Architectural Science Review

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tasr20

Human cognition and emotional response towards

visual environmental features in an urban built
context: a systematic review on perception-based
studies

R. V. Shynu & Anitha Suseelan

To cite this article: R. V. Shynu & Anitha Suseelan (2023) Human cognition and emotional
response towards visual environmental features in an urban built context: a systematic
review on perception-based studies, Architectural Science Review, 66:6, 468-478, DOI:
10.1080/00038628.2023.2232339

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2023.2232339

Published online: 06 Jul 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 465

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tasr20
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW
2023, VOL. 66, NO. 6, 468–478
https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2023.2232339

Human cognition and emotional response towards visual environmental features in

an urban built context: a systematic review on perception-based studies
R. V. Shynu and Anitha Suseelan

School of Architecture, Christ Deemed to be University, Bangalore, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Urban built environments can influence human cognitive and emotional comforts. Human comfort in the Received 11 November 2022
built environment has challenged architects and urban designers while developing comfortable spaces. Accepted 16 June 2023
Emerging cognitive-architectural studies in architecture engineering inform new directions for improvis- KEYWORDS
ing human spatial design practices. This paper intends to present a systematic meta-analysis of selected Visual perception;
empirical studies to identify the gaps and future scope of research in human cognition and built envi- psychophysiology; urban
ronments. However, the scope of the literature review is to concentrate on experiments that consider design; environmental
physiological reading in different environments, such as nature and architectural spaces in cognitive study features; cognition;
areas. The peer-reviewed literature published from 2010 to 2021 illustrates that only limited design param- neuroscience; gaze
eters are considered in these experiments. The study analyses the extensive consideration of experimental behaviour
medium, simulation categories, and participant factors like gender and age in this research domain. The
survey recommends considering more visual features, contextual conditions, and ethnic groups.

Introduction
Research on urban space is a vast domain that challenges to
explain how it influences human physiology and cognitive lev-
els, primarily through environmental perception, since it’s not
well understood (Marcus, Giusti, and Barthel 2016). The urban
space is attributed to a complex array of physical environmen-
tal elements and varying built density patterns. Studies claim
that these attributes can substantially affect environmental qual-
ity and have raised concern over human mental health and
well-being in urban public spaces. The increasing demand for
high-built density has considerably affected the environmental
quality nowadays. The altering environmental quality in global
north countries and human mental health in urban public spaces
has raised substantial concern (Anderson et al. 2017). Environ-
mental elements of a city, like paths, landmarks, nodes, edges
and districts, are essential for understanding urban perception-
based cognitive load (Evans, Smith, and Pezdek 1982; Stevens
2006). Studying the physical environmental attributes is essen-
tial to empirically evaluate the cognitive response of a human
being (Nasar 1989). If so, would the quality of an environment
depend on the type of objects and elements in the built space
that affect the user group’s overall emotional response and
sense of well-being? The systematic review aims to explore the
current research context that indicates the built environment’s
influence on visual perception and cognition. Hence examine
how these urban built environments influence the psychophys-
iological comfort and cognitive response in quite significant.
Studies in public spaces have explored whether urban
environments can evoke user’s anxiety (Dillon 2005). This
understanding raises the necessity of considering human men-
tal comfort in designed urban areas. One of the most famous
influential theories by Christopher Alexander argued that the
quality of open space affects people’s lives in an urban con-
text (Thwaites, Helleur, and Simkins 2005). Similarly, this research
investigates different environmental features in an urban con-
text and its effect on physiological changes and mental health
(Jackson 2003). Studies in modern city environments raise con-
cern over the cognitive load due to the risky situations passen-
gers, drivers and pedestrians face during their urban journey
(Taylor 2003). Adding to this challenge, it is established that
visual information about an urban environment and human
perception plays a significant role in understanding an urban
context, especially while performing various activities in an
environment (D’Acci 2019). Urban designers have a prominent
role in shaping large environments with multiple activities: it
is their responsibility to know how these built environments
influence people’s psychophysiological comfort and cognitive
responses.
Fields of neuroscience has developed perception and
visual communication theories to explain brain responses
towards visual environments (Barry 2002). Accordingly,
neuro-architectural studies, a new emerging field in architecture
are evolving to understand space syntax and spatial cognition
for developing sustainable environments. For a long time, neu-
roscientists have studied environmental features. Since human
perception and cognition are vast and complex, it is argued
that features like the shape of an object, sound in an environ-
ment, human emotion and physical comfort also influence the

CONTACT R. V. Shynu shynurv@res.christuniversity.in School of Architecture, Christ Deemed to be University, Bangalore, India

© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group


user’s mind. Considering features like physical forms and pat-
terns in the built environments is suggested due to its influence
on the cognitive process (Preston 2017). Similarly, the signifi-
cance of colour in an environment since its predominant role in
influencing human attention and behaviour (King 2005). Schol-
ars have been exploring the design principles like complexity,
unity, symmetry and proportion in a visual medium to under-
stand the effect of visual complexity in the perception-based
study (Lee, Hur, and Watkins 2018). Also, the memory of the
place in an urban context is to be considered while investigat-
ing cognitive performances since the structural characteristics
of buildings enhance human memory (Evans, Smith, and Pezdek
1982). Interestingly, the researchers have identified that an aes-
thetically designed landscape as an environment feature could
enhance the quality of a space that affects the health and well-
being of humans (Velarde, Fry, and Tveit 2007). Another study
also found that the presence of fractal components in the built
surface enhances response in people (Hagerhall et al. 2008).
This paper intends to explore urban context with features like
geometrical shapes, patterns and other design elements that
impact the user’s point of view and brain response. Our study
argues that most architects or urban designers don’t acknowl-
edge the user’s emotional and cognitive response while design-
ing the built environment. Considering cognitive load, especially
in the urban context, is essential for promoting sustainable envi-
ronments (Marcus, Giusti, and Barthel 2016). Hence architects
and urban planners must consider users’ psychophysiological
responses in their built environments (Few 2014).
An urban environment has several environmental parame-
ters that influence the user’s imageability. Similarly, an urban
context’s environment is composed of various factors; among
the environmental parameters visual elements, such as physi-
cal attributes impact imageability (Nasar 1989). Investigating the
influence of visual elements over human perception is essential
to quantify environmental factors and user’s physiological vari-
ations. Studies indicate the possibility of quantifying urban
environmental parameters such as imageability, transparency,
Figure 1. Flow chart showing phases of systematic review.
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 469
human scale, enclosure, the complexity of a street and urban
edges to understand urban environment quality (Ewing and
Handy 2009). Currently, researchers are advanced and capable
of simulating urban contexts for perception and cognition-
oriented studies (Nasar 1989). Such advanced computation
technology helps to deliver more realistic environments for
complex perception-based experiments. With the aid of virtual
reality, varying urban environments are simulated for analyz-
ing data with accuracy to explore cognitive-based tasks (Bruns
and Chamberlain 2019). Conventional qualitative analyses were
performed through questionnaire surveys using the point scale
method to understand psychology and emotional levels (Dewan
2015; Lipkus and Hollands 1999; Pieters, Wedel, and Batra 2010).
However, the possibility of integrating advanced physiologi-
cal measuring tools helps understand perception-based envi-
ronmental research by analysing the quantitative data (Kam-
ran and Paul 2013). Hence, we have not objectively deter-
mined how the environment’s physical features influence cog-
nition and emotional response. The perception-based studies
have individually employed visual elements such as colour,
height, shape, scale and patterns in their experimenting envi-
ronments. Since an urban environment is encompassed mul-
tiple elements, it is essential to investigate how such a large
built environment with multiple visual elements impacts the
user group.
Method
The study investigates the status of different environmental fea-
tures and urban domain-based simulation contexts considered
in the research experiments that influenced human psychophys-
iology. The paper followed PRISMA guidelines and its flow chart
on the literature review for meta-analysis. The guideline consists
of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram (Figure 1)
to maintain the research standard while conducting the litera-
ture review (Moher et al. 2009). Many articles have been identi-
fied through electronic databases like MDPI, ProQuest, Google
470 R. V. SHYNU AND A. SUSEELAN
Scholar, PubMed and visual search engines (Open Knowledge
Maps) were used to extract research works from January 2010
to September 2021 for data analysis. The articles were selected
from the database using the keywords urban, street, architec-
ture, attention, cognition, perception, emotion, environment,
memory, EEG, eye tracker, immersive, simulation and virtual real-
ity. The selection criteria are restricted to published and peer-
reviewed literature for following psychophysiological studies in
architectural and natural environments. However, the literature
review aimed to examine the current status of research on cogni-
tive architecture (CA). This study attempts to estimate the con-
siderations of visual factors in the empirical studies that focus
on human cognitive performance and behavioural response in
natural and artificial environments (Karakas and Yildiz 2020). The
data was generated based on the inclusion and exclusion crite-
ria for review analysis. A total of 50 articles were selected for the
systematic study.
Result and discussion
The research categorizes the 50 literature articles into four sec-
tions based on the literature survey using the method described
in the previous section. Section one discusses the environment
that considered nature and built elements that impacted human
cognitive processing and psychophysiological variations. The
second section is on urban space and street context that influ-
ence the user’s emotional and physiological response. The third
section illustrates the human gaze response towards the built
elements of urban and street environments. And the fourth
section explains the influence of visual elements available in an
environment on the user group’s gaze behaviour.
Table 1 represents the meta-analysis of the data from the
selected articles that followed an empirical study. For point
score generation, one point is given to the symbol ∗ in Table
1. The table plots the research status based on the search cri-
teria. The section ‘medium’ represents the simulated environ-
ment used for the experimental process. In contrast, the other
medium, such as VR, represents the virtual reality-based envi-
ronment, ‘image’ for photos or 2D visual simulations, and ‘video’
for ordinary moving images. The 3D videos indicate rendered
videos, while the medium ‘environment’ indicates the experi-
ment that represents real space. The literature review highlights
studies that considered specific environmental parameters in its
investigation identified from the literature surveys. The section
‘cognition’ shows the studies performed using an electroen-
cephalography (EEG) device to measure the participant’s neural
responses. The researchers also considered electrodermal activ-
ity (EDA) and heart rate variability (HRV), which measures the
physiological variations of participants. Similarly, it highlighted
perception-based studies that employed eye-tracking devices to
explore gaze behaviour.
Based on the literature review, the identified environmen-
tal parameters are subclassified into simulation categories and
visual elements in Table 1 to project their significance in
the research. The term medium represents the experiment-
ing environment and visual stimulation used for the study.
The simulation category urban and street indicates public space
with built infrastructures. Landscape and nature mean the study
that considers outdoor natural scenery, designed environments
and visuals that may not have the presence of built environ-
ments. The urban landscape-based simulation category indi-
cates the artificial and nature-based landscape shared with built
infrastructure. The category interior of the building represents
the internal space of a designed volume, and the exterior of
the building indicates the exterior feature of a particular struc-
ture along with its immediate surroundings. The simulation
category real world defines a real place experienced directly,
and the virtual design represents the study that used a digi-
tal environment for the experiment. The colour in the section
on visual elements represents the study that considered the
colour in an environment. Likewise, black and white or grey
represents the study with monochrome variations of black and
white in the experimenting environment. The terms height and
distance on the session visual element represent the environ-
ment promoting varying viewpoints with fixed eye level. The
element shape and edge define the experiments that consider
the object’s external boundary and the built’s shape profile.
The visual elements such as spatial, scale and proportion indi-
cate the design principles with measurable values in the simu-
lated environment. Similarly, the element design, pattern and
plan are the created environments the researcher developed as
part of simulating environments. Further visual element, frac-
tal and visual dimension, indicates the study that used nature
and the simulated visuals with measurable values in its study
environment.
The environment with nature, landscape and its built
elements impact human’s cognitive processing and
psychophysiological variations
The result demonstrated that the studies have moderately con-
sidered nature, landscape and urban context-based landscapes
in their experimenting environments. Twenty-six studies were
conducted in this field of investigation. From a total of 40%
cognition-based experiments, 35% of studies belong to nature
and landscape environments, 15% studies to the urban land-
scape, and the rest 75% belong to urban, interior, and exterior
categories. In the case of physiology-based investigations, from
a total of 16% of researchers, 25% of them have considered
nature and landscape. It is observed that the studies need to
explore more human physiological variations in the urban land-
scape context with environmental elements. Studies showed
that 80% of the entire research employed the adult age group, of
which 25% of studies were with nature and landscape and 25%
with the urban landscape. Barely 7.5% of studies considered the
elder group, and none have the children group. The data indi-
cates that 60% of the entire research paper explored perception-
based studies, and only 36% of studies were employed for
perception-based investigation on nature, landscape, and urban
landscape. From the total of 131, 100 points demonstrate the
significant presence of various visual elements in their research
environments. However, 30 points indicate the mild presence of
different environmental features in the VR-based experiments
under this category.
Studies claim that the presence of nature, one of the
visual elements makes the participants perform best due to
physiological and psychological relaxation during the perception-
based investigation (Lin et al. 2020b). The literature survey
Table 1. Point score generated based on reviewed article.
Simulation category Age Method Visual element

