Exploring Neuroscientific Approaches to Architecture: Design Strategies of the Built Environment for Improving Human Performance

Abstract

Since the 1960s, theories on the relationship between people and their environment have explored how elements of the built environment may directly or indirectly influence human behavior. In this context, neuroarchitecture is emerging as an interdisciplinary field that integrates neuroscience, architecture, environmental psychology, and cognitive science, with the aim of providing empirical evidence on how architectural spaces affect the human brain. This study investigates the potential of neuroarchitecture to inform environmental design by clarifying its current conceptual framework, examining its practical applications, and identifying the context in which it is being implemented. Beginning with an in-depth analysis of the definition of neuroarchitecture, its theoretical foundations, and the range of interpretations within the academic community, the study then offers a critical review of its practical applications across various design fields. By presenting a comprehensive overview of this emerging discipline, the study also summarizes the measurement techniques commonly employed in related research and critically evaluates design criteria based on observed human responses. Ultimately, neuroarchitecture represents a promising avenue for creating environments that deliberately enhance psychological and physiological well-being, paving the way toward truly human-centered design. Nevertheless, neuroarchitecture is still an emerging experimental field, which entails significant limitations. The experiments conducted are still limited to virtual reality and controlled experimental contexts. In addition, small and heterogeneous population samples have been tested, without considering human variability.

