See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338109468

Architecture Vs Neuroscience: The Interpretation of Research Results in

Neuroscience to Support Phenomenological Issues in Architecture

Article · December 2019

DOI: 10.15292/IU-CG.2019.07.033-037

CITATIONS READS

0 77

1 author:

Aurora Saidi
University of Ljubljana
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Aurora Saidi on 22 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THE CREATIVITY GAME – Theory and Practice of Spatial Planning No 7 / 2019

Aurora Saidi:
ARHITEKTURA V PRIMERJAVI Z NEVROZNANOSTJO:
INTERPRETACIJA RAZISKOVALNIH REZULTATOV V
NEVROZNANOSTI V PODPORO FENOMENOLOŠKIM
VPRAŠANJEM V ARHITEKTURI
ARCHITECTURE VS NEUROSCIENCE:
THE INTERPRETATION OF RESEARCH
RESULTS IN NEUROSCIENCE TO SUPPORT
PHENOMENOLOGICAL ISSUES IN ARCHITECTURE
: https://dx.doi.org/10.15292/IU-CG.2019.07.033-037 UDK: 72.01:616.8 SUBMITTED: June 2019 / REVISED: August 2019 / PUBLISHED: October 2019

1.02 Pregledni znanstveni članek / Review Article

ABSTRACT
IZVLEČEK The relationship that people have with the built environment,
how it shapes their physical, mental, and social states, and/
Vprašanja človekovega odnosa do grajenega prostora, kako ta or how these states shape their experience of the built envi-
oblikuje človekova fizična, duševna in družbena stanja in/ali ronment has remained an open discussion among pheno-
kako ta stanja oblikujejo človekove izkušnje z grajenim prosto- menologists for several centuries. Whereas phenomenology
rom so že več stoletij predmet odprte razprave med fenome- interprets the nature of experience mainly from the first-person
nologi. Medtem ko fenomenologija razlaga izkušnje predvsem perspective, neuroscience, using powerful new measurement
s prvoosebnega vidika, nevroznanost ob uporabi učinkovitih techniques, investigates empirically at the level of neural circuits
novih tehnik merjenja empirično, na ravni nevronskih krogov, how multiple internal processes such as sensation, perception,
proučuje, kako številni notranji procesi, kot so občutki, zazna- and cognition yield experience. Few available findings in neu-
vanje in spoznavanje, ustvarjajo izkušnje. Le malo dognanj v roscience regarding the experience of the world in general and
nevroznanosti glede izkušenj sveta na splošno – in zlasti graje- the built environment in particular have proved sufficient to
nega okolja – je zanesljivo odgovorilo na dolgo obravnavana seal long discussed phenomenological issues about the nature
fenomenološka vprašanja o naravi arhitekture. Zato je skupina of architecture. As a consequence, a group of neuroscientists
nevroznanstvenikov in arhitektov spodbudila razvoj interdisci- and architects have initiated and promoted interdisciplinary
plinarnih raziskav, ki vključujejo tako nevroznanost kot arhitek- studies combining neuroscience and architecture. Among the
turo. Med prvimi arhitekti, ki so ta pristop uporabili kot podlago first architects that embraced this approach to support their
za svoja fenomenološka opazovanja, je bil Juhani Pallasmaa. phenomenological observations was Juhani Pallasmaa. Concer-
Arhitekt obravnava spregledano utelešeno naravo arhitekture, ned about the disregarded embodied nature of architecture, he
pri čemer svoje ugotovitve naslanja na nevroznanost in poziva k relies on findings in neuroscience to call for a greater awareness
širjenju zavedanja o tem vprašanju med sodobnimi arhitekturni- amongst contemporary architectural circles. But do findings in
mi krogi. Toda ali dognanja v nevroznanosti res podpirajo Palla- neuroscience really support Pallasmaas’s arguments? While the
smaajeve trditve? Nekateri nevroznanstveniki so namreč izrazili architect is very enthusiastic, some neuroscientists have raised
dvome o arhitektovi razlagi njihovih dognanj. Članek obravnava doubts about his interpretation of their findings. This article
Pallasmaajeve zaključke in na splošno prikazuje, da arhitekti, ki examines Pallasmaa’s conclusions, and in general shows that
podpirajo interdisciplinarne raziskave v nevroznanosti in arhi- architects who support interdisciplinary studies in neuroscience
tekturi, pripisujejo prevelik pomen dognanjem v nevroznanosti and architecture exaggerate the implications of neuroscience
za krepitev lastnih stališč, medtem ko so nevroznanstveniki – findings to advance their positions, while neuroscientists, even
četudi so navdušeni – mnogo bolj zadržani pri svojih sodbah in though they are enthusiastic, are more reserved in their jud-
pozivajo k nadaljnjim poglobljenim raziskavam. gments, calling instead for further in-depth research.