Visual elements – – total points

Spatial, scale, proportion

Fractal, visual dimension

Black and white, Grey

Design, pattern, Plan

Exterior of building
Interior of building
Landscape, nature

Urban landscape

Height, distance
Children (0-17)
Virtual design

Elderly (60+)
Adult (18-59)
Urban, street

Shape, Edge
Physiology

Perception
Real world

Cognition

Colour
SL No Author Year Medium
1 Azzazy et al. 2021 Literature study ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
2 İlker Erkan 2021 VR ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 1
3 Shemesh et al. 2021 VR ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3
4 Ma et al. 2020 Image ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3
5 Lin, Chen, Zhang, et al. 2020 Images ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
6 İlker Erkan 2018 VR ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 4
7 Higuera-Trujillo et al. 2021 VR ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 4
8 Myung & Jun 2020 VR ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
9 Karakas & Yildiz 2020 Literature study ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
10 Chang & Jun 2019 Literature study ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
11 Shemesh et al. 2017 VR ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3
12 Higuera-Trujillo et al. 2020 VR ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3
13 Vecchiato et al. 2015 VR ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3
14 Hansen et al. 2019 Images ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3
15 Sun & Li 2020 Images ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
16 Li et al. 2016 Environment ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 4
17 Hollander et al. 2019 Image ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
18 D’Acci 2019 Images ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 4
19 Marcus et al. 2016 Literature study ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 4
20 Kacha et al. 2015 Image ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3
21 Hussein 2020 Image ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 4
22 Yamaguchi & Mitsukura 2016 Environment ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3

ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW

23 Hussein et al. 2018 3D Video ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3
24 Lin, Chen, Jiang, et al. 2020 Environment ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
25 Neale et al. 2020 Environment ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
26 Li et al.. 2020 Image ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3
27 Zhang et al. 2019 VR ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3
28 Mantuano et al. 2017 Environment ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
29 Topolšek et al. 2016 Environment ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3
30 Franěk et al. 2019 Images ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3

(continued).

471
 472
R. V. SHYNU AND A. SUSEELAN
Table 1. Continued.
Simulation category Age Method Visual element

Visual elements – – total points

Spatial, scale, proportion

Fractal, visual dimension

Black and white, Grey

Design, pattern, Plan

Exterior of building
Interior of building
Landscape, nature

Urban landscape

Height, distance
Children (0-17)
Virtual design

Elderly (60+)
Adult (18-59)
Urban, street

Shape, Edge
Physiology

Perception
Real world

Cognition

Colour
SL No Author Year Medium
31 Hollander et al. 2021 Images ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 4
32 Noland et al. 2017 Images ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
33 Franke & Schweikart 2017 Environment ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3
34 Simpson, Thwaites, et al. 2019 Environment ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3
35 Hollander et al. 2020 Image ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
36 Batool et al. 2020 Image ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
37 Simpson, Freeth, et al. 2019 Environment ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3
38 Rupi & Krizek 2019 Environment ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
39 Kiefer et al. 2014 Environment ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3
40 Wang & Sparks 2016 Image ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 1
41 Dupont et al. 2016 Image ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3
42 Schrom-Feiertag et al. 2017 VR ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
43 Burian et al. 2018 Image ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
44 Kiefer et al. 2017 Literature study ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
45 Dupont et al. 2014 Image ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
46 Amati et al. 2018 Video ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
47 Gholami et al. 2021 Environment ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
48 Kollert et al. 2021 Environment ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
49 Stapel et al. 2020 Environment ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
50 Lisińska-Kuśnierz & Krupa 2020 Image ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 3
Total points 13 13 23 11 13 38 15 2 40 9 20 8 30 41 5 12 17 12 39 5 131
Percentage 26 26 46 22 26 76 30 4 80 18 40 16 60 82 10 24 34 24 78 10