1. Introduction

Although the study of how the built environment affects the human brain, through an approach that combines architecture and neuroscience, is relatively recent, the relationship between individuals and space has long been considered in built environment design, and several person–environment theories (Figure 1) have emerged over time [1]. The equation developed by psychologist K. Lewin, B = ƒ(P, E), according to which behavior is a function of the person and the environment [2], highlights the relationship between individuals and their surroundings, in its physical and social components. Neuroscience has reinforced this perspective by providing empirical evidence that certain environmental stimuli operate at an unconscious level; consequently, human responses, in terms of actions, behaviors, and mood states, are often instinctive and emotionally driven [3,4]. The first empirical studies on human experience related to cognitive, sensory, and perceptual processing of urban space appeared in the literature with Kevin Lynch’s work, The Image of the City (1960) [5]. This contribution emphasizes the importance of psychological awareness in the fruition of the urban environment, which is achieved through cognitive processes involving attention, memory, spatial orientation, navigation, and the recognition of landmarks. Consequently, the effectiveness of a built environment lies in its legibility and its capacity to be understood and remembered [6]. In parallel, J. Gibson (1966) [7] proposed an active view of perception in which the senses work dynamically together to guide actions, introducing the concept of affordance: the action possibilities directly offered by the environment, without the need for complex cognitive processing [8]. In 1969, Sommer introduced the concept of personal space, an invisible area of physiological and psychological comfort conceived as a dynamic construct that adapts to individual needs and demands [9]. This space is influenced by the configuration of the physical environment, making its perception subjective and variable for everyone. Simultaneously, Hall, in The Hidden Dimension (1969), identified four spatial distances (intimate, personal, social, and public), each associated with different levels of relationships. These distances vary according to personal, cultural, and social contexts and are described as hidden because they unconsciously influence behaviors, decisions, and interpersonal relationships [10]. Both studies contributed to the development of proxemics, a discipline that analyzes interpersonal distances and how individuals adapt spaces to their needs. Influenced by the theories of Lynch, Sommer, and Hall, in 1970, a group of psychologists published a book titled Environmental Psychology, identifying a new discipline that, through an interdisciplinary approach, analyzed the cognitive and perceptual mechanisms underlying the person–environment relationship [11]. The aim was to understand how the environment affects psychological processes, individual and collective behaviors, and human psycho-physical well-being, while also investigating how people perceive, interpret, and shape the built spaces in accordance with their needs. According to this perspective, Bronfenbrenner (1977–2004) [12,13,14], through his Ecological Systems Theory, described human development as the result of interactions between different environmental levels (microsystem, mesosystem, ecosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem) [15]. Industrialization and subsequent urban expansion prompted significant interest in environmental stressors—light, noise, air pollution, as well as overcrowding—and their impact on physical, mental, and social health, sparking reflections on the person-nature relationship. E. Wilson, through his Biophilia Theory (1984) [16], hypothesized that humans possess an innate attraction to nature, viewed as a psycho-physical need rather than a purely esthetic preference. This line of thought led Ulrich (1981) to formulate the Stress Recovery Theory [17], demonstrating that exposure to natural elements rapidly produces beneficial effects on psychological conditions such as anxiety, stress, depression, anger, or fear, while simultaneously generating positive emotions and promoting cognitive, physiological, mood, and behavioral improvement [18]. Within this context, the Attention Restoration Theory (ART), developed by Stephen and Rachel Kaplan between 1989 and 1995 [19,20], proposed that directed attention can become depleted during tasks requiring high cognitive load, leading to mental fatigue, stress, and irritability. ART postulates that exposure to natural environments provides an involuntary, restorative stimulus that requires no additional cognitive effort. This theory has significantly influenced environmental design by encouraging the integration of natural elements into architectural and urban spaces to enhance mental health and cognitive performance. The concept of Biophilic Design, formalized in 1993 by Kellert and Wilson [21], represents a theoretical and practical evolution of Wilson’s Biophilia Theory. It is based on design choices aimed at restoring the human–nature relationship, with profound implications for psycho-physical well-being, mental health, productivity, and the overall quality of human experience [18]. In their 1974 book [22], An Approach to Environmental Psychology, Mehrabian and Russell introduced a theoretical framework that is fundamental to the development of environmental psychology, exploring how physical environments influence emotions, behavior, and psychological well-being [23]. In Human Behavior and Environment (1976), Altman and Wohlwill [24] emphasized the relevance of an interdisciplinary approach to studying the person–environment relationship, integrating perspectives from psychology, architecture, urban planning, and sociology. Human behavior cannot be fully understood without considering the physical and social contexts, which act as active and co-determining components. Similarly, in 1978, E. Barker [25] developed the concept of behavior settin to describe how human behavior is influenced by the joint interaction of physical space and social context in which it occurs. These environments not only host behavior but actively shape it by creating expectations and implicit rules that guide individual actions [26]. The spatial analysis developed by Hillier and Hanson [27], introduced in The Social Logic of Space (1984) and known as “Space Syntax” represents a significant approach to studying how spatial configuration influences individuals physically, physiologically, and behaviorally. In addition, Lang proposed a systemic approach to environmental design, emphasizing the importance of considering the dynamic and bidirectional interaction between individuals and the built environment [28]. In this view, the built environment is no longer considered a neutral and functional entity but rather a complex, interactive reality deeply connected to the psycho-cultural dimension of dwelling [6]. Rybczynski (2001), in The Look of Architecture [29], highlighted architecture’s esthetic impact, explaining how proportion, rhythm, and symmetry influence emotions and perceptions [30]. The emergence of neuroarchitecture—as an interdisciplinary field at the intersection of neuroscience, architecture, environmental psychology, and cognitive sciences—can be traced back to 2003 with the founding of the Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (ANFA) in San Diego. Its aim is to provide empirical evidence of the built environment’s impact on human brain mechanisms [6]. In his 2008 work Cognitive-Emotional Interactions in the Brain, LeDoux [31] explored how emotion and cognition interact within brain processes, arguing that the brain can respond emotionally to environmental stimuli rapidly and automatically, thereby influencing thought and behavior [26]. Related concepts have emerged with “cognitive architecture”, which describes the reciprocal influence between the human mind and space [32,33]. Sternberg (2010), in Healing Spaces [34], highlighted the therapeutic power of intentionally designed environments, citing examples such as Louis Kahn’s Salk Institute, conceived to stimulate creativity and well-being. Inspired by Bronfenbrenner’s theories, Dunn in his article Levels of Influence in the Built Environment on the Promotion of Healthy Child Development (2012) [35] analyzed how the built environment directly and indirectly affects healthy child development. In parallel, the “WELL Building Standard” was developed as a certificate design methodology aimed at improving people’s health and well-being through the careful planning and management of built environments [18]. In his 2014 essay Space, Place and Atmosphere: Emotion and Peripheral Perception in Architectural Experience, the architect and theorist J. Pallasmaa [36] explored the role of emotion and peripheral perception in architectural experience. Contrasting with a purely visual and objective understanding of space, he argued that architecture is primarily experienced through the body and senses in an immersive and atmospheric way, engaging memory, emotions, and implicit perception [37]. This background outlines the main theoretical frameworks and key scholars that have shaped the development of neuroscience from an architectural perspective, in order to trace the roots of neuroarchitecture as a research domain recently proposed in scientific literature.

