and architecture are poised to extend to a neuroscience
of architecture. In such a research program, architectural expe-
riences themselves are the target of neuroscientific inquiry.
Here, we draw lessons from recent developments in neuroaes-
thetics to suggest how neuroarchitecture might mature into an
experimental science. We review the extant literature and offer
an initial framework from which to contextualize such research.
Finally, we outline theoretical and technical challenges that lie
ahead.
■
INTRODUCTION
Two thousand years ago, the Roman architect Vitruvius
highlighted beauty as one of three core dimensions of ar-
chitectural design. His seminal Vitruvian triad (Figure 1)
illustrated that a building must be strong and structurally
stable ( firmitas), meet the functional needs of its occu-
pants (utilitas), and appeal to their aesthetic sensibilities
(venustas; Vitruvius Pollio, Morgan, & Warren, 1914).
Cultures across the globe have regarded aesthetic expe-
rience as a vital consideration in human construction. For
millennia, ancient Eastern construction practices like the
Indian vaastu shastra and the Chinese feng shui offered
concrete guides to creating spatial harmony and aesthetic
coherence in the built environment (Patra, 2009; Mak &
Thomas Ng, 2005). Architectural aesthetics was a topic of
serious inquiry in the Eu ropean intellectual tradition as
well, generating attention from philosophers like Goethe
and Ruskin (Hultzsch, 2014). The considerable attention
devoted to this subject across time and culture reflects a
shared belief that aesthetic qualities of buildings have a
meaningful impact on human experience.
In the 20th century, the aesthetic dimension of the
built environment was de-emphasized. Modern building
science generally focused on improving utilitarian mea-
sures like fire safety, construction costs, and efficient uses
of space (Vaughan, 2013). Adva nces in material design
and structural engineering led to the construction of tal-
ler and sturdier buildings than ever before (Ali & Moon,
2007). This trend mirrored a philosophical shift in West-
ern architectural practice that began about a century ago,
when the concept of buildings as machines and the asso-
ciated creed of “form follows function” influenced archi-
tects to optimize the measurable and often mechanistic
aspects of the built environment while discarding long-
observed ae sthetic conventions like ornamentation and
human scaling. The minimalist, reductive form that re-
sulted from this philosophy came to embody a new aes-
thetic ideal, reflecting a view of a rchitectural beauty as
nothing more than a byproduct of functionalist design
(Venturi, Scott Bro wn, Rattenbury, & H ardingham,
2007). This perspective pushed the study of aesthetic ex-
perience to the periphery of architectural investigation.
In Vitruvian terms, venustas was subsumed by utilitas.
Recent decades, however, have witnessed a surge of
interest in the experience of the built environment.
Today, many people spend upwards of 90% of their lives
in buildings (Evans & McCoy, 1998). Studies indicate that
aesthetic qualities of architecture have an impact on our
mood, cognitive functioning, behavior, and even mental
health (Adams, 20 14; Cooper, Burton, & Cooper, 201 4;
Hartig, 2008; Joye, 2007). This evidence coincides with
a flourish of interest in the intersection of neuroscience
and architecture (Dance, 2017; Robinson & Pallasmaa,
2015; Mallgrave, 2010; Eberhard, 2008). However, rela-
tively little w ork has been conducted on the neurosci-
ence of architecture. We advocate going beyond
inferences from neuroscientific knowledge applied to
architecture to direct experimental work in which archi-
tectural experience itself is the target of neuroscientific
research.
In this study, we apply lessons from recent develop-
ments in neuroaesthetics, a discipline that investigates
1
The University of Pennsylvania,
2
University of Cambridge,
3
University of Toronto
© 2017 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 29:9, pp. 1521–1531
doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01146