demonstrates that only a few design elements were consid-
ered for decades in CA, especially in perception-oriented tasks.
Modern studies preferred curves and a straight line to under-
stand emotional excitement and attentional levels (Azzazy et al.
2021). Research by Erkan in 2021 estimated that the perception
from an elevated height context emotionally impacts the par-
ticipant (Erkan 2021). The result indicates that emotional and
physiological responses are tangled with human perception. He
estimates that people behave with reference to their environ-
mental characteristics, especially in the context of dominated
spatial height, which affects their wayfinding tasks (Erkan 2018).
Perception-based studies are currently considered significant
for understanding the visual information process in cognition.
Visual perception of an environment helps to understand the
space and leads to aesthetical appreciation based on individ-
ual cognitive function. The research on people’s perception of
the natural environment and architectural spatial understand-
ing discusses how humans perform aesthetical judgments (Ma
et al., 2020). Such research information helps architects and
planners design complex visual environments to communicate
and navigate the user group in an environment effectively.
Many techniques might trigger positive human emotional and
physiological responses in CA. However, only a few parameters
are identified throughout these research articles. The emerg-
ing knowledge from neuroscience helps architects and plan-
ners develop a comfortable environment based on participant’s
cognitive responses and experiences from their built environ-
ments. This understanding leads to new theories and method-
ologies that open new cross-disciplinary fields between neu-
roscience and architecture (Karakas and Yildiz 2020). Architec-
tural practices seek to consider the combination of neuroscience
and environmental simulation-based studies since the environ-
ment influences psychophysiological comforts (Higuera-Trujillo,
Llinares, and Macagno 2021). Studies claim that advanced physi-
ological devices used in neuroscience-based architectural inves-
tigations help the architect and planner to design comfortable
spaces based on the user’s cognitive responses (Chang and Jun
2019).
The research demonstrates that for the well-being of a
human, it is equally important to consider both physiologi-
cal and emotional comfort in their dwelling space. The stud-
ies by Higuera and the team claim that building layouts can
also affect people’s emotions (Higuera-Trujillo et al. 2020). Sim-
ilarly, the study found that the quality of the plan configura-
tion affected the dwelling person (Myung and Jun 2020). This
research illustrates that the design features and built elements
in an environment influence human comfort levels. However, it
also highlights that environmental design factors can affect the
attention and cognitive process of the viewers. To enhance the
people’s experience in a place, psychophysiological response in
an architectural environment might help a lot (Vecchiato et al.
2015). Also, we expect the necessity to consider the experi-
ence of trained minds and untrained minds in the same envi-
ronments since they might have different backgrounds and
responses. For example, Shemesh and his collaborators identi-
fied that non-designers preferred curved spaces, and designers
preferred sharp-angled built spaces (Shemesh et al. 2017). His
team also found that the non-designer group of participant’s
physiological reactions towards virtual spaces were significantly
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 473
more robust than that of the designer’s group (Shemesh et al.
2021). These findings enforce the relevance of considering such
a group of people in research tasks to understand how people
navigate and respond to conditions like real environments and
simulated mediums.
Urban space and street contexts influence the user’s
brain’s neural and physiological response
The survey indicated that only 46% of researchers preferred the
urban and street realm of investigation. From cognition-based
investigations, 30% of studies employed urban and street con-
texts. Only 25% of studies addressed physiological investiga-
tions in this research domain. From 60% of the perception-based
research, half of the studies were employed based on this clas-
sification. Results indicate that urban space and street-based
studies considered significantly the adult groups and mildly the
child and elderly groups. The result shows a total of 62 points
that indicate a moderate presence of different environmental
features in the simulation medium.
The perception of an urban environment has to be under-
stood deeply, based on the user’s emotional and physiological
responses to estimate their cognition. This emerging research
approach might define their cognitive load and psychophysio-
logical variations in multiple environments. The studies suggest
that people feel emotionally positive due to the characteristic
features of traditional elements in a street environment while
estimating the alpha wave in their brains (Sun and Li 2020).
However, to understand the impact of the street and urban
space on human emotion and physiology, we expect the rel-
evance of considering the user’s early visual response. Hensen
and his team’s study claim that urban environments have dif-
ferent visual elements that transform early visual perception
behaviour. This experience eventually structures the user’s envi-
ronmental knowledge towards a context (Hansen et al. 2019).
People’s emotional comfort varies based on environmental per-
ception and individual’s cognitive context (X. Li et al. 2016).
We consider urban spaces as a complex context since they
consist of multiple visual elements and design features. The
researchers explored such environments through the CA field
to analyse emotional and behavioural reactions (Hollander
et al. 2019). CA studies define various environmental elements
and component that influences human brain waves and gaze
movements. For example, research in pedestrian-based stud-
ies demonstrates that people emotionally prefer curvy routes in
an urban layout rather than a straight walking pathway (D’Acci
2019). According to the CA, curves and straight lines are consid-
ered elements of architectural design principles that influence
emotional and behavioural reactions. The human cognitive load
and its relation with emotion in an urban environment must
be considered for promoting a sustainable urban life (Marcus,
Giusti, and Barthel 2016). During the literature survey, we iden-
tified that the researcher considered the Alpha brain wave sig-
nificantly to understand the cognitive load and visual comfort.
This survey also reveals that nature and landscape are some of
the urban components that ensure environmental quality and
sustainability. Investigation showed that landscape in an urban
environment influences the alpha wave while experiencing the
space through perception-based tasks (Kacha, Matsumoto, and
474 R. V. SHYNU AND A. SUSEELAN
Mansouri 2015). Moreover, Lin and partners studies in 2020
demonstrates that people prefer an urban green space due to
the experience of stress reduction (Lin et al. 2020a) Spending
time in an urban green space is better for attention restora-
tion, which eventually enhances the well-being of life (Lin et al.
2020a). The elements presented in an urban environment, like
colour, built forms and variation in position in space by consider-
ing perspective vision, will also positively impact the participants
(Hussein 2020). Designers use various design elements inten-
sively to increase the aesthetical appearance of an environment.
But studies also claim that design elements could not be utilized
enormously in built space to improve aesthetical quality as visual
preference increased only up to a point and further decreased
in the participants (Hussein, Sarkar, and Armstrong 2018). Simi-
larly, studies show that people feel both comfort and discomfort
with the elements available in an environment (Yamaguchi and
Mitsukura 2016). The designers must consider such cognitive
phenomena in their practices to estimate user’s responses and
preferences to a visual pattern. Visual attention and gaze move-
ment are correlated in the domain. A study by Neale and his team
suggests that the urban environment influences visual attention
during navigation and is connected with the experience of envi-
ronment safety (Neale et al. 2020). Based on these findings, it is
clear that navigating a space based on a vision for various pur-
poses in an environment influences human gaze movement due
to individual emotion and psychophysiological response.
Human gaze response towards the interior and exterior
features of built environments
In the selected articles, 22% of studies preferred interior fea-
tures and 26% studied the exterior features of the experiment
mediums that preferred real environments and images; only one
study considered VR. From cognition-based investigations, 50%
of the research employed the interior context of the building and
only 25% exterior features of the built context. Similarly, from
physiological research, 62% indicates interior and 50% with exte-
rior studies. However, only 13% of VR environments can be iden-
tified in perception studies. The result also indicates that out of
131 points, the interior features of the built environment scored
31 points and 96 for the exterior built environment. This demon-
strates that interior environment features are mildly explored in
this research domain.
Gaze movement plays a significant role while understanding
an environment like nature, landscape environment, the street,
or urban space. In the context of the built environment, espe-
cially in the case of an urban street, it is identified that the
building design features like punched windows and high-quality
edges make a person more visually attentive while reading a
built space (Hollander et al. 2021). Attention to such elements
might help people recognize or memorize a place. We argue
that the design decision of architects and planners in their built
form is intended to enhance the people’s attention level while
they experience the space. Studies show that design elements of
built context and urban landscape environments can maintain
attention while on visual navigation (J. Li et al. 2020). Differ-
ent categories of people occupy public spaces: researchers also
recommend that designers may consider diverse user group’s
gaze behaviour in an environment. The research by Zhang and
collaborators in 2019 claims that the professional group tends to
focus on distant characters, and the naive group focuses more
on the closer character of a street (Zhang et al. 2019). Data also
shows that task-oriented action in an urban environment opti-
mizes the gaze movement between the central and lateral parts
of the visual character (Mantuano, Bernardi, and Rupi 2017). Like-
wise, the researcher Topolšek and collaborative find that user
groups (drivers) were attentive to multi-information in the built
environments during their task engagement (Topolšek, Areh,
and Cvahte 2016). From the literature review, it is clear that visual
attention to environmental details makes better spatial under-
standing for the user and task performance made easier within
an adequate period. People also rely on 2-dimensional visual
information to understand the orientation towards their destina-
tions while they navigate and perform a task in an environment.
Studies claim that visual attention increases based on well-
defined details in an environment for task performance (Kiefer,
Giannopoulos, and Raubal 2014). Eye movement behaves dif-
ferently at urban intersections since people have to be more
attentive for ease of effective movement (Rupi and Krizek 2019).
Hence it is essential to understand gaze responding patterns in
an environment for delivering environmental information to all
user groups. Our research analysis indicates that it is vital to inte-
grate such relevant information for efficient visual interaction
while designing or planning a space. This knowledge helps the
designers to create a built space with better visual perception
based-performance for a planned activity.
Urban and street environments are integrated with many
physical objects for functional and communication purposes.
Through the analysis, we explore that spatial recognition is influ-
enced by environmental objects. One of the studies from Franke
& Schweikart estimates that people memorize visual information
by integrating environmental objects during their navigational
process (Franke and Schweikart 2017). Studying a social con-
text is also essential since visual engagement depends on spatial
tasks and physical objects (Simpson et al. 2019a). Our study
draws that favorable visual and cognitive comfort must be main-
tained in an environment for well-being. Existing research points
out that urban environments have the potential to support men-
tal relaxation (Hollander et al. 2019). The study also argues that
psychological comfort must be maintained for better perfor-
mance in a complex environment. Human gaze movements
prefer the ground-level viewpoint rather than the higher-level
viewpoints of a street due to individual psychological comfort
(Simpson, Thwaites, and Freeth 2019b). Since gaze movements
are comfortable at a defined visual level, adopting certain design
elements and components while considering people’s view-
points can enhance gaze behaviour and psychological comfort.
Further investigations in traditional neighbourhood design
(TND) must be performed to understand pedestrian gaze
behaviour since the research states that the eye fixation rate is
higher for TND compared to non-TND environments (Hollander
et al. 2020). Studies suggest that the components like green,
nature, people, colour and built features increase visual prefer-
ence (Batool et al. 2020). Also, the study by Franke and his team
claims that certain natural elements can enhance gaze prefer-
ence. Their research identified that human gaze fixation was
higher in nature scenes without foliage in comparison to the
scenes with foliage (Franěk, Petružálek, and Šefara 2019). These

