Use of biometric data and EEG to assess architectural quality of two office spaces: a pilot experiment

References

• Alexandersson, A., and V. Kalonaityte. 2018. “Playing to Dissent: The Aesthetics and Politics of Playful Office Design.” Organization Studies 39 (2–3): 297–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANFA. 2018. Shared Behavioral Outcomes. Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture, Salk Institute, September.
   Google Scholar
• Appel-Meulenbroek, R. 2019. “Transdisciplinary Workplace Research: An Essential Network of Disciplines.” Intelligent Buildings International 11 (3-4): 128–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arbib, M. 2012. “Brains, Machines and Buildings: Towards a Neuromorphic Architecture.” Intelligent Buildings International 4 (3): 147–168.
   Google Scholar
• Aspinall, P., P. Mavros, R. Coyne, and J. Roe. 2015. “The Urban Brain: Analysing Outdoor Physical Activity with Mobile EEG.” British Journal of Sports Medicine 49 (4): 272–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azzazy, S., A. Ghaffarianhoseini, A. GhaffarianHoseini, N. Naismith, and Z. Doborjeh. 2020. “A Critical Review on the Impact of Built Environment on Users’ Measured Brain Activity.” Architectural Science Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/00038628.2020.1749980.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badcock, N., P. Mousikou, Y. Mahajan, P. De Lissa, J. Thie, and G. McArthur. 2013. “Validation of the Emotiv EPOC® EEG Gaming System for Measuring Research Quality Auditory ERPs.” February 19. Accessed July 24, 2020. https://peerj.com/articles/38/?utm_source=blog.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, W. 2019. “Emotional Energy, Relational Energy, and Organizational Energy: Toward a Multilevel Mode.” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 6: 373–395.
   Google Scholar
• Banaei, M., J. Hatami, A. Yazdanfar, and K. Gramann. 2017. “Walking Through Architectural Spaces: The Impact of Interior Forms on Human Brain Dynamics.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 11. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, F., and F. Steele. 1995. Workplace by Design: Mapping the High Performance Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Bonnet, M., and D. Arand. 2001. “Impact of Activity and Arousal upon Spectral EEG Parameters.” Physiology & Behavior 74 (3): 291–298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borgianni, Y., and L. Maccioni. 2020. “Review of the Use of Neurophysiological and Biometric Measures in Experimental Design Research.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 34 (2): 248–285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, T. 2018. “A Critical Assessment of the Place of Post-Occupancy Evaluation in the Critique and Creation of Socially Responsible Architecture.” Intelligent Buildings International 10 (3): 182–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunia, S., I. De Been, and T. van der Voordt. 2016. “Accommodating New Ways of Working: Lessons from Best Practices and Worst Cases.” Journal of Corporate Real Estate 18 (1): 30–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byron, K., and G. Laurence. 2015. “Diplomas, Photos, and Tchotchkes as Symbolic Self-Representations: Understanding Employees’ Individual Use of Symbols.” Academy of Management Journal 58 (1): 298–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, K., and R. Quinn. 2011. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Chemero, A. 2003. “An Outline of a Theory of Affordances.” Ecological Psychology 15 (2): 181–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clements-Croome, D. 2018. “Effects of the Built Environment on Health and Well-Being.” In Creating the Productive Workplace: Places to Work Creatively, edited by D. Clements-Croome, 3–40. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Coburn, A., O. Vartanian, and A. Chatterjee. 2017. “Buildings, Beauty, and the Brain: A Neuroscience of Architectural Experience.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 29 (9): 1521–1531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, S. 2006. “High Heart Rate: A Cardiovascular Risk Factor?” European Heart Journal 27 (20): 2387–2393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ducao, A., I. Koen, and Z. Guo. 2018. “Multimer: Validating Multimodal, Cognitive Data in the City: Towards a Model of How the Urban Environment Influences Streetscape Users.” In Proceedings of the Workshop on Modeling Cognitive Processes from Multimodal Data (MCPMD ‘18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 11: 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Ducao, A., I. Koen, Z. Guo, J. Frank, C. Willard, and J. Kam. 2020. “Multimer: Modeling Neurophysiological Experience in Public Urban Space.” International Journal of Community Well-Being 3: 465–490.