the neurobiological underpinnings of aesthetic experi-
ences of beauty and art (Chatterjee & Vartanian, 2016),
to the neuroscience of architecture. These ideas and
methods can be used to study aesthetic experiences in
the built environment (Eberhard, 2009). An emerging
“neuroscience of architecture” promises an empirical
platform from which to study the experiential dimen-
sions of architecture that have been largely overlooked
in modern building science.
Around 2004, neuroaesthetics arrived at a pivotal point
in it s development both empiric ally and theoretica lly.
The first papers using fMRI to identify neural responses
to art (Vartanian & Goel, 2004) and to critically review
the neuropsy chology of art (Chatterjee, 200 4a, 2004b)
were published. In concert and perhaps more impor-
tantly early models outlining key cognitive and neural
systems involved in aesthetic experience were set forth
(Chatterjee, 2004a; Leder, Oebe rst, Augustin, & Belke,
2004). Previous research had been primarily descriptive
in that most studies generated qualitative observat ional
claims relating facts of the brain to aesthetic experiences
(Chatterjee & Vartanian, 2014). The pivot initiated a shift
from descrip tive hypothesis -generatin g research to em-
pirical hypothesis-testing studies and helped launch the
discipline into the mainstream of scientific investigation
(Chatterjee, 2011).
We propose that the neuroscience of architecture is on
the verge of a similar pivot. Currently, descriptive re-
search predominates in this young field (Brown & Lee,
2016; Mallgrave, 2010; Eberhard, 2008). Several empirical
studies have recently emerged reporting neurophysiolog-
ical responses to architectural parameters (Choo, Nasar,
Nikrahei, & Walther, 2017; Shemesh et al., 2016;
Marchette, Vass, Ryan, & Epstein, 2015; Vartanian et al.,
2013, 2015) . These studies repres ent a first step. How-
ever, they r emain untethered to a general theoretical
framework and are difficult to place in the context of pro-
grammatic research on the neuroscience of architecture.
Here, we apply a general neural model of aesthetic expe-
rience to architectural experience and contextualize past
and f uture empirical studies. In the process, we also
outline challenges ahead for the field as it matures.
THE AESTHETIC TRIAD
The aesthetic triad, originally created to frame aesthetic ex-
periences in neural terms (Chatterjee, 2013; Shimamura,
2013), also applies in a general way to the neuroscience
of architecture. According to this model, three large-scale
systems generate aesthetic experiences: sensorimotor,
knowledge-meaning, and emotion-valuation systems (Fig-
ure 2). Architecture engages multiple sensory networks,
presumably visual, auditory, s omato sens ory, olfa ctor y,
and vestibular systems, and triggers motor responses
such as approach and avoidance (Vartanian et al., 2015).
Meaning-knowledge systems informed by personal experi-
ences, culture, and education also shape one’s encounters
with the built environment. Finally, emotion-valuation
networks mediate feelings and emotions engendered by
buildings and urban spaces (Leder et al., 2004).
Below, we discuss each of these systems in greater de-
tail and consider the relative contribution of each to
emergent aesthetic experiences of architecture. We also
consider how these networks might respond differently
to architecture than to visual art. Key differences include
the immersive and multisensory nature of buildings and
the prolonged time span of architectural encounte rs as
compared with typically 2-D images and brief engage-
ment with artworks. Along the way, we discuss how
aesthetic experiences could mediate the effects of archi-
tecture on behavior, health and well-being, and how dif-
ferences in building types (e.g., homes, hospitals, office
space, museums) might modulate the nature of these
experiences.
Figure 1. The Vitruvian triad.
Figure 2. The aesthetic triad. Adapted from Chatterjee and Vartanian
(2014).
1522 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 29, Number 9