findings indicate that gaze fixation relies on certain visual char-
acters concerning its environment. However, visual components
like street features, people in a location, and greenery can ele-
vate the user’s visual interest in an environment (Noland et al.
2017). Noland and partners also point out that the presence
of vehicles in an environment can lower the visual appeal of
people. While understanding such visual elements in an envi-
ronment helps to understand gaze behaviour, designers could
develop an environment that promotes better visual comfort
and environment readability.
Mapping the user group’s gaze behaviour to understand
the influence of visual elements available in real and
virtual environments
From the 50 articles, 76% of researchers preferred the real world
and 30% belongs to virtual design environments. The result
shows in cognition-based studies, 60% indicate real-world con-
text and 55% consist of virtual design-based environments. The
physiology-related experiments consist of 37% of studies in the
real world and 75% in virtual environments. But research iden-
tified that 60% of perception-based studies were performed in
real and virtual environments. From the real environmental con-
text, 81% of studies considered adults, 13% elder groups and
only 5% indicates the presence of the children group. In the
case of the virtual environment, 74% of studies have the adult
group and 26% with the elderly group. None of the studies iden-
tified the presence of children age groups. From the total of 131
points, the real-world environment demonstrated 101 points
and the virtual design environment with 49 points. This result
indicates that virtual design-based simulations considered the
environment feature mildly in this research domain.
Understanding the visual elements in an environment and its
influence on human perception for gaze movement analysis is
vital in psychophysiological investigations. For such a domain
of research nowadays, scholars rely on eye-tracking devices
since eye-trackers are used to understand gaze behaviour in
an environment (Kollert et al. 2021). Eye trackers are accurate
and reliable; it has been used in CA studies (Kiefer et al. 2017).
We identified that gaze behaviour was considered mainly for
the wayfinding task, especially in a perception-based task in
different environments during the literature review. Investiga-
tions suggest that gaze analysis is favorable during wayfinding
tasks and attention estimation-based analysis (Schrom-Feiertag,
Settgast, and Seer 2017). Such physiological reading devices can
help systematically quantify the gaze area of interest (AOI) in a
field of sight during their task engagement. The study in AOI
by Burian and team in 2018 found that gaze behaves differently
towards environments contextual conditions and environments
having various visual elements. The study also found a signifi-
cant difference in participant group gaze patterns while envi-
ronmental perception-based tasks (Burian, Popelka, and Beitlova
2018). Hence it indicates that eye movements are influenced by
visual elements in an environment for different groups.
Likewise, it is essential to know the limitation of human vision
over a field of sight and in varying environments. The study
claims that a 2° angle of gaze vision is the most comfortable
perception level for humans (Stapel, El Hassnaoui, and Happee
2022). This understanding might allow planners and architects
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 475
to deliver adequate information with in the environment by pre-
dicting the comfortable gaze fixation regions on a volume of
space. Also, it is relevant to know how fixations are changed
based on visual composition and elements having varying per-
spective points of vision. The field of vision influences human
perspective vision, so it’s necessary to consider the user’s field
of vision while developing an environment. Studies identified
that gaze fixations are more in the panoramic landscape field of
vision and are less in an open landscape in the regular field of
view (Dupont, Antrop, and Van Eetvelde 2014). The researchers
rely on gaze fixation data to predict where the eyes are look-
ing. This framework might be able to interpret the relationship
between an environment and gaze behaviour. The research by
Amati and collaborators identified that most participants were
interested in demonstrating gaze fixation in the elements like
artificial objects, trees, sky, bushes, and rocks (Amati et al. 2018).
This information project the possibility that artificial visual fea-
tures can influence the fixation rate for improvising visual com-
fort and signifies the role of architects and planners in develop-
ing designed environments. We argue that designed environ-
ments are human-made factors and the research of Gholami and
the team claims that ‘Human-made factors’ increase the fixation
rate (Gholami et al. 2021). Based on the literature reviews, we
identified that the fixation could be due to an environment’s
attraction factors or distraction components. From the state-
ment of Lisińska-Kuśnierz & Krupa, perception-based attraction
and distraction of an environment depend on context-specific
conditions (Lisińska-Kuśnierz and Krupa 2020). This research
outcome argues the need for considering ethnicity in such a
research realm. The research findings by Wang & Sparks con-
crete the necessity of considering ethnicity in a context since
the Australian participant’s eye fixation varied with the Chinese
during their experiment (Wang and Sparks 2016). The context
of location, the presence of visual elements and the quality of
built space impact gaze behaviour; since research identified in
landscapes, gaze behaviour is more comfortable than in a built
context (Dupont et al. 2016).
Research, challenges, gap and limitation
The research on literature analysis shows the challenge of cre-
ating a realistic environment for evaluating the perception and
cognitive-based experiment for the participant. The next chal-
lenge is to get accurate calibration for the gaze recording pro-
cess based on the experimenting domain and simulation field.
Insufficient systematic framework challenges the designing and
operating simulation concerning physiological reading devices
(Eye-tracker) and analyzing the output data based on statisti-
cal analysis (SPSS, ANOVA, etc.) The literature studies identified
that research was limited to VR and 2D-based simulated indoor
spaces such as geometrical profiles, interior context, design ele-
ments and few visual components. Also, outdoors with real
environments and images of urban spaces, having built ver-
tices, edge points, patterns, and space perception based on
height, landscape, or green space. The gap identified through
the literature is that research studies had not considered the
human’s urban space-based emotions and cognitive response
in the context of built masses, street enclosure, fractal design
476 R. V. SHYNU AND A. SUSEELAN
principles and the context of straight or curved pathways con-
cerning built environments in real and VR environments. Also,
the researchers only considered the context of the global north
urban spaces predominantly. Asian urban spaces, especially
south Asian streets and their ethnic group, are insufficiently
explored for such research work.
Conclusion
