[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-272170-105":59,"doc-detail-272170-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","journal-of-environmental-psychology-neural-representations-underlying-psychological-responses-to-natural-and-artificial-features-in-indoor-architecture","Journal of Environmental Psychology  - Neural representations underlying psychological responses to natural and artificial features in indoor architecture","","This study examined the impact of naturalness and artificiality in indoor architectural scenes on subjective evaluations, similarity judgments, and corresponding neural responses. Thirty-six participants viewed 60 interior images and completed a spatial arrangement task during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), alongside ratings of aesthetic preference, naturalness, desire to be in the scene, and arousal. Naturalness showed minimal effects on subjective judgments, while lower-level visual features influenced perceived similarity. Representational similarity analysis indicated that neural dissimilarity between natural and artificial interiors primarily emerged in the ventral visual processing stream.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/journal-of-environmental-psychology-neural-representations-underlying-psychological-responses-to-natural-and-artificial-features-in-indoor-architecture/272170/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/journal-of-environmental-psychology-neural-representations-underlying-psychological-responses-to-natural-and-artificial-features-in-indoor-architecture/272170.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Rowan","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-27","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",12,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"How did the study assess natural versus artificial indoor architecture?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"Participants viewed 60 indoor architectural interior images and performed a spatial arrangement task while undergoing fMRI. They also provided ratings on preference, naturalness, desire to be in the scene, and arousal.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What did the results show about the effect of naturalness on subjective judgments?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"Naturalness had minimal impact on subjective evaluations. Instead, lower-level visual features affected perceived similarity more strongly than naturalness ratings.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"Where in the brain did naturalness-related neural differences primarily appear?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"Representational similarity analysis showed that the dissimilarity between natural and artificial interiors mainly occurred in the ventral visual processing stream, without extending to other brain regions.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},272170,1789463626,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":130,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},1099514067415,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/100002539d78ffe74a7?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1779092875211072502","Journal of Environmental Psychology 103 (2025) 102553  \nContents lists available at ScienceDirect  \nJournal of Environmental Psychology  \njournal [homepage:](homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep)[ www.elsevier.com/locate/jep](homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep)  \n| Neural representations underlying psychological responses to natural and artificial features in indoor architecture |  |  | |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Izabela Maria Sztukaa,* , Maxi Becker b,c, Simone Kühna,c,d\u003Cbr>a Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany b Humboldt University, Department for Psychology, Berlin, Germany\u003Cbr>c Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany d Max Planck-UCL, Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, Berlin, Germany |  |  |  |\n| A R T I C L E I N F O |  | A B S T R A C T |  |\n| Keywords: Neuroarchitecture Environmental psychology Biophilic design\u003Cbr>fMRI\u003Cbr>Neuroaesthetics |  | This study examined the impact of naturalness and artificiality in indoor architecture on subjective evaluations, similarity judgments, and their neural responses. Thirty-six participants viewed 60 images of architectural interior scenes and performed a spatial arrangement task while undergoing functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI). They also provided ratings on aesthetic preference, naturalness, desire to be in the scene, and arousal.\u003Cbr>Results showed that naturalness had minimal impact on subjective judgments. However, lower-level visual features influenced perceived similarity more than subjective naturalness ratings. We observed no significant relationship between naturalness and similarity judgment outcomes. Next, we performed a Representational Similarity Analysis on neural activations, which revealed that the dissimilarity between natural and artificial interiors primarily occurred in the ventral visual processing stream without extending to other brain regions. Further post-hoc analysis indicated that the influence of lower-level visual features perceived in architectural scenes was mainly limited to visual processing areas.\u003Cbr>Our study suggests that further investigation is needed to understand the dimension of perceived similarity between naturalistic and artificial architecture and their neural correlates. |  |\n\n1. Introduction  \nIn recent years, there has been a growing interest in understanding the influence of environmental design on human cognition, behavior, and well-being (Berman et al., 2019a, 2019b). Researchers have explored how the built environment, particularly indoor architectural design, can impact various aspects of human experience and functioning (Karakas & Yildiz, 2020; Vartanian et al., 2015). One crucial aspect of this inquiry pertains to the perception of naturalness and artificiality in indoor architecture (Coburn et al., 2019). This study investigates the effect of perceived naturalness and artificiality on the representation of behavioral and neural responses to architectural scenes. To do so, we use multivariate statistical methods to examine how higher-order representational space of indoor architectural scenes influences subjective judgments of those scenes.  \nNumerous studies have demonstrated the profound influence of natural environments on human well-being (Bratman et al., 2015;  \nMcMahan & Estes, 2015). Theories such as Attention Restoration Theory (ART) (Kaplan & Berman, 2010; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) and Stress Reduction Theory (SRT) (Ulrich, 1986) propose that exposure to natural elements restores cognitive resources, enhances attentional functioning, and reduces stress levels. Indeed, natural environments, with their inherent qualities of fascination, being away, extent, and compatibility, have been associated with enhanced cognitive function, improved mood, and reduced stress (Kaplan, 1995; Stevenson et al., 2019; Berman et al., 2008; Hartig et al., 2014; McMahan & Estes, 2015; Stenfors et al., 2019). Addition","cbCaidMjrQ1YrzGf","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidMjrQ1YrzGf","pdf",11142748,14,"English","# Introduction\n## Environmental design and human experience\n## Naturalness, artificiality, and neural representation","[{\"question\":\"How did the study assess natural versus artificial indoor architecture?\",\"answer\":\"Participants viewed 60 indoor architectural interior images and performed a spatial arrangement task while undergoing fMRI. They also provided ratings on preference, naturalness, desire to be in the scene, and arousal.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the results show about the effect of naturalness on subjective judgments?\",\"answer\":\"Naturalness had minimal impact on subjective evaluations. Instead, lower-level visual features affected perceived similarity more strongly than naturalness ratings.\"},{\"question\":\"Where in the brain did naturalness-related neural differences primarily appear?\",\"answer\":\"Representational similarity analysis showed that the dissimilarity between natural and artificial interiors mainly occurred in the ventral visual processing stream, without extending to other brain regions.\"}]","Journal of Environmental Psychology  - Neural representations underlying psychological responses to natural and artificial features in indoor architecture | PDF",35]