Neuroarchitecture in Design

Neuroarchitecture is a discipline which examines the relationship between the built environment and human responses to it. As a discipline, it is extremely interesting, as it studies how architectural elements affect our mental states.?

This isn’t a new field, and it certainly isn’t news to anyone who studies cognitive psychology. Studies done on students and workers alike have found that there are real, and sometimes significant effects that the physical environment has on our productivity and creativity. One such study done by Mott et al. (2014) found that using glare free lighting during reading instruction increased oral reading fluency for at-risk students at a higher rate than normal lighting. Meyers-Levy and Zhu (2009) even found that ceiling height played a role in people’s ability to think abstractly.

Something highly related to neuroarchitecture is biophilic environments. Biophilic environments aim to bring the natural world indoors or provide more indirect contact with nature. This could include a ‘living wall’ in a building, plants set around a room or large windows to give occupants a view of a park. We know that people often find nature refreshing and enjoy getting outside and that moments in nature have the ability to reduce stress (Li & Sullivan, 2016). Determan et al. (2019) discuss how having real plants or even artificial ones inside a space, is not the only way to create a biophilic experience. They posit that, “Nature can also be represented in patterns, finishes and objects that have biomorphic forms and fractals,” (p. 5). What good are biomorphic forms vs. a real tree? Albright (2015) found that one reason for this is that natural patterns are easily processed by the brain’s visual system.

It reduces cognitive load, and therefore our cognitive, emotional and other physiological responses are also fewer and less distracting. Natural colours help people focus and remain calm, and natural patterns do the same.

As we move into an era of makerspaces and Innovative Learning Spaces being built around the world, we need the architects and project leaders to consider how colour, design and nature all contribute to student engagement, community and ultimately learning.

Some takeaway questions this week: For whom are we really designing the space and for what purpose? And how do we want them to be feeling and therefore acting, when they are in the space?

[This is the first article in a short series on makerspaces and Innovative Learning Spaces and how they are designed and used. Stay tuned for an upcoming article where I write about a discussion I had with an Architect, who recently designed such a space at a University in Ottawa. I will be sharing their perspective on educational spaces and what they believe are important considerations when designing a public space for study.]

---

Leo Quote: “Architecture is basically a container of something. I hope they will enjoy not so much the teacup, but the tea.” -Yochio Taniguchi

?---

References

Albright, T. D. (2015). Neuroscience for architecture. In S. Robinson and J. Pallasmaa (Eds.),

Mind in Architecture: Neuroscience, Embodiment and the Future of Design, (197-217). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Determan, J., Akers, M. A., Albright, T., Browning, B., Martin-Dunlop, C., Archibald, P., & Caruolo, V. (2019). The Impact of Biophilic Learning Spaces on Student Success. Retrieved from https://cgdarch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/The-Impact-of-Biophilic-Learning-Spaces-on-Student-Success.pdf

Li, D., & Sullivan, W. C. (2016). Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue. Landscape Urban Plan, 148, 149–158. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.015

Mott, M. S., Robinson, D. H., Williams-Black, T. H., & McClelland, S. S. (2014). The supporting effects of high luminous conditions on grade 3 oral reading fluency scores.?SpringerPlus,?3, 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-53

Meyers-Levy, J., & Zhu, R.J. (2007). The influence of ceiling height: The effect of priming on the type of processing that people use. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 174-186. 10.1086/519146