A general question that arises in neuroaesthetics is
whether art objects are special and whether aesthetic ex-
periences of art are different than aesthetic experiences
of natural or nonart objects. A similar question could be
raised for architecture. We suggest that there are similar-
ities and differences in people’s responses to built versus
natural environments. There are likely systematic differ-
ences in the sensory properties (color, texture, shapes)
of built and natural spaces and that architectural knowl-
edge or familiarity of these spaces are likely to introduce
differences in their respective experience. Understanding
these similarities and diffe rences are themselves of
scientific interest.
Sensory–Motor Systems
Edmund Burke remarked that “beauty is, for the greater
part, some quality in bodies acting mechanically upon the
human mind by intervention of the senses” (Burke, 1767,
p. 175). Indeed, sensory networks can be considered the
gatekeepers of architectural experience. Environmental
features differentially stimulate our visual, auditory,
somatosensory, vestibular, and olfactory neural networks.
These sensations are tied to downstream motor re-
sponses such as the affordances of objects, approach
and avoidance reactions, and navigation through built
spaces.
Vision
Vision dominates research in perception of architectural
spaces. Basic low-level visual attributes such as lumi-
nance, color, a nd motion and inte rmediat e levels l ike
grouping are processed (Chatterjee, 2004a) before inte-
gration into higher-level processing areas such as the
parahippocampal place area , the retrosplenial cortex,
and the occipital place area (Marchette et al., 2015).
The parahippoc ampal place area responds specifically
to environmental scenes, including landscapes, building
interiors, and urban neighborhoods, and also plays a crit-
ical role in spatial navigation (Mégevand et al., 2014;
Epstein & Kanwishe r, 1998). This area also codes for
the expansiveness of spaces (Kravitz, Peng, & Baker,
2011). Recent work suggests that the occipital place area
is involved in processing perceptual features like building
materials, windows, and architectural motifs that might
be relevant to recognizing the interior and exterior of
buildings. By contrast, the retrosplenial cortex retrieves
information that allows people to orient themselves with-
in a remembered or imagined spatial environment
(Marchette et al., 2015). Hippocampal and entorhinal
cortices contribute to different aspects of spatial naviga-
tion, which would be relevant for architectural experi-
ences (Spiers & Barry, 2015).
A prominent idea in visual aesthetics is the notion of
fluency (Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004). That is,
by hypothesis, humans pre fer configurations with some
degree of complexity that arealsoprocessedeasilyor
fluently. The visual system is sensitive to features like con-
trast, grouping, and symmetry (Ramachandran & Hirstein,
1999). Retinal cells and neurons in the occipital cortex are
more responsive to edges or areas of high visual contrast
than to regions of homogenous luminance in a scene
(Geisler, 2007; Brady & Field, 2000; Ramachandran &
Hirstein, 1999). High-contrast regions often capture visual
attention and interest because they contain a high density
of useful visual information for object identification
(Hagerhall, Purce ll, & Taylor, 2004; Leder et al., 2004;
Alexander, 2002; Ramachandran & Hirstein, 1999). Group-
ing, a fundamental Gestalt principle, describes the process
by which the visual system orders repeated, statistically cor-
related information in a scene, like alternating columns and
archways in an architectural colonnade or organized pat-
terns of blue and yellow hues dispersed throughout a
stained glass window (Alexander, 2002). Grouped features
(e.g., of color or form) trigger synchronized action poten-
tials among associated neurons responsible for processing
those features (Ramachandran & Hirstein, 1999; Singer &
Gray, 1995). These visual mechanisms may mediate the
pleasure respons e associ ated with viewing ordered pat-
terns of form and color in architecture (Alexander, 2002).
Balance, of which symmetry is the most straightfor-
ward example, also contributes to fluency and aesthetic
preference (Wilson & Ch atterjee, 2005). The evolution-
ary importance of symmetrical information as a reproduc-
tive fitness indicator for human survival may underlie
experimentally observed preferences for more symmetri-
cal faces and geometric shapes (Jacobsen, Schubotz,
Höfel, & Cramon, 2006; Ramachandran & Hirstein,
1999; Rhodes, Proffitt, Grady , & Sumich, 1998; Frith &
Nias, 1974). Alexander and Carey reported that the num-
ber of local symmetries in a given pattern strongly pre-
dicts the ease with which a participant can find,
describe, and remember that pattern (Alexander & Carey,
1968). Patterns with more symmetries enable more effi-
cient recognition. The fundamental importance of sym-
metry may help explain why this pattern appears
ubiquitously in human design and construction at many
scales, from Persian rugs to Shaker furniture to ancient
Greek temples (Alexander, 2002).
The visual system is sensitive to various statistical prop-
erties of images. One such property is fractal geometry,
defined as “fractured shapes [that] possess repeating pat-
terns when viewed at increasingly fine magnifications”
(Hagerhall et al., 2004, p. 247). Fractal geometry provides
a mathematical description of mountains, coastlines, and
many other complex shapes in nature (Hagerhall et al.,
200 4). A fractal dimension is a statistical index of com-
plexity. For example a simple curve has a fractal dimen-
sion close to 1, wh ereas a densely convoluted line th at
approximates the appearance of a surface has a fractal di-
mension closer to 2. Aesthetic preferences for natural
scenes, visual art, and computer-generated patterns seem
to correlate moderately with fractal dimensions ranging
Coburn, Vartanian, and Chatterjee 1523

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions in "Buildings, beauty, and the brain: a neuroscience of architectural experience" ?

