Neuro-architecture is an emerging field that combines neuroscience, environmental psychology, and architecture to focus on human brain mechanisms resulting from action in and interaction with the built environment. Building on the development of neuro-architecture, this dissertation presents two core claims. The first is that the sensorimotor brain dynamics of architectural affordances should be recognized as an essential and feasible research topic for future neuro-architecture. The second is that considerations of scales, namely temporality and spatiality, are crucial in the design of experimental protocols when investigating the first claim. Regarding the first claim, on the one hand, it is essential because the research topics of neuro-architecture should be extended from aesthetics to ergonomics through the conceptualization of architectural affordances. This framework, derived from ecological psychology, offers a means to address the ontological limitations present in the recent neuro-architecture article (Higuera-Trujillo et al., 2021). On the other hand, it is feasible because Mobile Brain/Body Imaging (MoBI), an emerging brain imaging approach, has the potential to improve the ecological validity of neuro-architecture research. This mobile protocol allows participants to freely explore the built environment, either in virtual reality (VR) or in the physical world. This mobility provides a contextual condition that primes sensorimotor brain dynamics and natural cognition associated with environmental affordances. Combining conceptual resources from ecological psychology with this state-of-the-art neuroscience method offers a promising approach to address the methodological limitations of neuro-architecture studies (Higuera-Trujillo et al., 2021). A relevant demonstration of this core claim can be found in our article on methodological analysis (S. Wang et al., 2022). Regarding the second claim, on the one hand, time scale plays a crucial role in investigating the sensorimotor brain dynamics of architectural affordances. While there has been an ongoing debate about whether the affordances perception is an automated process or not, an increasing number of researchers are seeking to reconcile the two previous schools by viewing sensorimotor stages as a modulator-like scale. This synthesis perspective proposes that affordance automaticity should be understood as a dynamic process that changes over time, whereby affordance perception may initially occur automatically but is later modulated by higher-level cognitive processes. Focusing on examining this assumption, we published a research article (S. Wang et al., 2024). On the other hand, spatial scale (specifically, body scale) also matters in manipulating environmental affordances. According to the view of ecological psychology, affordances are perceived directly through the interaction between the observer and the environment, and thus body-scaled. This statement has been implemented in experimental protocols in the field of micro-affordance since the early 21st century. Using mobile brain/body imaging and intrinsic measurement, this study extends the body-scale paradigm to the experimental protocols for macro-affordances. In doing so, it provides empirical support for integrating ecological psychology, ergonomics, and neuro-architecture within experimental research. To this end, we have published a preprint, and the peer-reviewed paper is currently under review. In sum, the thesis can be seen as (1) two core claims of why the sensorimotor brain dynamics of architectural affordance should be regarded as an important topic for the future neuro-architecture and why scale matters in the investigation, (2) a time-varying automaticity account of architectural affordance perception, providing an empirical investigation into the temporal aspect of the core claim, and (3) an answer from the spatial aspect to the question of how architectural affordances can be manipulated from a body scale, thus offering empirical support for integrating ecological psychology, ergonomics, and neuro-architecture in experimental protocols. While the first core claim establishes a methodological foundation for the second, the second provides a procedural framework for investigating the first.
Sheng Wang (Thu,) studied this question.