2. Materials and Methods

To analyze the multi-disciplinary nature of neuroarchitecture and its importance in shaping built environments that positively affect human cognition, behavior, performance and well-being, an in-depth exploration of the concept of neuroarchitecture has been conducted, particularly regarding its definition, theoretical foundations, and the different ways in which it is interpreted within the academic community, also critically examining its practical applications in different fields. The study is based on three steps: (i) literature searching, (ii) study selection, according to eligibility criteria (reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart), and (iii) data synthesis. The study was conducted through the following databases: PubMed, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Frontiers. The search terms were as follows:

• (Neuroarchitecture) OR (Architecture) OR (Built Environment) OR (Interior design) OR (Design) OR (Environmental design) OR (Sensory design)
• (Neuroscience) OR (Cognitive science) OR (Cognitive emotional design) OR (Brain)
• (Human performance) OR (Behavior) OR (Well-being) OR (Human cognition)

In accordance with the established eligibility criteria, both monographs and recent gray literature were systematically included in the review to provide a comprehensive and broader understanding of the topic.

Literature review articles, particularly systematic review, were preferred to have a broader overview of the existing scientific production on the topic. Publications written in English and Italian, from 2018 onwards, that described or investigated the concept of neuroarchitecture—defined as the contribution of neuroscience to environmental design—were included in the review. Papers and studies whose outcome were environmental design criteria, guidelines or design solutions that promote psycho-physical well-being and human performance were selected. Studies from other fields whose outcomes are not related to environmental design (for example, medical and clinical studies) were excluded from the review.

The screening of the existing scientific literature was carried out following two main stages: (i) reading contributions by title and abstract, and (ii) full-text reading of the selected papers from step one. The process is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram (Figure 2). In total, 49 studies were identified through database searching and screened using title and abstract checks. Full-text studies evaluated for the eligibility were 28, and, after the second stage, a total of 27 met the inclusion criteria.

The significant data were extracted and summarized in Supplementary Materials, Table S1, containing: main study characteristics (authors, publication year, type of study, aim), target sample, neuroarchitecture definition or person-environment theory, study contexts, measuring techniques, human performance, and environmental design criteria.

3. Results

The reviewed studies encompassed contributions from researchers affiliated with institutions in 18 countries, resulting in a total of 27 articles. Among the single-country studies, Egypt was the most represented (n = 4), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 3) and Iran (n = 3). When mixed-country collaborations are considered, the United States and Spain exhibited the highest overall participation. The United States was involved in six studies, only one of which was authored solely by a U.S.-based researcher. Similarly, Spain contributed to both single-country and collaborative studies, with a total of five appearances. Other countries, including Mexico, Germany, and Brazil, also made notable, though comparatively more minor, contributions. Overall, the geographic distribution of the literature demonstrates a concentration of research activity in Western and Middle Eastern countries, with limited representation from Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia. This suggests the need for broader international engagement in future research efforts.

Regarding disciplinary backgrounds, architecture emerged as the predominant field, represented in 14 of the reviewed studies—serving as the sole disciplinary focus in 12, and as part of interdisciplinary collaborations in the remainder. Disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, biology, and engineering were frequently integrated with architecture, reflecting a trend toward interdisciplinary, human-centered, and scientifically informed approaches to architectural research. Psychology appeared in four studies, often in conjunction with neuroscience or environmental psychology, while biological sciences and engineering were each involved in three studies. This disciplinary distribution points to an increasing convergence between architectural design and the cognitive and life sciences, with the shared aim of investigating the complex interactions between the built environment and human behavior or physiological responses.

Among the selected scientific literature, four articles present case studies focused on specific application contexts, including learning environments [4], hospitals [38], healthcare facilities [39], and urban settings [40]. In terms of target populations, the majority of studies refer to general users [3,6,18,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. A smaller subset of studies focuses on specific groups: two studies investigate university students [48,49], while three studies examine children as the primary users [4,15,38].

The results of the reviewed literature can be synthesized into three interrelated thematic domains, which serve as the framework for the detailed analysis presented below. First, the concept of neuroarchitecture emerges as a multidisciplinary and evolving field, integrating principles of architectural design with neuroscientific insights. While definitions vary across studies, the field is broadly characterized by its focus on the reciprocal interactions between brain processes and the built environment. Second, the literature identifies the neuroscientific methods most employed to investigate these interactions, highlighting the role of empirical measurement tools in capturing users’ physiological and cognitive responses to architectural stimuli. Third, the studies propose a range of emerging design criteria and strategies aimed at enhancing human well-being and performance, thereby outlining potential applications of neuroarchitectural knowledge in evidence-based design practice. These three domains are examined in detail in the following sections.