KLJUČNE BESEDE KEY-WORDS

arhitektura, nevroznanost, Juhani Pallasmaa, filozofija, fenome- architecture, neuroscience, Juhani Pallasmaa, philosophy,
nologija. phenomenology

Aurora Saidi: ARCHITECTURE VS NEUROSCIENCE: THE INTERPRETATION OF RESEARCH RESULTS IN NEUROSCIENCE TO SUPPORT ... : 33–37 33
 Št. 7 / 2019 IGRA USTVARJALNOSTI – teorija in praksa urejanja prostora

1. INTRODUCTION the over-rationalized formalism of architectural design of the

past few decades. Furthermore, his greatest concerns are the
Juhani Pallasma, Harry F. Mallgrave, Sara Robinson, Alberto tendency in the last few decades to conceptualize architectural
Pérez-Gómez, and Steven Holl, to mention just a few, have design through computers, to present and advertise its qualities
expressed concerns that architectural culture today deals only utilizing 3D models and pictures, and to build cities as if they
with the technical, formal and material dimensions of the su- were intended to be explored by the fast moving eye from
bject while disregarding the way people interact with the built motor vehicles or from the air (Pallasmaa, 2005).
environment and how they experience it. In a series of books
and writings they intend to raise awareness of the disregarded The architecture of our time, according to Pallasma (2005, p.
embodied and psychological dimensions of architecture. Howe- 30) is “an architecture of visual images” or a “mere retinal art of
ver, because their approach is more phenomenological than the eye” that in its essence treats the eye as detached from the
empirical it has left much room for doubt and disbelief. body in its interaction with the world. Ignoring the way each
sense, especially the tactile, interacts with the world in yielding
A person’s every experience has a neural counterpart in the bra- the architectural experience, the architecture of the last several
in (Chatterjee, 2014). New technologies in neuroscience enable decades has failed to engage people emotionally (Pallasmaa,
brain activity to be registered with considerable precision, and 2005, p. 17−19). He suggested that “an architectural work is not
have provided an understanding of the “neurophysiological experienced as a collection of isolated visual pictures, but in
brain mechanisms that make possible our interaction with the its fully embodied, material and spiritual presence” (Pallasmaa,
world” (Gallese & Gattara, 2015, p. 161). This empirical methodo- 2005, p.44), “…life enhancing architecture has to address all
logy has been embraced and promoted by certain architects in the senses simultaneously and fuse our image of self with our
the hope that it will provide objective evidence for architectural experience of the world” (Pallasmaa, 2005, p. 11).
culture to shift its attention towards its hitherto unacknowled-
ged embodied and psychological dimensions. Questions about The embodied nature of the architectural experience initially in-
the relationship between people and the built environment troduced by Pallasmaa in one of the three essays in Questions of
have also raised interest among some neuroscientists. They Perception: Phenomenology of Architecture, was further explored
have started to think of ways in which neuroscience might be by him in The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. In the
of use to architecture. While the benefits of an interdisciplinary latter, the same issue was presented but with more confidence,
approach involving philosophy, neuroscience, and architecture because he had discovered that his viewpoints were supported
appear overstated by some architects, neuroscientists are more by recent neuroscientific discoveries. His phenomenological
reserved. They look forward to more in-depth research before approach, driven by his “personal experience, views and specu-
making any generalized conclusions. The hesitation and uncer- lation” (Pallasmaa, 2005, p. 10), had arguably been confirmed by
