journal article·2023-11-06Open access

Using Eye Tracking to Reveal Responses to the Built Environment and Its Constituents

Hernan J. Rosas, Ann Sussman, Abigail C. Sekely, Alexandros A. Lavdas

Applied Sciences· Volume 13· Issue 21

Abstract

Eye-tracking technology has numerous applications in both commercial and research contexts. The recent introduction of affordable wearable sensors has significantly broadened the scope of potential uses, spanning fields such as computer gaming, education, entertainment, health, neuromarketing, and psychology, among others. Another development is the use of downloadable software, which permits participants to record their responses to presented images with the use of calibrated webcams without leaving their homes, allowing for easier recruitment of larger numbers of study volunteers online. This paper reviews findings from seven Building Studies conducted by the Human Architecture + Planning Institute with iMotions-Online eye-tracking software, highlighting the significance of the new technology and its ability to assess the human experience of the built environment, as well as its limitations. Overall, images with a certain type of organized complexity, such as that found in nature and pre-modern architecture, attracted the gaze faster and kept it for significantly longer, as compared to images lacking these features. These results add to our existing knowledge about environmental complexity and give us insights into non-conscious and early conscious actions such as first gaze attraction, helping us understand the role of specific morphological features in the architectural/environmental experience.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Urban Green Space and Health · Multisensory perception and integration · Aesthetic Perception and Analysis

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

The Human Architecture and Planning Institute, Inc., 43 Bradford St, Concord, MA 01742, USA

School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation, The University of Maryland, 3835 Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20742, USA

Eurac Research, Institute for Biomedicine, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Via A. Volta 21, 39100 Bolzano, Italy

Department of Psychology, Webster University, Athens Campus, 9 Ipitou Street, 10557 Athens, Greece

References (39)

Show source-provided references
1. Lisińska-Kuśnierz, M., and Krupa, M. (2020). Suitability of Eye Tracking in Assessing the Visual Perception of Architecture-A Case Study Concerning Selected Projects Located in Cologne. Buildings, 10.10.3390/buildings10020020 ↗
2. Eye-tracking Boston City Hall to better understand human perception and the architectural experience
3. Zou, Z., Yu, X., and Ergan, S. (2019). Integrating Biometric Sensors, VR, and Machine Learning to Classify EEG Signals in Alternative Architecture Designs. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2019.10.1061/9780784482421.022 ↗
4. Lavdas, A.A., and Salingaros, N.A. (2022). Architectural Beauty: Developing a Measurable and Objective Scale. Challenges, 13.10.3390/challe13020056 ↗
5. Lavdas, A.A., Salingaros, N.A., and Sussman, A. (2021). Visual Attention Software: A New Tool for Understanding the “Subliminal” Experience of the Built Environment. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11136197 ↗
6. Sussman, A., and Ward, J. (2023, August 01). Game-Changing Eye-Tracking Studies Reveal How We Actually See Architecture. Available online: https://commonedge.org/game-changing-eye-tracking-studies-reveal-how-we-actually-see-architecture/.
7. Computational modelling of visual attention10.1038/35058500 ↗
8. Tollner, T., Zehetleitner, M., Gramann, K., and Muller, H.J. (2011). Stimulus saliency modulates pre-attentive processing speed in human visual cortex. PLoS ONE, 6.10.1371/journal.pone.0016276 ↗
9. Perseus Books LLC (2015). Places of the Heart: The Psychogeography of Everyday Life, Perseus.
10. Characterizing the psychophysiological signature of boredom10.1007/s00221-013-3755-2 ↗
11. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl King, I., and Angel, S. (1977). A Pattern Language, Oxford University Press.
12. Reduction of Physiological Stress Using Fractal Art and Architecture10.1162/leon.2006.39.3.245 ↗
13. Perceptual and Physiological Responses to Jackson Pollock’s Fractals10.3389/fnhum.2011.00060 ↗
14. How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self-similarity and fractional dimension10.1126/science.156.3775.636 ↗
15. Self-similarity and recursion as default modes in human cognition10.1016/j.cortex.2016.08.016 ↗
16. Fractal image perception provides novel insights into hierarchical cognition10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.03.064 ↗
17. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery10.1126/science.6143402 ↗
18. Beyond toxicity: Human health and the natural environment10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00317-2 ↗
19. Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: The case of biophilic architecture10.1037/1089-2680.11.4.305 ↗
20. The laws of architecture from a physicist’s perspective10.4006/1.3029208 ↗
21. A Scientific Basis for Creating Architectural Forms
22. Salingaros, N.A., and Mehaffy, M.W. (2006). A Theory of Architecture, Umbau-Verlag.
23. Salingaros, N.A. (2013). Unified Architectural Theory: Form, Language, Complexity: A Companion to Christopher Alexander’s “The Phenomenon of Life: The Nature of Order, Book 1”, Sustasis Foundation.
24. Beauty in Architecture: Not a Luxury—Only a Necessity
25. NCAS (2023, August 01). Americans’ Preferred Architecture for Federal Buildings. Available online: https://www.civicart.org/americans-preferred-architecture-for-federal-buildings.
26. iMotions (2023, October 21). iMotions. Available online: https://imotions.com/.
27. Lavdas, A.A., and Schirpke, U. (2020). Aesthetic preference is related to organized complexity. PLoS ONE, 15.10.1371/journal.pone.0235257 ↗
28. Robinson, S., and Pallasmaa, J. (2015). Mind in Architecture: Neuroscience, Embodiment, and the Future of Design, MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/10318.001.0001 ↗
29. The neuroaesthetics of architectural spaces10.1007/s10339-021-01043-4 ↗
30. Buildings, Beauty, and the Brain: A Neuroscience of Architectural Experience10.1162/jocn_a_01146 ↗
31. “P < 0.05” Might Not Mean What You Think: American Statistical Association Clarifies P Values10.1093/jnci/djw194 ↗
32. Newborn infants prefer attractive faces10.1016/S0163-6383(98)90011-X ↗
33. Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces10.1037/0012-1649.27.1.79 ↗
34. Pulvinar neurons reveal neurobiological evidence of past selection for rapid detection of snakes10.1073/pnas.1312648110 ↗
35. Infants learn better from left to right: A directional bias in infants’ sequence learning10.1038/s41598-017-02466-w ↗
36. Is it only humans that count from left to right?10.1098/rsbl.2009.0960 ↗
37. Affective Response to Architecture—Investigating Human Reaction to Spaces with Different Geometry10.1080/00038628.2016.1266597 ↗
38. Exploring a sustainable building’s impact on occupant mental health and cognitive function in a virtual environment10.1038/s41598-021-85210-9 ↗
39. Valentine, C. (2023). Health Implications of Virtual Architecture: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Transferability of Findings from Neuroarchitecture. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 20.10.3390/ijerph20032735 ↗