3.1. Neuroarchitecture and Neuroscience for Architecture

A comprehensive understanding of the concept of Neuroarchitecture requires consideration of its established association in the scholarly literature with the Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (ANFA) founded in 2003 by architect John Eberhard and supported by the American Institute of Architects [6,50]. The central aim of this institution is to empirically substantiate the influence of spatial configuration, illumination, chromatic variables, acoustic conditions, surface texture, and the organization of the physical environment on the human brain, behavior, and well-being [51].

Neuroscience for Architecture emphasizes a shift from descriptive approaches to experimental methodologies that utilize neuroscientific tools—such as biosensors and neuroimaging—to measure cognitive, emotional, and physiological responses to architectural stimuli [52,53]. It also aims to generate evidence-based insights to inform user-centered design, although its application has resulted in limited [54].

In the framework of Neuroscience for Architecture, the term Neuroarchitecture has been increasingly employed within the architectural discourse to delineate an emergent interdisciplinary domain that systematically investigates the extent to which architectural form can enhance human functioning and promote psychological and physiological well-being. Neuroarchitecture conceptualizes human performance as an outcome of the continuous interaction between individuals and their physical surroundings. Thus, its aim seeks to create spaces that enhance brain development, reduce stress, and improve performance and well-being through the integration of spatial configuration and environmental features (e.g., light, sound, color, texture) into design strategies [55,56].

3.2. Measurement Techniques in Neuroarchitecture Research

Although the aim of this study does not focus on the neuroscientific techniques employed to measure architectural stimuli, some recent advances in brain imaging and physiological monitoring technologies have emerged, significantly enhancing a growing body of research on neuroarchitecture studies. Studies in this field can be broadly categorized into stationary and mobile. Stationary ones require participants to remain still—either seated in a controlled laboratory or lying inside an imaging scanner—while being exposed to static visual stimuli of architectural environments. These methods enable high spatial and temporal resolution of neural activity related to the virtual architectural experience, offering precise mapping of brain responses to environmental stimuli; however, while they provide high experimental control, they are limited by the lack of real interaction with the environment. Conversely, mobile ones enable participants to interact with real or virtual three-dimensional architectural settings physically. However, this system could also introduce uncontrollable environmental stressors such as noise and motion artifacts that compromise neural recording quality [41]. Techniques commonly used in this context include functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), electroencephalography (EEG) and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) [42]:

• fMRI, which tracks blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) signals to map brain activation in response to pleasant or unpleasant architectural spaces, reflecting neural correlations of emotional and cognitive processes.
• EEG, which records electrical brain activity with high temporal resolution, facilitating analysis of real-time neural dynamics during environmental exposure.
• fNIRS, a non-invasive optical imaging method that detects changes in cortical blood oxygenation, similarly linked to neural activity.

The integration of stationary and mobile techniques, combining neural imaging with physiological and behavioral measures, could enable an in-depth understanding of how architectural environments influence brain function, emotions, and behavior [41]. Such multidisciplinary and multimodal approaches could support and refine evidence-based architectural design aimed at optimizing human well-being and performance.

3.3. Emerging Design Criteria and Strategies

Cognitive, emotional, and physiological could be referred as the main domains of human performance [57]. Cognitive performance encompasses the brain’s capacity to process, store, and retrieve information, involving functions such as attention, memory, and spatial orientation. This domain represents a critical psychological component necessary for the successful execution of tasks [58]. Affective performance, which includes emotional and mood-related processes, pertains to an individual’s experience, perception, and regulation of their own emotions, as well as their ability to interpret and respond to the emotions of others [59]. Physiological performance pertains to the body’s physical responses to internal and external stimuli, manifested through variations in heart rate, respiratory patterns, and levels of stress-related hormones. The autonomic nervous system predominantly regulates these responses and is often elicited by both cognitive demands and emotional states [60]. This categorization provides a useful framework for analyzing how individuals respond to different tasks and contexts, particularly related to the built environment. These distinctions are essential for understanding the complex interplay between mental processes, emotional regulation, and physiological responses in shaping human performance outcomes [57].