tainty expressed by some neuroscientists with regard to the way empirical evidence.
these architects have interpreted research results to support
The model used by neuroscientists to illustrate the idea that
their phenomenological viewpoints is the subject of this article.
we experience the world as bodies and brains interacting with
The problem will be illustrated by complementing Juhani it is called the action−perception cycle (Arbib, 2016). Palla-
Pallasma’s viewpoints and opinions on the interdisciplinary smaa (2005) noted that this describes the embodied nature of
cooperation between architecture and neuroscience with those architecture as experience: the senses are not simply registering
of neuroscientists. His phenomenological approach is charac- the world ‘out there.’ However, the information that senses are
terized by certain crucial statements about the experience of able to sample from the built environment are interpreted and
architecture. The most important of these is the disregard for reconstructed through our current schema (that is, our kno-
embodied and multisensory nature of architecture in architec- wledge about the world built through experience), while an un-
tural education and practice. It follows with the supremacy of derstanding of what is out there is generated, and on that basis
the tactile sense over the visual in the architectural experience, we choose to act following our current needs and goals. During
the intuition of the whole in an architectural setting over the movement, the information that senses can sample changes
identification of its parts, and the nature of emotional engage- constantly according to our goals and needs; the newly gained
UVODNIK knowledge during this cycle changes how we see the world and
ment with architecture. Only then can the subject be understo-
EDITORIAL perhaps our future goals and needs.
od. Pallasma’s interpretations have been chosen as a case study
ČLANEK because he is among the first architects that have used research
ARTICLE To grasp the model of the action−perception cycle in its entirety,
results in neuroscience to support his viewpoints and opinions
firstly, for the sake of understanding how people interact with
RAZPRAVA about the nature of the architectural experience. He has written
the world and secondly, to analyze Pallasmaa’s viewpoint on the
DISCUSSION and spoken vociferously on the importance of interdisciplinary
experience of architecture through the prism of neuroscience,
RECENZIJA studies in understanding the relationship between people and
it is necessary to provide a more detailed explanation of what
the built environment.
REVIEW schemas represent and how are they are generated and stored.
PROJEKT Schemas are the brain mechanisms that make possible, mainly
PROJECT
2. THE DISREGARD FOR THE EMBODIED NATURE OF through the subconscious, the recognition of the environment’s
DELAVNICA
ARCHITECTURE affordances. They represent the building blocks of knowledge,
a stored mental representation about the world that both com-
WORKSHOP Juhani Pallasmaa is well-known as the architect and the theo- pete and cooperate to provide coherent interpretations, or give
NATEČAJ retician who is attempting to raise awareness of the disregard meaning to the information that reaches us through the senses
COMPETITION for the multisensory and psychological nature of architecture (Piaget, 1952).
PREDSTAVITEV as experience among architectural circles in particular, and
contemporary culture in general. Influenced by the writings of Arbib (2015, p. 78−79) distinguished two types of schema:
PRESENTATION
Christian Norberg-Schulz, Gaston Bachelard, Martin Heidegger, perceptual and motor. A perceptual schema is the process of
DIPLOMA
and especially of the phenomenological philosopher Mau- recognizing an object, a person, or even abstract concepts such
MASTER THESIS rice Merleau-Ponty on the nature of perception, he criticizes as personality, truth, or religion. To understand the enviro-