The research from the past decade in varying environments
discusses multiple visual categories and elements for cogni-
tive studies. However, the survey demonstrates the possibility
of considering more visual parameters of an environment for
perception-based studies. Also, understanding and analysing
gaze behaviour are essential to developing an environment
since gaze behaviour changes with gender and age (De Lucio
et al. 1996). The survey claims that most studies prioritize the
adult group, so we recommend that further studies consider
child and elderly groups. Since most of the research envi-
ronments were limited to generic typologies like nature and
urban environments, we also recommend that future studies
should employ contextual conditions like street enclosure, frac-
tal design, floor space index (FSI), or floor area ratio (FAR) in this
research realm. Similarly, further research could explore integrat-
ing environment features like straight and curved pathways in
VR environment-based approach. Most of the studies employed
the global north as their simulation environment, so it will be
essential to explore the global south and their ethnic groups.
The studies on the urban street environment’s influence over
the user group can estimate how the current built practices psy-
chophysiological comfort. The research claims the possibility of
empirically measuring the built space to quantify the user’s phys-
iological performance and cognitive response to evaluate their
comfort level (Ewing and Handy 2009). Advanced physiologi-
cal measuring tools (eye-tracking and EEG) will help to explore
perception-based tasks in a built environment (Kamran and Paul
2013). Similarly, controlled simulated environment on the digital
medium (Nasar 1989) and standardized questionnaire (Dewan
2015; Lipkus and Hollands 1999; Pieters, Wedel, and Batra 2010)
can also be considered for estimating cognitive performance
systematically.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
R. V. Shynu http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1873-8073
References
Amati, Marco, Ebadat Ghanbari Parmehr, Chris McCarthy, and Jodi Sita.
2018. “How Eye-Catching Are Natural Features When Walking Through
a Park? Eye-Tracking Responses to Videos of Walks.” Urban Forestry
& Urban Greening 31 (April): 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.
12.013.
Anderson, Jamie, Kai Ruggeri, Koen Steemers, and Felicia Huppert. 2017.
“Lively Social Space, Well-Being Activity, and Urban Design: Findings from
a Low-Cost Community-Led Public Space Intervention.” Environment
and Behavior 49 (6): 685–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391651665
9108.
Azzazy, Sameh, Amirhosein Ghaffarianhoseini, Ali GhaffarianHoseini, Nicola
Naismith, and Zohreh Doborjeh. 2021. “A Critical Review on the Impact
of Built Environment on Users’ Measured Brain Activity.” Architectural Sci-
ence Review 64 (4): 319–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2020.174
9980.
Barry, Ann Marie. 2002. “Perception and Visual Communication Theory.” Jour-
nal of Visual Literacy 22 (1): 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/23796529.
2002.11674583.
Batool, A., P. Rutherford, P. McGraw, T. Ledgeway, and S. Altomonte. 2020.
“View Preference in Urban Environments.” Lighting Research & Technology
53 (7): 613–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153520981572.
Bruns, Conner R, and Brent C Chamberlain. 2019. “The Influence of Land-
marks and Urban Form on Cognitive Maps Using Virtual Reality.” Land-
scape and Urban Planning 189 (May 2018): 296–306. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.landurbplan.2019.05.006.
Burian, Jaroslav, Stanislav Popelka, and Marketa Beitlova. 2018. “Evaluation
of the Cartographical Quality of Urban Plans by Eye-Tracking.” ISPRS Inter-
national Journal of Geo-Information 7 (5): 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi
7050192.
Chang, Sunwoo, and Hanjong Jun. 2019. “Hybrid Deep-Learning Model to
Recognise Emotional Responses of Users Towards Architectural Design
Alternatives.” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering 18 (5):
381–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2019.1660663.
D’Acci, Luca. 2019. “Aesthetical Cognitive Perceptions of Urban Street Form.
Pedestrian Preferences Towards Straight or Curvy Route Shapes.” Journal
of Urban Design 24 (6): 896–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.
1554994.
Dewan, Pauline. 2015. “Words Versus Pictures: Leveraging the Research on
Visual Communication.” Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and
Information Practice and Research 10 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.21083/
partnership.v10i1.3137.
Dillon, Ruth. 2005. “Designing Urban Space for Psychological Comfort: The
Kentish Town Road Project.” Journal of Public Mental Health 4 (4): 10–20.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17465729200500027.
Dupont, Lien, Marc Antrop, and Veerle Van Eetvelde. 2014. “Eye-Tracking
Analysis in Landscape Perception Research: Influence of Photograph
Properties and Landscape Characteristics.” Landscape Research 39 (4):
417–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2013.773966.
Dupont, Lien, Kristien Ooms, Marc Antrop, and Veerle Van Eetvelde. 2016.
“Comparing Saliency Maps and Eye-Tracking Focus Maps: The Poten-
tial Use in Visual Impact Assessment Based on Landscape Photographs.”
Landscape and Urban Planning 148 (April): 17–26. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.007.
Erkan, İlker. 2018. “Examining Wayfinding Behaviours in Architectural Spaces
Using Brain Imaging with Electroencephalography (EEG).” Architectural
Science Review 61 (6): 410–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.
1523129.
Erkan, İlker. 2021. “A Neuro-Cognitive Investigation of the Impact of
Glass Floors on People.” Architectural Science Review 64 (4): 336–45.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2020.1858574.
Evans, Gary W, Catherine Smith, and Kathy Pezdek. 1982. “Cognitive Maps
and Urban Form.” Journal of the American Planning Association 48 (2):
232–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368208976543.
Ewing, Reid, and Susan Handy. 2009. “Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban
Design Qualities Related to Walkability.” Journal of Urban Design 14 (1):
65–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800802451155.
Few, Stephen. 2014. “Visual Communications.” Amerasia Journal 40 (2):
110–11. https://doi.org/10.17953/amer.40.2.k2347220042170pk.
Franěk, Marek, Jan Petružálek, and Denis Šefara. 2019. “Eye Movements
in Viewing Urban Images and Natural Images in Diverse Vegetation
Periods.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 46 (December): 126477.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126477.
Franke, Conrad, and Jürgen Schweikart. 2017. “Investigation of Landmark-
Based Pedestrian Navigation Processes with a Mobile Eye Tracking Sys-
tem.” In Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography, edited by Georg
Gartner, and Haosheng Huang, 105–30. Cham: Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47289-8_6.
Gholami, Yasaman, Seyed Hassan Taghvaei, Saeid Norouzian-Maleki, and
Rouhollah Mansouri Sepehr. 2021. “Identifying the Stimulus of Visual
Perception Based on Eye-Tracking in Urban Parks: Case Study of