   Google Scholar
• Duffy, F. 2005. “Measurement: The Key to the Reinvention of the Office.” In Creating the Productive Workplace, 2nd ed., edited by D. Clements-Croome, 397–406. New York: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Dutton, J., and E. Heaphy. 2003. “The Power of High-Quality Connections.” In Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, edited by K. Cameron, J. Dutton, and R. Quinn, 263–278. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
   Google Scholar
• Dutton, J., L. Roberts, and J. Bednar. 2010. “Pathways for Positive Identity Construction at Work: Four Types of Positive Identity and the Building of Social Resources.” Academy of Management Review 35 (2): 265–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Düzel, E., W. Penny, and N. Burgess. 2010. “Brain Oscillations and Memory.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology 20 (2): 143–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eberhard, J. 2008. Brain Landscape: The Coexistence of Neuroscience and Architecture. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elsbach, K., and M. Pratt. 2007. “The Physical Environment in Organizations.” Academy of Management Annals 1: 181–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erkan, I. 2018. “Examining Wayfinding Behaviours in Architectural Spaces Using Brain Imaging with Electroencephalography (EEG).” Architectural Science Review 61 (6): 410–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fayard, A., and J. Weeks. 2014. “Affordances for Practice.” Information and Organization 24 (4): 236–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, T. 2015. “The Performance of Buildings, Architects, and Critics.” In Architecture Beyond Criticism: Expert Judgment and Performance Evaluation, edited by W. Preiser, A. Davis, A. Salama, and A. Hardy, 75–82. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, T. 2016. “How Neuroscience Can Influence Architecture.” Architect. Accessed September 20, 2019. https://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/how-neuroscience-can-influence-architecture_o.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Gieryn, T. 2002. “What Buildings Do.” Theory and Society 31 (1): 35–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
   Google Scholar
• Goldhagen, S. 2017. Welcome to Your World: How the Built Environment Shapes our Lives. New York: Harper Collins.
   Google Scholar
• Groat, L., and D. Wang. 2013. Architectural Research Methods. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Hay, R., F. Samuel, K. Watson, and S. Bradbury. 2018. “Post-Occupancy Evaluation in Architecture: Experiences and Perspectives from UK Practice.” Building Research & Information 46 (6): 698–710.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higuera-Trujillo, J., C. Millán, A. Aviñó, and J. Rojas. 2020. “Multisensory Stress Reduction: A Neuro-Architecture Study of Paediatric Waiting Rooms.” Building Research & Information 48 (3): 269–285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollander, J., and V. Foster. 2016. “Brain Responses to Architecture and Planning: A Preliminary Neuro-Assessment of the Pedestrian Experience in Boston, Massachusetts.” Architectural Science Review 59 (6): 474–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hulsbergen, E., and P. van der Schaaf. 2002. “Ex Ante Research.” In Ways to Study and Research Urban, Architectural, and Technical Design, edited by T. De Jong, and D. van der Voordt, 159–162. Delft: DUP Science.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, P. 2006. “Continuous Briefing and User Participation in Building Projects.” In Proceedings of the joint CIB, Tensinet, IASS International Conference on Adaptability in Design and Construction Eindhoven. The Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology, 119–123.
   Google Scholar
• Karakas, T., and D. Yildiz. 2020. “Exploring the Influence of the Built Environment on Human Experience Through a Neuroscience Approach: A Systematic Review.” Frontiers in Architectural Research 9 (1): 236–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karandinou, A. 2019. “Data and the Experience of Place: The Use of Data in Contemporary Spatial and Cultural Studies.” In Data, Architecture and the Experience of Place, edited by A. Karandinou, 1–17. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Karandinou, A., and L. Turner. 2017. “Architecture and Neuroscience; What Can the EEG Recording of Brain Activity Reveal About a Walk Through Everyday Spaces?” International Journal of Parallel, Emergent, and Distributed Systems 32 (S1): S54–S65.
   Google Scholar
• Khanna, C., T. van der Voordt, and P. Koppels. 2013. “Corporate Real Estate Mirrors Brand: A Conceptual Framework and Practical Applications.” Journal of Corporate Real Estate 15 (3/4): 213–230.
   Google Scholar
• Klingmann, A. 2007. Brandscapes: Architecture in the Experience Economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lane, J., and R. Williams, Jr. 1985. “Caffeine Affects Cardiovascular Responses to Stress.” Pyschophysiology 22 (6): 648–655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau-Zhu, A., M. Lau, and G. McLoughlin. 2019. “Mobile EEG in Research on Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Opportunities and Challenges.” Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 36. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2019.100635.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lleys, C., C. Ley, O. Klein, and L. Licata. 2013. “Detecting Outliers: Do Not Use Standard Deviation Around the Mean, Use Absolute Deviation Around the Mean.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49 (4): 764–766.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mallory-Hill, S., W. Preiser, and C. Watson. 2012. “Introduction to Building Performance Evaluation: Milestones in Evolution.” In Enhancing Building Performance, edited by S. Mallory-Hill, W. Preiser, and C. Watson, 3–18. Ames: Wiley Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Mavros, P., M. Austwick, and A. Smith. 2016. “Geo-EEG: Towards the Use of EEG in the Study of Urban Behaviour.” Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy 9 (2): 191–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mumby, D. 2016. “Organizing Beyond Organization: Branding, Discourse, and Communicative Capitalism.” Organization 23 (6): 884–907.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasar, J. 2015. “Using Scientific Research Methods in Assessing Visual Aesthetic Quality.” In Architecture Beyond Criticism: Expert Judgment and Performance Evaluation, edited by W. Preiser, A. Davis, A. Salama, and A. Hardy, 207–216. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Neale, C., P. Aspinall, J. Roe, S. Tilley, P. Mavros, S. Cinderby, R. Coyne, N. Thin, and C. Thompson. 2020. “The Impact of Walking in Different Urban Environments on Brain Activity in Older People.” Cities & Health 4 (1): 94–106.