34 Aurora Saidi: ARHITEKTURA V PRIMERJAVI Z NEVROZNANOSTJO: INTERPRETACIJA RAZISKOVALNIH REZULTATOV V NEVROZNANOSTI V ... : 33–37
 THE CREATIVITY GAME – Theory and Practice of Spatial Planning No 7 / 2019

nment, it is necessary to recognize not one object at a time but 2016). But of the total capacity that the brain devotes to proces-
many different objects and their relationships. A motor schema sing information via the senses, one third of it is reserved for the
calculates and executes the action according to what affordan- processing of vision (Mlodinow, 2012).
ces might have provided the detected objects for our goals and
needs. The whole process is an endless cycle of simultaneously Supporters of the concept of hapticity (e.g., Pallasmaa, 2005)
coordinated multiple perceptual and motor schemas that are insist on its importance in the experience of architecture.
activated and then compete in parallel to yield experience and Hapticity relies on the fact that people can create spatial and
understanding. For the brain to recognize an object as a com- social representations of the world when they lack one sensory
puter does, pixel by pixel, would require enormous time and modality. This attribution of the brain to perceive and represent
energy. Instead, it applies multiple levels of associations and perceptual schemas independently of the sensory modality is
meanings to sensory information to make possible a rapid un- called supramodality, or degeneracy. Visually impaired people
derstanding of the current state of the world. Schemas operate can process and represent in the brain distinct elements of
due to a cluster of neurons that fire whenever the individual forms and surfaces. This means that sensory systems cooperate
sees a house, hears someone talking about a house, or imagi- and exchange information. Activity in the visual system is ma-
nes an event that happened in the house (Mlodinov, 2018). The pped to the auditory or haptic system, and auditory or haptic
world out there is mainly a constant world, but whenever we activity is mapped to the visual system (Papale et al., 2016;
face something new, schemas merge, split, and cooperate to Smith, 2005).
yield understanding and hence build new schemas. This means
Because of the ability of the brain to assign multiple associ-
that people’s experience of the world is yielded through the
ations and meanings to a perceptual schema, we are able to
embodied condition of the human mind (Varela, Thompson,
recognize the texture of wood when we see it far away, along
& Rosch, 1991). Our immediate interaction with the world is
with the sensation of how it would feel to touch it, but we can
through our body via various sensorimotor capacities but also
also recognize that it is a wooden texture and generate a mental
through our memorized experiences, which are shaped by
image of it with closed eyes simply by touching it (Williams
exploring the world in different biological, psychological, and
Goldhagen, 2017). As Pallasmaa (2005, p. 42) noted, “through
cultural contexts.
vision we touch the sun and the stars.” However, even the
concepts of supramodality or degeneracy and the evidentiary
3. THE SUPREMACY OF THE TACTILE SENSE OVER THE findings of neuroscience do not fully support the primacy of the
VISUAL haptic system in the experience of architecture. They can, on the
other hand, encourage parties to consider more seriously the
Pallasmaa’s phenomenological approach goes beyond an multisensory nature of architecture as experience, and also to
emphasis on the embodied condition of the human mind in investigate ways to integrate this knowledge within the field of
the experience of architecture. With the introduction of the architecture and promote further research in this domain.
concept of hapticity (Pallasmaa, 2000, 2005), he intended not
only to attack the cultural bias of our time toward the vision 4. THE WHOLE AND ITS PARTS IN AN ARCHITECTURAL
sense at the expense of other senses, but also to emphasize
the fundamental and primary role of the tactile sense in the SETTING
experience of architecture. Even though his approach appears
as a revolt against architectural culture that designs only for the Within the framework of the action−perception cycle,
engagement of the eye, it is in fact a revolt against one of the Pallasmaa (2013, p. 13) emphasized the nature of the
two pathways of visual processing—the focused vision—and experience of architecture: “We have an amazing capacity
toward the treatment of the eyes as organs detached from the to grasp complex environmental entities through simulta-
body that interact in the world. And rightly so. neous multi-sensory sensing of atmospheres, feelings, and
moods. This capacity to instantaneously grasp existential
The schema of the actionperception cycle confirms that a essences of vast entities, such as spaces, places, landscapes
three-dimensional model or a picture of an architectural
and entire cities, suggests that we intuit entities before we
setting could not emulate the qualities of a real architectonic
identify their parts and details.” Insofar as the action−per-
setting with various affordances awaiting to be explored and
interpreted with all the senses during movement. Also, rese- ception cycle is an endless cycle, parts and details from
arch has shown that only 5% of the information that reaches the built environment continuously update the schemas
the eye can be processed consciously, through focused vision, from the consistency of the initial impression. The details
while the rest is processed subconsciously, through periphe- may confirm or change the initial impression. Its qualities
ral vision (Mallgrave, 2018). While we are walking we are not can be amplified or fade fundamentally. Arbib (2013, p. 73)
consciously aware of every piece of information that surrounds stated that one should not underestimate the power of the
us, even though that information subconsciously guides our details because it is the essential style of the brain to mix
behavior. We avoid, mostly subconsciously, the obstacles that bottom up and top down processes in yielding experience
might otherwise interrupt our walking while we are looking for about the world.
a friend in a crowd, for example.
Consideration of the dialog between bottom up and top
Nevertheless, the primacy of the tactile sense over the visual
down processes in the brain is essential when discussing
is not fully supported by neuroscience. Each of the sensory
modalities provide different and unique aspects of the world.
Pallasmaa’s statement that people engage emotionally
Vision makes it possible to process information in the dis- with architecture and art before they understand them.
tance and in a wider context, recognizing shapes and their This is true, but again it describes more an initial impres-
spatial location, while touch makes it possible to engage in an sion whose meaning might continuously alter during an
emotional experience with the object, exploring its texture and embodied interaction with an object or artwork, especially
materials in closer proximity (Goldhagen, 2017; Papale at al., when the individual encounters new situations that are