The analysis of the selected studies confirmed that physical environments, both indoor and outdoor, may impact human well-being, attention, memory, creativity, orientation, and emotional states. The resulting evidence-based design criteria could be divided into three groups in relation to environmental conditions (lighting, acoustic, IAQ); functional/spatial conditions (layout, dimensions, volumes and proportions, geometries); and technological conditions (colors, material, textures).

Environmental variables such as lighting, noise, and temperature may affect cognitive outcomes, including attention and memory. Lighting quality could influence both the perception and the mood of individuals. Natural daylight has been shown to enhance recovery from illness and expand the perception of space, while higher luminance levels and specific color temperatures optimize comfort and cognitive performance [43,61]. Particularly, quiet, thermally neutral, and moderately lit environments enhance attention, whereas warm, silent, and moderately lit spaces are more supportive of memory tasks [62]. Alterations of lighting conditions—such as excessive noise or light beyond the comfort zone—negatively impact cognitive performance [61]. In addition, lighting quality can shape both cognitive and physiological states, as exemplified by natural light that reduces stress levels, enhances brain function, and shortens healing processes [42]. For example, a group of twenty-one undergraduate students, along with four graduate students and faculty members, recruited for a study on lighting conditions, expressed a strong preference for natural lighting, associating it with comfort and well-being [63]. In contrast, a study by George and Prakash (2024) highlighted that artificial lighting was perceived negatively by participants, echoing previous research that associated it with elevated stress and discomfort [45].

Specific spatial and functional variables, such as proportions and dimensions, may influence perception and cognition. High ceilings could promote creativity, freedom, and wayfinding, whereas low ceilings enhance calmness but may impair learning and evoke feelings of confinement [8,43,61]. For example, classroom dimensions contribute to cognitive performance—narrower classrooms painted in cool colors may enhance memory and arousal, while wider classrooms could reduce attention [8,61]. Geometries also play a critical role: curvilinear forms are often associated with heightened emotional and cognitive activation, whereas rectilinear shapes tend to decrease satisfaction and engagement [61]. Other architectural characteristics, such as symmetry and permeability to outdoor spaces, may influence emotional states, including relaxation, engagement, and stress levels. Interior arrangements, including furniture positioning, window placement, and visual complexity, further shape users’ experiences of pleasure, comfort, and familiarity. Extending beyond indoor environments, urban design variables—such as building shapes, textures, street edges, and sky visibility—may affect behavior, attention, anxiety, and emotional arousal, guiding either approach or avoidance tendencies [6]. These behavioral and affective outcomes are derived from neuroscientific evidence (EEG and fMRI studies), which demonstrate that architectural forms and materials (e.g., concrete, steel, glass) modulate neural activity linked to attention and memory, especially in immersive or transitional environments [61].

Technological conditions, such as colors and textures, could influence people’s cognitive functions. Cool-colored environments—specifically blue, green, and purple—could enhance attention and memory, while high-contrast color combinations may improve spatial memory [61,64]. Warm tones can evoke higher arousal, with hue and saturation strongly linked to emotional responses [43,65,66]. Material and texture also influence perception, memory, and comfort. Natural materials such as wood have a calming effect, enhance vision and cognitive coherence, and support focused attention [39]. In contrast, interiors featuring metal, concrete, and glass better support attention but provide less emotional comfort [67].

The integration of natural elements, such as vegetation within architectural and interior spaces, has been demonstrated to reduce stress and anxiety [6,43]. This evidence supports both the Biophilia Hypothesis, which suggests an innate human preference for natural forms, and the Attention Restoration Theory, which identifies restorative environments [43]. Natural elements, whether real or simulated, consistently enhance attention, spatial cognition, and well-being and specifically mitigate stress and pain conditions, fostering restorative feelings [15,42,45].

A comprehensive overview of the results relating to human performance—cognitive, emotive/mood, and physiological—and the related design criteria is provided in

Table 1. Design criteria based on identified human performance.