   Google Scholar
• NeuroSky, Inc. 2015. MindSet Communications Protocol. Company Technical Document Accessed Online: http://developer.neurosky.com/docs/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=mindset_communications_protocol.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Niezabitowska, E. 2018. Research Methods and Techniques in Architecture. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, D. 1988. The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Oxman, R. 2008. “Performance-Based Design: Current Practices and Research Issues.” International Journal of Architectural Computing 6 (1): 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Parikh, A., and P. Parikh. 2018. Choice Architecture: A New Approach to Behavior, Design, and Wellness. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Peponis, J., and J. Wineman. 2002. “Spatial Structure of Environment and Behavior.” In Handbook of Environmental Psychology, edited by R. Bechtel, and A. Churchman, 271–291. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, S. 2015a. “Introduction: Survival Through Design.” In Mind in Architecture: Neuroscience, Embodiment, and the Future of Design, edited by S. Robinson, 1–7. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, S. 2015b. “John Dewey and the Dialogue between Architecture and Neuroscience.” Theory 19 (4): 361–367.
   Google Scholar
• Rothbard, N., and S. Patil. 2012. “Being There: Work Engagement and Positive Organizational Scholarship.” In The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship, edited by K. Cameron, and G. Spreitzer, 56–69. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, E., and P. Stappers. 2008. “Co-creation and the New Landscapes of Design.” CoDesign 4 (1): 5–18.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Shemesh, A., R. Talmon, O. Karp, I. Amir, M. Bar, and Y. Grobman. 2017. “Affective Response to Architecture: Investigating Human Reaction to Spaces with Different Geometry.” Architectural Science Review 60 (2): 116–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spreitzer, G., P. Bacevice, and L. Garrett. 2020. “Workplace Design, the Physical Environment, and Human Thriving at Work.” In Organizational Behaviour and the Physical Environment, edited by O. Ayoko, and N. Ashkanasy, 235–250. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stinchcombe, A. 1990. “Work Institutions and the Sociology of Everyday Life.” In The Nature of Work: Sociological Perspectives, edited by K. Erikson, and S. Vallas, 96–116. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sussman, A., and J. Hollander. 2015. Cognitive Architecture: Designing for How We Respond to the Built Environment. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Tatum, W. 2014. “Ellen R. Grass Lecture: Extraordinary EEG.” The Neurodiagnostic Journal 54 (1): 3–21.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Techau, D., C. Owen, D. Paton, and R. Fay. 2016. “Buildings, Brains & Behaviour: Towards an Affective Neuroscience of Architecture: The Hedonic Impact of Sustainable Work Environments on Occupant Well-being.” World Health Design 9 (1): 24–37.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, B., D. Clements-Croome, and K. Pallaris. 2018. “The Multi-Sensory Experience in Buildings.” In Creating the Productive Workplace: Places to Work Creatively, edited by D. Clements-Croome, 57–72. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Uhlmann, E., E. Heaphy, S. Ashford, L. Zhu, and J. Sanchez-Burks. 2013. “Acting Professional: An Exploration of Culturally Bounded Norms Against Non-Work Role Referencing.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 34 (6): 866–886.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Voordt, T., and H. van Wegen. 2002. “Ex Post Evaluation of Buildings.” In Ways to Study and Research Urban, Architectural, and Technical Design, edited by T. De Jong, and D. van der Voordt, 151–158. DUP Science: Delft.
   Google Scholar
• Weziak-Bialowolska, D., P. Bialowolski, and E. McNeely. 2019. “Worker’s Well-Being: Evidence from the Apparel Industry in Mexico.” Intelligent Buildings International 11 (3-4): 158–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, L., and J. Bargh. 2008. “Experiencing Physical Warmth Promotes Interpersonal Warmth.” Science 24: 606–607.
   Google Scholar
• Zeisel, J. 2006. Inquiry by Design. Environment/Behavior/Neuroscience in Architecture, Interiors, Landscape, and Planning. New York: W. W. Norton.
   Google Scholar