Aurora Saidi: ARCHITECTURE VS NEUROSCIENCE: THE INTERPRETATION OF RESEARCH RESULTS IN NEUROSCIENCE TO SUPPORT ... : 33–37 35
 Št. 7 / 2019 IGRA USTVARJALNOSTI – teorija in praksa urejanja prostora

not yet mapped in perceptual schemas. Arbib (2019) also provide objective evidence of the experience of architectu-
suggested that this initial effect is not accidental, but the re through studies of the nervous system (the third-person
designer must think about all the qualities of the details aspect of experience) many architects, philosophers, and
and how they might affect the impression as a whole as neuroscientists introduced the neuro-phenomenological
much as how the whole might affect the understanding approach as a solution to long discussed phenomenolo-
of its details. gical issues concerning the nature of architecture. In the
same fashion, Juhani Pallasmaa, among others, attemp-
5. THE MIRROR NEURONS ted to use research results in neuroscience to confirm his
observations, viewpoints, and opinions about the nature of
Discussions among leading architects as Juhani Pallasmaa
the architectural experience. However, while some findings
(2000, 2005, 2013) and Harry Francis Mallgrave (2013), the
in neuroscience seemed to confirm his statement regar-
philosopher Mark. L. Johnson (2015), and the neuroscien-
ding the embodied and multisensory nature of architec-
tists Vittorio Gallese (2015) about how neuroscience can
ture, matters were much less clear when he attempted to
help to understand the hidden relationships of people
use them to support his claim for the primacy of the haptic
with the built environment and how the built enviro-
system in the architectural experience, either in terms of
nment might shape people’s physical, mental, emotional
the perception of architecture as a whole anticipating the
and social states, give enormous importance to the neu-
perception of its parts/details, or of the emotional enga-
roscientific discovery of the mirror neuron system. Mirror
neurons are the neurons that fire whenever one executes gement with architecture anticipating its understanding.
specific types of action, and also when one observes so- Some neuroscientists have implied that Pallasmaa has
mebody else perform that type of action. As far as people overrated and overgeneralized research results to support
are able to experience the feelings of an action performed his statements, or has given only a partial explanation for
by somebody else, due to mirror neurons, they are able the phenomena he describes. The example of the mirror
to generate feelings, emotions, and empathy (that is, the neuron system illustrates that empirical evidence from
ability to share and understand the feeling of another) for neuroscience about a phenomenon, if not carefully proces-
buildings as well. Because people have bodies, they map sed, interpreted, and used in its entirety by architects can
the building in their body, and hence feel its weight as if it be misleading in understanding the interrelation between
were carried by their own muscles/body. people and the built environment. Whether the same me-
chanisms are engaged in empathy for buildings as they are
However, Arbib (2013, pp. 63–65) noted that “mirror for people remains to be investigated. There is no doubt
neurons don’t do action execution and recognition (or that future interdisciplinary studies encompassing archi-
empathy) all by themselves.” Research carried out on tecture and neuroscience will generate new knowledge
a person observing a human talking, a monkey teeth- about the hidden relationships between people and the
-chattering, and a dog barking showed that there was built environment, but as long as there are so few studies
considerable mirror neuron system activity in the first in this area, and since the aim of the approach was to avoid
case, a small amount in the second, and none in the third. the confusion caused by multiple controversial interpre-
Thus, the person was able to recognize that the dog was tations that existed within the field of architecture, the
barking, but could not know how it felt because barking advocates of interdisciplinary studies may perhaps need to
is not a human activity. Arbib explained that “…all these be more circumspect when interpreting findings to avoid
actions can be recognized without the aid of mirror ne- further confusion. There is nothing wrong with recognizing
urons, but if an action is in our own repertoire the mirror potential, nor indeed with ‘romantic’ interpretations of the
neuron activity enriches it by tying it in to our own motor available scientific evidence, but it is better that connecti-
UVODNIK experience .” Instead of assuming that mirror neurons are ons between the two disciplines be presented in the form
EDITORIAL responsible for empathy for buildings in the same way of hypotheses rather than statements.
that they are for people, he suggested that further rese-
ČLANEK
arch be initiated with the aim of understanding whether
ARTICLE
this overlap exists at all, and if it is, whether it is due to Acknowledgment
RAZPRAVA
mirror neurons. Mirror neurons are just part of the overall This article is a result of research endeavors as part of the author’s
DISCUSSION perceptual cycle. doctoral research, which has the working title “Understanding the
RECENZIJA
popular taste in contemporary individual housing in Tetovo,” at the
REVIEW 6. CONCLUSION University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Architecture, Ljubljana, Slovenia,
PROJEKT under the supervision of izr. prof. dr. Tadeja Zupančič.
PROJECT This article intended to show the complex implications of
DELAVNICA the interdisciplinary approach that unites neuroscience,
WORKSHOP philosophy, and architecture as experience. The nature of Bibliography
architecture as experience is in itself very complex, and
NATEČAJ Arbib, M. A. (2013). (Why) should architects care about neuroscience? In: P. Tidwell (ed.),
the use of the philosophical approach, which interprets
COMPETITION Architecture and neuroscience (pp. 43−77). Finland: Tapio Wirkkala – Rut Bryk Design
the experience of architecture from the subjective or Reader.
PREDSTAVITEV
first-person point of view, has very often proved to be mi-
PRESENTATION sleading, generating only necessarily partial knowledge, Arbib, M. A. (2015). Toward a neuroscience of the design process. In: S. Robinson & J. Pallasmaa
DIPLOMA or producing controversial interpretations within the field. (eds.), Mind in architecture: Neuroscience, embodiment, and the future of design (pp.
MASTER THESIS Therefore, since the neuroscientific approach promises to 75–98). Boston, MA: MIT Press.