Cognitive Performance	Design Criteria	References
Attention	To improve attention during learning activities, it is advisable to provide flexible furniture adaptable to different teaching and interaction modes. To foster attention, prefer curved geometries, steel, concrete, or glass finishes, and high ceilings with well-distributed spaces; adopt cool and bright colors (especially purple, blue, and green) and maintain a neutral climate with silence and balanced lighting; ensure clear spatial distribution, fluid circulation, and affordances for movement, avoiding overly large classrooms or restricted views that reduce focus. To ensure better attention and memory during learning activities, it is preferable that classroom widths range around 7.60–8.80 m. To strengthen attention and memory during learning activities, environments should benefit from direct and indirect lighting combinations, which optimize visual clarity. To foster attention and memory, prefer narrower classrooms, curvilinear geometries, and wooden interiors; use steel, concrete, or glass finishes to enhance attention; adopt cold-hued, high-contrast colors (especially purple, blue, and green); and regulate temperatures, with cool settings supporting concentration and warm settings aiding recall.	[8,15,40,42,45,61]
Memory	To foster working memory, it is advisable to ensure four different air temperatures (18, 22, 26 and 308C) and two noise levels (55 and 75 dBA). To support long-term memory consolidation, each zone should have a strong and recognizable visual identity. To foster memory, prefer square or cylindrical glass and wooden spaces; adopt cool and high-contrast colors (yellowish green to purple); prefer small classrooms with low ceilings; perception-focused tasks are best supported by thermoneutral, quiet, and bright environments; memory tasks perform better in warm, quiet, and moderately bright settings. To support recognition and memory, it is preferable to design in familiar rather than unfamiliar locations, evoking feelings of safety and belonging.	[8,15,61]
Orientation	To enhance visual-spatial processing and wayfinding, it is advisable to prefer high ceilings that evoke a sense of freedom and positively influence orientation and spatial understanding. To ensure good wayfinding, integrate it with entry points, atria, and vertical circulation. To improve navigability and orientation, it is advisable to design with clear spatial hierarchies. To facilitate wayfinding, spaces should incorporate visual cues and landmarks that reduce confusion and anxiety. To improve spatial perception, it is advisable to carefully design color and lighting conditions, since these factors significantly influence how spaces are perceived.	[6,8,30,39,42,43]
Esthetic judgments (Linked to perception/cognition)	To foster cognitive engagement, environments should integrate different geometries. To enhance visual attraction, ensure the reduction in the perception of environmental noise, for example, by using natural barriers. To stimulate imagination and cognitive efficiency, it is preferable to use natural light, varied shapes, and textured materials, ensuring perceptual richness without overwhelming the user. To sustain psychological evaluation of space, adapt the function of the space to its use, and ensure coherence by choosing natural materials like wood, which increase the sense of unity and harmony in natural settings.	[6,8,30,40,43]
Concentration	To promote concentration, prefer natural vegetation (aromas and falling water promote relaxation) and choose curved contours that are more attractive and relaxing than straight contours.	[40]
Creativity	To foster creativity, prefer high ceilings that evoke a sense of freedom.	[43,45]

,

Table 2. Design criteria based on identified emotive/mood performance.

Emotive/Mood-Related Performance	Design Criteria	References
Anxiety-stress reduction	To encourage relaxation and minimize stress, it is important to reduce environmental noise and provide quiet, calm areas. To reduce anxiety and stress levels, it is advisable to provide exposure to natural views or include indoor vegetation. To improve stress reduction, minimize inter-floor variation, support cognitive mapping, and reduce spatial confusion. To promote tranquility and reduce stress, prefer natural materials such as wood. To reduce stress and discomfort, enclosed or overly dense spaces should be avoided in favor of permeable and well-ventilated environments with thoughtful color and lighting strategies. To reduce stress and anxiety, furnished environments with flexible solutions are preferred.	[6,8,37,39,40,43,45]
Peaceful and emotional connection	To support peaceful emotional states, it is beneficial to provide views of rural areas rather than exclusively urban scenery. To promote emotional satisfaction, interiors should be designed with harmonious forms that support comfort. To improve satisfaction and excitement, avoid symmetrical forms, prefer bright colors that elicit positive emotions, while green color promotes satisfaction. To enhance calmness, prefer low ceilings.	[6,8,42,45]
Positive emotions	To enhance positive emotional states affected by perceived brightness, choose flexibility in lighting. To promote positive emotions, prefer natural materials like wood, artificial lighting (e.g., white regulates mood, while blue light aids post-stress recovery), and asymmetric shapes that enhance cognition and arouse emotions.	[6,8,43,45]
Approach-avoidance response	To positively influence approach–avoidance behaviors, it is preferable to carefully design the ceiling height, since it directly affects how people are inclined to move toward or away from spaces.	[30]
Esthetic pleasure	To foster esthetic pleasure, design should integrate harmonious proportions, symmetry/asymmetry balance, and materials and colors that enhance comfort, familiarity, and innovation.	[6]
Mood regulation	To foster mood regulation, use natural light and consider color temperature and illuminance combinations, and maximize indirect light to make spaces feel larger and brighter	[43]

and

Table 3. Design criteria based on identified physiological performance.