The authors review the extant literature and offer an initial framework from which to contextualize such research. 

Q2. What have the authors stated for future works in "Buildings, beauty, and the brain: a neuroscience of architectural experience" ?

As outlined above, the authors believe that the neuroscience of architecture is poised to make a transition in which the prevalent descriptive approach can be extended and grounded in experimental research programs. Advances in each of these areas will provide structure to the field as it matures. 

Q3. What are the main effects of enclosure on the decision to approach or avoid a space?

Aesthetic parameters like enclosure has an impact on decisions to approach or avoid a space (Vartanian et al., 2015), which may be governed by reward and emotion processing areas like the nucleus accumbens, the anterior insula, and the basolateral amygdala (Vartanian et al., 2013). 

Q4. What can affect the person’s experience of a built environment?

memories, and the context in which a person encounters an aesthetic object or a built environment can have an impact on the person’s experience. 

Q5. What structures in the temporal lobes are activated by open interiors?

Open interiors activated structures in the temporal lobes associated with perceived visual motion, including the left middle temporal gyrus and the right superior temporal gyrus (Vartanian et al., 2015). 

Q6. What is the impact of the aesthetic qualities of architecture on their mental health?

Studies indicate that aesthetic qualities of architecture have an impact on their mood, cognitive functioning, behavior, and even mental health (Adams, 2014; Cooper, Burton, & Cooper, 2014; Hartig, 2008; Joye, 2007). 

Q7. What are the visual patterns that appear everywhere in the vernacular architecture?

Alexander and colleaguesidentified a series of visual patterns—including contrast, grouping, and symmetry—which, they contend, appear ubiquitously throughout global vernacular architecture precisely because of their inherent emotional appeal (Salingaros, 2007; Alexander, 1977, 2002). 

Q8. Why does odor affect an occupant’s emotional response to a building?

Odor affects an occupant’s emotional response to a building (Barbara & Perliss, 2006), perhaps because of the direct link between the olfactory and limbic system (Ward, 2015). 

Q9. What is the general question that arises in neuroaesthetics?

1522 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 29, Number 9A general question that arises in neuroaesthetics is whether art objects are special and whether aesthetic experiences of art are different than aesthetic experiences of natural or nonart objects. 

Q10. What is the role of the somatosensory cortex in the design of buildings?

Navigating buildings involves planning and execution of movement, and it is likely that architectural design differentially impacts neural areas responsible for motor planning and navigation. 

Q11. What is the idea that the visual and limbic systems work in concert to rapidly identify and evaluate?

The idea that the visual and limbic systems work in concert to rapidly identify and evaluate incoming visual information is consistent with Ulrich’s framework, which proposes that initial affective responses toward environments are primarily influenced by automatic, unconscious processing (Ulrich, 1983). 

Q12. What is the common way to view a flat painting?

This makes sense when the stimuli viewed are flat paintings, although issues of scale and visual texture remain relevant in so far as experiments are typically conducted on a computer screen in a laboratory. 

Q13. What are the sensory networks that mediate feelings and emotions engendered by buildings?

These sensations are tied to downstream motor responses such as the affordances of objects, approach and avoidance reactions, and navigation through built spaces. 

Q14. What is the recent study to examine the relationship between the limbic system and environmental scenes?

Some studies suggest that positive and negative emotional responses to environmental scenes occur rapidly and automatically (Joye & Dewitte, 2016; Valtchanov & Ellard, 2015; Hietanen & Korpela, 2004; Korpela, Klemettilä, & Hietanen, 2002). 

Q15. What are the main factors in the experience of a person in a hospital?

The anxiety of a patient in a hospital, the desire to learn in a school, the navigational demands of a train station, and the comfort and safety of a home might all be relevant factors in the experience of a person within those spaces.