Mellat Park in Tehran.” Journal of Forest Research 26 (2): 91–100.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13416979.2021.1876286.
Hagerhall, Caroline M, Thorbjörn Laike, Richard P Taylor, Marianne Küller,
Rikard Küller, and Theodore P Martin. 2008. “Investigations of Human
EEG Response to Viewing Fractal Patterns.” Perception 37 (10): 1488–94.
https://doi.org/10.1068/p5918.
Hansen, Bruce C, David J Field, Michelle R Greene, Cassady Olson, and
Vladimir Miskovic. 2019. “Towards a State-Space Geometry of Neural
Responses to Natural Scenes: A Steady-State Approach.” NeuroImage 201
(June): 116027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116027.
Higuera-Trujillo, Juan Luis, Carmen Llinares, and Eduardo Macagno. 2021.
“The Cognitive-Emotional Design and Study of Architectural Space: A
Scoping Review of Neuroarchitecture and Its Precursor Approaches.” Sen-
sors 21 (6): 2193. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21062193.
Higuera-Trujillo, Juan Luis, Carmen Llinares Millán, Antoni Montañana i
Aviñó, and Juan-Carlos Rojas. 2020. “Multisensory Stress Reduction: A
Neuro-Architecture Study of Paediatric Waiting Rooms.” Building Research
& Information 48 (3): 269–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2019.
1612228.
Hollander, Justin B., Alexandra Purdy, Andrew Wiley, Veronica Foster,
Robert J.K. Jacob, Holly A. Taylor, and Tad T. Brunyé. 2019. “See-
ing the City: Using Eye-Tracking Technology to Explore Cognitive
Responses to the Built Environment.” Journal of Urbanism: Interna-
tional Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 12 (2): 156–71.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2018.1531908.
Hollander, Justin B., Ann Sussman, Alex Purdy Levering, and Cara Foster-
Karim. 2020. “Using Eye-Tracking to Understand Human Responses to
Traditional Neighborhood Designs.” Planning Practice & Research 35 (5):
485–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2020.1768332.
Hollander, Justin B., Ann Sussman, Peter Lowitt, Neil Angus, and Minyu Situ.
2021. “Eye-Tracking Emulation Software: A Promising Urban Design Tool.”
Architectural Science Review 64 (4): 383–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/0003
8628.2021.1929055.
Hussein, Dheyaa. 2020. “A User Preference Modelling Method for the Assess-
ment of Visual Complexity in Building Façade.” Smart and Sustainable
Built Environment 9 (4): 483–501. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-05-2019-
0069.
Hussein, Dheyaa, Somwrita Sarkar, and Peter Armstrong. 2018. “Mapping
Preferences for the Number of Built Elements.” Smart and Sustainable Built
Environment 7 (1): 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-10-2017-0048.
Jackson, Laura E. 2003. “The Relationship of Urban Design to Human
Health and Condition.” Landscape and Urban Planning 64 (4): 191–200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00230-X.
Kacha, Lemya, Naoji Matsumoto, and Ahmed Mansouri. 2015. “Elec-
trophysiological Evaluation of Perceived Complexity in Streetscapes.”
Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering 14 (3): 585–92.
https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.14.585.
Kamran, Sedig, and Parsons Paul. 2013. “Interaction Design for Complex Cog-
nitive Activities with Visual Representations: A Pattern-Based Approach.” AIS
Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction 5), https://aisel.aisnet.org/
thci/vol5/iss2/1/.
Karakas, Tulay, and Dilek Yildiz. 2020. “Exploring the Influence of the Built
Environment on Human Experience Through a Neuroscience Approach:
A Systematic Review.” Frontiers of Architectural Research 9 (1): 236–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.10.005.
Kiefer, Peter, Ioannis Giannopoulos, and Martin Raubal. 2014. “Where Am
I? Investigating Map Matching During Self-Localization With Mobile Eye
Tracking in an Urban Environment.” Transactions in GIS 18 (5): 660–86.
https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12067.
Kiefer, Peter, Ioannis Giannopoulos, Martin Raubal, and Andrew Duchowski.
2017. “Eye Tracking for Spatial Research: Cognition, Computation, Chal-
lenges.” Spatial Cognition & Computation 17 (1-2): 1–19. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13875868.2016.1254634.
King, Timothy D. 2005. “Human Color Perception, Cognition, and Culture:
Why Red Is Always Red.” In Color Imaging X: Processing, Hardcopy, and
Applications, edited by Reiner Eschbach, and Gabriel G. Marcu, 5667, 234.
https://doi.org/10.1117/12.597146
Kollert, A., M. Rutzinger, M. Bremer, K. Kaufmann, and T. Bork-Hüffer. 2021.
“Mapping of 3D Eye-Tracking In Urban Outdoor Environments.” ISPRS
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 477
Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sci-
ences V-4–2021 (June): 201–8. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-V-4-
2021-201-2021.
Lee, Jung Eun, Songyee Hur, and Brandi Watkins. 2018. “Visual Communica-
tion of Luxury Fashion Brands on Social Media: Effects of Visual Complex-
ity and Brand Familiarity.” Journal of Brand Management 25 (5): 449–62.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-018-0092-6.
Li, Xin, Ihab Hijazi, Reinhard Koenig, Zhihan Lv, Chen Zhong, and Ger-
hard Schmitt. 2016. “Assessing Essential Qualities of Urban Space with
Emotional and Visual Data Based on GIS Technique.” ISPRS International
Journal of Geo-Information 5 (11): 218. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi511
0218.
Li, Jie, Zhonghao Zhang, Fu Jing, Jun Gao, Jianyu Ma, Guofan Shao, and
Scott Noel. 2020. “An Evaluation of Urban Green Space in Shanghai, China,
Using Eye Tracking.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 56 (December):
126903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126903.
Lin, Wei, Qibing Chen, Mingyan Jiang, Jinying Tao, Zongfang Liu, Xiaoxia
Zhang, Linjia Wu, Shan Xu, Yushan Kang, and Qiuyuan Zeng. 2020a. “Sit-
ting or Walking? Analyzing the Neural Emotional Indicators of Urban
Green Space Behavior with Mobile EEG.” Journal of Urban Health 97 (2):
191–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-019-00407-8.
Lin, Wei, Qibing Chen, Xiaoxia Zhang, Jinying Tao, Zongfang Liu, Bingyang
Lyu, Nian Li, Di Li, and Chengcheng Zeng. 2020b. “Effects of Different
Bamboo Forest Spaces on Psychophysiological Stress and Spatial Scale
Evaluation.” Forests 11 (6): 616. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11060616.
Lipkus, I. M., and J. G. Hollands. 1999. “The Visual Communication of Risk.”
JNCI Monographs 1999 (25): 149–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjour
nals.jncimonographs.a024191.
Lisińska-Kuśnierz, Małgorzata, and Michał Krupa. 2020. “Suitability of Eye
Tracking in Assessing the Visual Perception of Architecture—A Case Study
Concerning Selected Projects Located in Cologne.” Buildings 10 (2): 20.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10020020.
Lucio, J.V. De, M. Mohamadian, J. P. Ruiz, J. Banayas, and F. G. Bernaldez. 1996.
“Visual Landscape Exploration as Revealed by Eye Movement Tracking.”
Landscape and Urban Planning 34 (2): 135–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0169-2046(95)00208-1.
Ma, L., H. Zhang, and M. Lu. 2020. “’Building’s fractal dimension trend and
