Embodied-Enactive Urbanism & Approaches to Architecture
Architecture has long been revered for its ability to shape our experiences and emotions. Even more, studies have shown that architecture has an impact on our mood, cognition, and mental health (e.g., sleep quality and stress reduction) (Coburn et al., 2017; Coburn et al., 2020; Karakas & Yildiz, 2020; Norwood et al., 2019). But how exactly does architecture influence our minds and bodies? This question has been started to be approached by studies in the field of neuroarchitecture, which focusses on the visual processing of architectural stimuli, shedding light on how our brains perceive and evaluate architecture. For example, studies have examined how those visual features relate to our psychological responses to architecture. For example, Vartanian and colleagues (2013) asked subjects to rate photos of different architectural interiors with curved or rectilinear forms in terms of beauty while they lay in a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner, which allows for the non-invasive production of anatomical brain images by using the magnetic properties of hydrogen contained in body tissue. They found that beauty ratings were higher for curvilinear rooms compared to rectilinear rooms. Moreover, the beauty ratings for curvilinear spaces were accompanied by activity in brain areas responsive to emotional value and rewarding properties (i.e., the anterior cingulate cortex). Similarly, spacious, open environments are associated with feelings of beauty and approachability, while enclosed spaces can evoke stress and discomfort (Vartanian et al., 2015).
But beyond mere visual aspects, architecture engages our bodies in ways that transcend neuroscientific methods and experiences of architecture in the lab. As we navigate through physical spaces, our movements, postures, and tactile interactions also play a role in shaping our experience—a facet often overlooked in conventional research (Kühnapfel et al., 2023a, 2023b). Various scholars (e.g., Jelić et al., 2016; Mallgrave, 2020; Wang et al., 2022) have pointed out the neglect of the body in neuroarchitecture research. This oversight aligns with discussions in architectural theory, which challenge the dominance of vision and advocate for an experiential and phenomenological approach acknowledging the body's role in perception and experience (Pallasmaa, 1996; Robinson, 2012; Robinson, 2021a). Moreover, there is a paradigmatic shift in cognitive science and philosophy of mind, as evidenced by ecological psychology (Gibson, 1986) and embodied, extended, embedded, and enactive approaches to cognition (4E Cognition, Newen et al., 2018; Varela et al., 1991), which emphasize the importance of embodied experience in shaping cognition, moving away from a solely neural representation-based view of cognition.
Contrary to the prevailing ocular-centric view, which prioritizes visual perception, an emerging body of research underscores the importance of embodied cognition in architectural experience. By integrating mobile brain-imaging techniques with ecologically valid settings such as virtual reality (VR) environments, scientists are starting to look into the role of the body in the experience of architecture (for review, see Kühnapfel & Kruft, 2022).
Studies have shown that our perception of architecture is influenced by opportunities for action within a given environment, so-called affordances—the inherent. From the width of doorways to the height of ceilings, architectural features shape our movements and sensory experiences, ultimately sculpting our emotional responses and cognitive processes. For example, the way the stepping stones in traditional Japanese gardens are a subtle invitation to slow down, savor the moment, and engage with the surrounding environment. Such interventions can enhance our sensory experiences and potentially foster deeper connections to place and community. By embracing a more enactive-ecological approach that prioritizes embodied experience, architects and designers can craft spaces that facilitate interactions and nurture well-being.
Kühnapfel, C., & Kruft, H. (2022). A neuropsychological perspective on architecture and the body. In: M. Ballestrem & T. Simon-Meyer (Eds.) From body to space. An architectural relation (pp. 24-31). HafenCity Universität Hamburg, Hamburg. https://doi.org/10.34712/142.32
References:
Coburn, A. (2022). Architectural Design and the Mind. In A. Chatterjee & E. Cardilo (Eds.), Brain, Beauty, and Art (1st ed., pp. 235–240). Oxford University PressNew York. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197513620.003.0046
Coburn, A., Vartanian, O., & Chatterjee, A. (2017). Buildings, Beauty, and the Brain: A Neuroscience of Architectural Experience. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(9), 1521–1531. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01146
Coburn, A., Vartanian, O., Kenett, Y. N., Nadal, M., Hartung, F., Hayn-Leichsenring, G., Navarrete, G., González-Mora, J. L., & Chatterjee, A. (2020). Psychological and neural responses to architectural interiors. Cortex, 126, 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.01.009
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. L. Erlbaum.
Karakas, T., & Yildiz, D. (2020). Exploring the influence of the built environment on human experience through a neuroscience approach: A systematic review. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 9(1), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.10.005
Kühnapfel, C., & Kruft, H. (2022). A neuropsychological perspective on architecture and the body. In: M. Ballestrem & T. Simon-Meyer (Eds.) From body to space. An architectural relation (pp. 24-31). HafenCity Universität Hamburg, Hamburg. https://doi.org/10.34712/142.32
Kühnapfel, C., Fingerhut, J., Brinkmann, H., Ganster, V., Tanaka, T., Specker, E., Mikuni, J., Güldenpfennig, F., Gartus, A., Rosenberg, R., & Pelowski, M. (2024). How Do We Move in Front of Art? How Does This Relate to Art Experience? Linking Movement, Eye Tracking, Emotion, and Evaluations in a Gallery-Like Setting. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 42(1), 86–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374231160000
Kühnapfel, C., Fingerhut, J., & Pelowski, M. (2023). The role of the body in the experience of installation art: A case study of visitors’ bodily, emotional, and transformative experiences in Tomás Saraceno’s “in orbit.” Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1192689. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1192689
Jelić, A., Tieri, G., De Matteis, F., Babiloni, F., & Vecchiato, G. (2016). The Enactive Approach to Architectural Experience: A Neurophysiological Perspective on Embodiment, Motivation, and Affordances. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00481
Mallgrave, H. F. (2020). Just What Can Architects Afford? In Affordances and the Potential for Architecture. New Prairie Press.
Newen, A., De Bruin, L., & Gallagher, S. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.001.0001
Norwood, M. F., Lakhani, A., Maujean, A., Zeeman, H., Creux, O., & Kendall, E. (2019). Brain activity, underlying mood and the environment: A systematic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101321
Pallasmaa, J. (1996). The eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses. Wiley.
Robinson, J. (2012). On being noved by architecture. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 70(4), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6245.2012.01526.x
Robinson, S. (2021). Architecture is a verb. Routledge.
Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Gonzalez-Mora, J. L., Leder, H., Modroño, C., Nadal, M., Rostrup, N., & Skov, M. (2015). Architectural design and the brain: Effects of ceiling height and perceived enclosure on beauty judgments and approach-avoidance decisions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.006
Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., Modroño, C., Nadal, M., Rostrup, N., & Skov, M. (2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110 Suppl 2(Suppl 2), 10446–10453. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1301227110
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (2016). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience (Revised edition). the MIT press.
Wang, X., Rodiek, S., Wu, C., Chen, Y., & Li, Y. (2016). Stress recovery and restorative effects of viewing different urban park scenes in Shanghai, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 15, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.12.003