36 Aurora Saidi: ARHITEKTURA V PRIMERJAVI Z NEVROZNANOSTJO: INTERPRETACIJA RAZISKOVALNIH REZULTATOV V NEVROZNANOSTI V ... : 33–37
 THE CREATIVITY GAME – Theory and Practice of Spatial Planning No 7 / 2019

Arbib, M. A. (2016). When brains design/experience buildings: Architectural patterns for a good
life. In: J. W. Vasbinder & B. Z. Gulyas (eds.), A good life: Neuro-cognitive patterns and
cultural patterns (in press). Singapore: World Scientific Publishers.
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813147492_0007

Arbib, M. A. (2019, July 13). Arbib 4 Mirror neurons, empathy, emotions, & architecture
[Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loq3mj6AaDA

Chatterjee, A. (2014). The aesthetic brain: how we evolved to desire beauty and enjoy art.
United States: Oxford University Press.

Gallese V., Gattara, A. (2015). Embodied simulation, aesthetics, and architecture: An

experimental aesthetic approach. In: S. Robinson, & J. Pallasmaa, (eds.), Mind in
architecture: Neuroscience, embodiment, and the future of design (pp. 161–180).
Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Holl, S., Pallasmaa, J., Pérez-Gómez, A. (1994). Questions of perception: Phenomenology of

architecture. A+U, Architecture and urbanism special issue. Tokyo: Academic Press.

Johnson, M. L. (2015). The embodied meaning of architecture. In: S. Robinson & J. Pallasmaa
(eds.), Mind in architecture: Neuroscience, embodiment, and the future of design (pp.
33–50). Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Mallgrave, H. (2013). Should architects care about neuroscience? In: P. Tidwell (eds.),
Architecture and neuroscience (pp. 23−43). Finland: Tapio Wirkkala – Rut Bryk Design
Reader.

Mallgrave, H. (2018). From object to experience: The new culture of architectural design.
London: Bloomsbury Visual Arts.

Mlodinow, L. (2012). Subliminal: How your unconscious mind rules your behavior. New York:
Pantheon Books.

Mlodinow, L., (2018). Elastic: Flexible thinking in a time of change. New York: Pantheon Books.

Pallasmaa, J. (2000). Hapticity and time: Notes on fragile architecture (pp. 78−84).
Architectural Review, 207(1).
Pallasmaa, J. (2005). The eyes of the skin: architecture and the senses. Chichester: Wiley-
Academy. 

Pallasmaa, J. (2013). Towards a neuroscience of architecture. In: P. Tidwell (ed.), Architecture

and neuroscience (pp. 23−43). Finland: Tapio Wirkkala – Rut Bryk Design Reader.

Papale, P., Chiesi, L., Rampinini, A. C., Pietrini, P., Ricciardi, E. (2016). When
neuroscience ‘touches’ architecture: From hapticity to a supramodal functioning of
the human brain. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 866.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00866

Piaget J. (1952). The construction of reality in the child. New York, NY, US: Basic Books.

Robinson, S. Pallasmaa, J. (eds.) (2015): Mind in architecture: neuroscience,

embodiment, and the future of design. The MIT Press.

Smith, L. B. (2005). Cognition as a dynamic system: Principles from embodiment. 

Developmental Review, 25, 3−4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.001
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human
experience. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Williams Goldhagen, S. (2017). Welcome to your world: How the built environment shapes our
lives. Canada: Harper C

Aurora Saidi: ARCHITECTURE VS NEUROSCIENCE: THE INTERPRETATION OF RESEARCH RESULTS IN NEUROSCIENCE TO SUPPORT ... : 33–37 37

View publication stats