Physiological Performance	Design Criteria	References
Recovery and Well-being	To support restorative well-being, spaces should maximize natural light exposure, ensure healthy air circulation, and incorporate green systems (indoor plants, integrated vegetation). To enhance stress recovery, religious or contemplative spaces may use calm geometries, controlled luminance levels, and natural cues that promote a sense of safety and balance. To foster well-being, apply principles from Attention Restoration Theory: create environments with “fascination,” “being away,” “coherence,” and “compatibility	[6,43]

.

4. Discussion

Although the term Neuroarchitecture was formally introduced only in 2003, the application of neuroscientific principles to architectural inquiry draws upon a structured body of antecedent approaches that can be traced as far back as 1936 with Kurt Lewin’s formulation of behavior as a function of the person and the environment (b = f(P, E)), and subsequently expanded during the 1960s. Nevertheless, a persistent risk of conceptual ambiguity remains, due to the frequent conflation between two distinct yet related concepts: Neuroscience applied to Architecture and Neuroarchitecture. While the former delineates a framework centered on the neurophysiological measurement of cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses through advanced neuroscientific techniques, the latter constitutes a field of study concerned with the integration of neuroscientific knowledge into architectural research theory and application.

The progression of neuroarchitecture from a conceptual proposition to an emerging empirical field reflects growing interest in understanding the interaction between spatial environments and human neurophysiology [68]. The increasing application of neuroscientific techniques has enabled researchers to explore how the built environment influences cognitive processes, emotional states, and overall well-being. While these tools provide valuable insights, their current implementation often faces methodological constraints, including issues of ecological validity, sample homogeneity and variability, and the difficulty of isolating architectural variables in real-world contexts.

Despite these limitations, the integration of neuroscience with architecture and psychology has begun to yield a more comprehensive, albeit still fragmented, understanding of how environmental factors affect human functioning. The reviewed literature suggests that neuroarchitecture holds promise as a framework for informing human-centered design; however, this potential remains largely aspirational. Many studies remain exploratory, with small sample sizes, limited replicability, and variable methodological rigor, which restricts the generalizability of their findings.

The design criteria identified in this study in relation to human performance represent an attempt to systematically integrate findings from the existing body of literature by considering cognitive, emotional, and physiological dimensions. However, despite this categorization, the criteria often appear incoherent, insufficiently articulated, and overly generic, lacking the specificity and conceptual clarity necessary to serve as reliable prescriptive guidelines. In several cases, the recommendations remain ambiguous, which undermines their potential applicability in practice. Consequently, the criteria outlined should not be regarded as mandatory; rather, they provide a structured overview of the principal directions currently addressed in research concerning architectural settings.

Environmental and technological variables were found to influence human performance across a range of cognitive and affective domains, including attention, memory, emotional regulation, and stress recovery. Lighting emerged as a consistent determinant of user experience. However, such findings must be interpreted cautiously, as preferences may be culturally conditioned and context-specific, and few studies have rigorously compared lighting conditions across diverse user populations or architectural typologies.

Spatial characteristics were also associated with measurable differences in cognitive and emotional outcomes. These findings lend some empirical support to long-standing architectural theories regarding the psychological impact of proportion and form. Nonetheless, many of these studies are correlational, and further experimental work is needed to disentangle architectural effects from other confounding variables.

Technological and material features were reported to affect cognitive performance and emotional engagement. However, the literature on these factors remains limited, and the interaction effects between sensory modalities (e.g., visual and tactile) are often overlooked. Notably, natural design elements were associated with stress reduction and cognitive restoration, findings that align with established theoretical frameworks such as the Biophilia Hypothesis and Attention Restoration Theory. While compelling, these associations warrant further exploration to understand better the psychological mechanisms underlying the restorative effects of nature-inspired design.

