ArchitectureCultureDesign

Neuroscience in designing spaces that encourage creativity

 

We spend about 80-90% of our lives inside buildings, and our brain and our biology are influenced by contact with architecture. Interest in understanding the impact of architecture on human well-being is growing. We observe the development of research, the creation of the first certificates in this field, the activities of the first consulting companies, and the creation of Human Experience research units in architectural companies. 

 

Text by Natalia Olszewska, Marta Wierusz 

 

Researchers still have limited ability to identify which environmental factors are most important for optimal human performance. However, there are many studies showing that the so-called “environmental enrichment” affects mice and rats, which have very similar DNA to humans. “Enriched environments”, i.e. those characterized by an appropriate level of cognitive, somatosensory, motor and social stimulation, not only influence the behavior of rodents, but also promote the formation of new neurons (so-called neurogenesis) and new neuronal connections (so-called neuroplasticity). One of the scientists who conduct this type of research is Professor Fred Gage, a world-renowned neuroscientist and president of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. Gage’s research focuses on the central nervous system and its adaptive capacity. As the neuroscientist emphasizes, architects do not appreciate the fact that the buildings they design change the brains of users. 

 

Arkuos, Rosan Bosch Studio, photo: Kim Wendt

 

The beginnings of neuroscience for architecture 

 

The dialogue between architects and neuroscientists has been going on for several decades. The first basic research on the borderline of these fields is being carried out using tools such as sensors[1] or non-invasive brain imaging, enabling us to study the neural mechanisms underlying the perception of art, including architecture. An anecdote says that the history of the marriage between neurobiology and architecture began with Jonas Salk, an American virologist, one of the researchers who developed the polio vaccine. In the 1950s, Salk spent several weeks in Assisi, Italy, working on a vaccine. The scientist later referred to his stay in this charming place: 

“The spirituality of the architecture there was so inspiring that I was able to think intuitively, far beyond what I had done in the past. Influenced by this historic site, I intuitively designed the research that I believe resulted in the polio vaccine. I went back to my lab in Pittsburgh to verify my ideas and found them correct.”[2] 

 

Years later, when Salk became a well-known scientist, he decided to invest in the construction of a research center located in La Jolla, San Diego, known today as a center for neurobiological research. In the early 1990s, shortly before his death, Salk allegedly proposed to researchers gathered at a conference at the institute to take action to better understand the impact of architecture on the human brain. In 2003, almost a decade after the death of the inventor of the polio vaccine, the Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (ANFA) was founded. As emphasized by John Eberhard, architect and founder of the institution: 

“Knowledge in the field of neuroscience can help architects design hospitals where people recover faster, schools where students remember information more easily, or offices where employees work better together.” 

 

Creativity and architecture 

 

What can neuroscience tell us about how to design spaces that stimulate creativity? 

 

Creativity in the Western tradition is often defined as “generating ideas”. Conclusions from many studies show that creativity is correlated with, among others, the appropriate level of psychophysical tension (moderate levels of stimulation increase creativity, while high or too low levels inhibit it[1]), fun and surprise (creative thinking is favored by e.g. humorous content[2] ), ambivalence (people experiencing ambivalence are prone to recognize unusual relationships between concepts[3]), curiosity and seeking new stimuli (novelty positively affects our ability to search and generate ideas[4]). 

 

Additionally, modern neuroscience research suggests that an individual’s ability to generate new ideas depends on the quality of the functional connection within three brain networks: 

  • a network responsible for mental skills such as attention, working memory, flexible thinking and self-control (the so-called executive control networks), 
  • a network that organizes information (the so-called relevance network),
  • a network related to, inter alia, imaginative thinking (basic activity network)[5].

Design can boost creativity in the workplace or at school. For example, the research cited above shows that conditions conducive to creative thinking should be dynamic, that is, they should help us shift our attention from the environment to ourselves and vice versa. [3] Spaces conducive to creativity should be enriched environments that stimulate users sensorially, cognitively, physically and socially.

 

The feeling of ambivalence and surprise, and often also positive emotions, is associated with the use of art objects, artistic installations or interactive installations in the design of space. The operation of such elements is based on evoking emotions, while their goal is to “wake up” users, provoke thinking, intrigue and break the routine. Similar ambivalent and creative emotions accompany the users when they come across unusual, surprising solutions in the space, different from the associations with the function of a given zone, non-obvious and causing different behavior and emotions than usually in a zone with a similar function.

 

Full text in the latest architecture snob print magazine, available for purchase at Empik or shopmies.com,

 


[1] Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin

[2] Filipowicz, Allan. (2010). From Positive Affect to Creativity: The Surprising Role of Surprise. Creativity Research Journal oraz Schubert, Emery (2021). Creativity Is Optimal Novelty and Maximal Positive Affect: A New Definition Based on the Spreading Activation Model. Front. Neurosci.

[3] Ting Fong, Christina. (2006). The Effects of Emotional Ambivalence on Creativity. Academy of Management Journal

[4] Schubert, Emery (2021). Creativity Is Optimal Novelty and Maximal Positive Affect: A New Definition Based on the Spreading Activation Model. Front. Neurosci.

[5] Beaty et al. (2018). Robust prediction of individual creative ability from brain functional connectivity. PNAS