its application in visual complexity map.” Building and Environment 178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106925.
Mantuano, Alessandra, Silvia Bernardi, and Federico Rupi. 2017. “Cyclist
Gaze Behavior in Urban Space: An Eye-Tracking Experiment on the Bicy-
cle Network of Bologna.” Case Studies on Transport Policy 5 (2): 408–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2016.06.001.
Marcus, Lars, Matteo Giusti, and Stephan Barthel. 2016. “Cognitive Affor-
dances in Sustainable Urbanism: Contributions of Space Syntax and Spa-
tial Cognition.” Journal of Urban Design 21 (4): 439–52. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13574809.2016.1184565.
Moher, David, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, and Douglas G Alt-
man. 2009. “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement.” PLoS Medicine 6 (7): e1000097.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
Myung, Jeeyeon, and Hanjong Jun. 2020. “Emotional Responses to Virtual
Reality-Based 3D Spaces: Focusing on ECG Response to Single-Person
Housing According to Different Plan Configurations.” Journal of Asian
Architecture and Building Engineering 19 (5): 445–57. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13467581.2020.1758111.
Nasar, Jack L. 1989. “Perception, Cognition, and Evaluation of Urban
Places.” In Public Places and Spaces, 31–56. Boston, MA: Springer US.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5601-1_3.
Neale, Chris, Peter Aspinall, Jenny Roe, Sara Tilley, Panagiotis Mavros,
Steve Cinderby, Richard Coyne, Neil Thin, and Catharine Ward Thomp-
son. 2020. “The Impact of Walking in Different Urban Environments
on Brain Activity in Older People.” Cities & Health 4 (1): 94–106.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2019.1619893.
Noland, Robert B., Marc D. Weiner, Dong Gao, Michael P. Cook, and Anton
Nelessen. 2017. “Eye-Tracking Technology, Visual Preference Surveys, and
Urban Design: Preliminary Evidence of an Effective Methodology.” Journal
of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainabil-
ity 10 (1): 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2016.1187197.
478 R. V. SHYNU AND A. SUSEELAN
Pieters, Rik, Michel Wedel, and Rajeev Batra. 2010. “The Stopping Power
of Advertising: Measures and Effects of Visual Complexity.” Journal of
Marketing 74 (5): 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.5.048.
Preston, Joan M. 2017. “Games, Dreams and Consciousness.” In Boundaries of
Self and Reality Online, 205–37. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
12-804157-4.00011-6.
Rupi, Krizek. 2019. “Visual Eye Gaze While Cycling: Analyzing Eye Tracking at
Signalized Intersections in Urban Conditions.” Sustainability 11 (21): 6089.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216089.
Schrom-Feiertag, Helmut, Volker Settgast, and Stefan Seer. 2017. “Evalua-
tion of Indoor Guidance Systems Using Eye Tracking in an Immersive
Virtual Environment.” Spatial Cognition & Computation 17 (1-2): 163–83.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13875868.2016.1228654.
Shemesh, Avishag, Gerry Leisman, Moshe Bar, and Yasha Jacob Grobman.
2021. “A Neurocognitive Study of the Emotional Impact of Geometri-
cal Criteria of Architectural Space.” Architectural Science Review 64 (4):
394–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2021.1940827.
Shemesh, Avishag, Ronen Talmon, Ofer Karp, Idan Amir, Moshe Bar, and
Yasha Jacob Grobman. 2017. “Affective Response to Architecture – Inves-
tigating Human Reaction to Spaces with Different Geometry.” Architec-
tural Science Review 60 (2): 116–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.
2016.1266597.
Simpson, James, Megan Freeth, Kimberley J. Simpson, and Kevin Thwaites.
2019a. “Visual Engagement with Urban Street Edges: Insights Using
Mobile Eye-Tracking.” Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Place-
making and Urban Sustainability 12 (3): 259–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17549175.2018.1552884.
Simpson, James, Kevin Thwaites, and Megan Freeth. 2019b. “Understanding
Visual Engagement with Urban Street Edges Along Non-Pedestrianised
and Pedestrianised Streets Using Mobile Eye-Tracking.” Sustainability 11
(15): 4251. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154251.
Stapel, Jork, Mounir El Hassnaoui, and Riender Happee. 2022. “Measur-
ing Driver Perception: Combining Eye-Tracking and Automated Road
Scene Perception.” Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society 64 (4): 714–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820
959958.
Stevens, Quentin. 2006. “The Shape of Urban Experience: A Reevaluation of
Lynch’s Five Elements.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design
33 (6): 803–23. https://doi.org/10.1068/b32043.
Sun, Xia, and Zao Li. 2020. “Use of Electroencephalography (EEG) for
Comparing Study of the External Space Perception of Traditional and
Modern Commercial Districts.” Journal of Asian Architecture and Build-
ing Engineering 00 (00): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2020.181
3586.
Taylor, Nigel. 2003. “The Aesthetic Experience of Traffic in the Modern City.”
Urban Studies 40 (8): 1609–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/004209803200
0094450.
Thwaites, K., E. Helleur, and I. M. Simkins. 2005. “Restorative Urban Open
Space: Exploring the Spatial Configuration of Human Emotional Ful-
filment in Urban Open Space.” Landscape Research 30 (4): 525–47.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390500273346.
Topolšek, Darja, Igor Areh, and Tina Cvahte. 2016. “Examination of
Driver Detection of Roadside Traffic Signs and Advertisements Using
Eye Tracking.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour 43 (November): 212–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.
10.002.
Vecchiato, Giovanni, Andrea Jelic, Gaetano Tieri, Anton Giulio Maglione, Fed-
erico De Matteis, and Fabio Babiloni. 2015. “Neurophysiological Correlates
of Embodiment and Motivational Factors During the Perception of Vir-
tual Architectural Environments.” Cognitive Processing 16 (S1): 425–29.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0725-6.
Velarde, Ma. D., G. Fry, and M. Tveit. 2007. “Health Effects of Viewing Land-
scapes – Landscape Types in Environmental Psychology.” Urban Forestry
& Urban Greening 6 (4): 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.07.
001.
Wang, Ying, and Beverley A. Sparks. 2016. “An Eye-Tracking Study of
Tourism Photo Stimuli.” Journal of Travel Research 55 (5): 588–602.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514564598.
Yamaguchi, Sunao, and Yasue Mitsukura. 2016. “Construction of Comfort
Evaluation System for Streetscape Improvement Using Electroencephalo-
gram.” In 2016 8th International Conference on Information Technology and
Electrical Engineering (ICITEE), 1–5. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITEED.
2016.7863290.
Zhang, Le-Min, Ruo-Xi Zhang, Tay-Sheng Jeng, and Zi-Yuan Zeng. 2019.
“Cityscape Protection Using VR and Eye Tracking Technology.” Journal
of Visual Communication and Image Representation 64 (October): 102639.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvcir.2019.102639.