Pertaining to the contexts of application and the target samples, the literature review showed considerable heterogeneity and inconsistency, potentially due to the interdisciplinary nature of neuroarchitecture and its contemporary growth. Some studies are conducted in controlled experimental settings (for example, using VR or eye-tracking), which allow for greater control of variables but risk being less representative of the complexity of the “real world” [49,69,70]. Others are theoretical or systematic reviews [6,30,37] of existing literature that provide a broad overview of the state of the art, but do not give original data or directly test hypotheses. On the contrary, only a few studies have conducted experiments in situ or in applied contexts. Although these studies are fundamental for translating theoretical knowledge into practical design strategies, they remain underrepresented. Overall, attention is strongly focused on educational, healthcare, and experimental contexts, while everyday environments, such as residential, commercial, and public urban spaces, are relatively neglected.

About target samples, the results reveal that several studies focus on highly specific user groups, such as university students or elementary school children. Although such samples are relevant for certain research questions, they limit the possibility of generalizing the results to larger populations. In contrast, other studies refer to generic users without providing demographic details. This lack of specificity makes it difficult to assess whether the sample is representative in terms of age, cultural background, or socioeconomic status. Diversity within the samples is also limited. The literature is heavily biased towards young, healthy, and often Western participants, showing an insufficient exploration of older adults, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups who may experience architectural environments in a different way.

The field of neuroarchitecture seems to be, particularly in its direct application to architectural design, largely experimental. Thus, the absence of in situ experimentation and the scarcity of quantitative case studies constitute substantial limitations that hinder the consolidation of empirical evidence and the translation of findings into real-world practice. Moreover, there is an urgent need to extend these experiments to different population groups (e.g., elderly individuals and people with disabilities) to obtain a broader and more in-depth overview of the effects and potential applications.

In summary, the literature underscores the relevance of integrating neuroscientific evidence into architectural practice through evidence-based design strategies. However, the field of neuroarchitecture is still in a formative stage [71,72]. To move beyond proof-of-concept studies and toward practical implementation, future research must prioritize methodological rigor, interdisciplinary collaboration, and context-sensitive approaches. Moreover, greater attention to individual variability and socio-cultural factors will be essential for developing design guidelines that are both effective and inclusive.

5. Conclusions

This study reinforces the importance of neuroarchitecture as an innovative and empirically grounded approach to architectural design, one that integrates insights from neuroscience to optimize human health, performance, and experience. By leveraging both mobile and stationary brain-monitoring techniques, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of how people interact with their environments in both real and virtual contexts. This convergence of technology and design not only enhances our understanding of environmental impact on the human brain but also supports the development of spaces that are cognitively and emotionally attuned to users’ needs. The practical implications of this research are significant for architects, designers, and urban planners. The identification of key design criteria—centered around environmental quality, spatial configuration, and material-technological attributes—offers a roadmap for creating built environments that actively support attention, learning, recovery, and well-being. As the field continues to grow, the integration of neuroscientific evidence into design practice will become increasingly essential in addressing the psychological demands of contemporary living spaces. Ultimately, neuroarchitecture holds the potential to transform environments from passive containers of activity into active agents of human flourishing.

Nevertheless, although neuroarchitecture is emerging as a promising interdisciplinary domain, its empirical foundations remain broadly limited in terms of the identification and application of design criteria to architectural settings.

The findings of this review highlight both main research directions and the substantial challenges in translating neuroscientific evidence into concrete design criteria. The analysis of existing studies reveals recurrent problems of inconsistency, vagueness, and lack of methodological comparability, which make it challenging to derive univocal prescriptions. This fragmentation highlights the gap between neuroscience for architecture, where evidence remains mainly exploratory, and neuroarchitecture, which is understood as an operational framework informing design practice. In this sense, the present work does not provide ready-made rules for design but rather exposes the limits of the current evidence base and suggests the need for systematic efforts to overcome them.

Future research should expand beyond controlled laboratory settings to understand the complexity of the user experience in the built space, focusing on diversified target samples that include different ages, cultural backgrounds, and user needs. Such advances would enhance both the theoretical depth and practical relevance of neuroarchitecture, supporting its potential to inform evidence-based design.

The study presents some limitations about the methodological assessment procedures of the screening phase. As a scoping review, the study goal was to map the breadth and scope of recent literature on the topic. This is because its primary objective was to provide a comprehensive overview of available evidence, rather than to evaluate the methodological quality of individual studies critically.

However, further research should aim to improve the assessment of formal risk in the included studies and quantify their reliability through a systematic or meta-analysis review.