Nour Tawil, an architect and scientist specializing in the intersection of architecture, psychology, and neuroscience. She was part of the inaugural “Neuroscience applied to Architectural Design” program at IUAV University in Venice and pursued her Ph.D. at the “Center for Environmental Neuroscience” at the Max Planck Institute in Berlin, where she continues to work as a post-doctoral researcher. Her research delves into the impact of architecture on the brain, striving to integrate scientific insights into architectural and urban practices to advance human-centric, evidence-based design approaches.
Natalia Olszewska: You’re an architect with a solid grounding in neuroscience. A few years ago, you embarked on a journey to add neuroscience to your professional background—not just through courses or self-education, but by studying in Venice and pursuing a PhD at Max Planck in Berlin. So, I think you’re the right person to answer this: Why do architects need neuroscience?
Nour Tawil: Architecture has traditionally been a discipline focused on creating spaces that promote wellness and comfort, often relying on intuition. The word “architecture” itself combines the ideas of principle and technique, or technology. Its goal has always been to merge technological advancements with principles that create healthy environments for humans.
Today, with increasing urbanization, growing mental health concerns worldwide, and challenges like climate change, we need new approaches to designing spaces that enhance human wellness. After the Industrial Revolution, the focus on wellness largely disappeared from design. Architecture became more functional, and often prioritized aesthetics or monumental design over placing humans at the center of the process.
Now, with advancements in neuroscience techniques, imaging, and related technologies, we can better understand how people process, engage with, and interact with their environments in real time. This perspective allows us to approach architecture as a tool for prevention. While I’m not suggesting that changing architectural features can cure conditions like psychosis, it can help alleviate many symptoms and even prevent mental health problems.
Natalia: What is the link between mental health and architecture? What theories are available today? What is the current state of knowledge about the connection between architecture and mental health? I know research is ongoing, but what evidence do we have today about this link?
Nour: There is evidence linking health, including mental health, to physical environments. For example, spaces that encourage physical activity can lead to better health outcomes, including mental health.
Several theories, such as the Attention Restoration Theory, Stress Reduction Theory, and Biophilia Hypothesis, highlight the beneficial effects of natural environments on mental health.
While these theories are also applied to built environments, specific architectural frameworks are still developing, and there isn’t yet a definitive theory that directly connects the built environment to mental health outcomes.
However, we do have studies showing certain connections between physical environments and brain structure and function.
For example, research from our group using georeferencing has shown that people living near forests have better amygdala integrity, which is a marker of amygdala’s health. The amygdala is a brain region that is activated during fear and stress response. In another study, my colleague Sonja Sudimac sent participants for a walk in an urban or natural environment.
She observed that exposure to natural environments, even for just a one-hour walk, decreased amygdala activity, suggesting that spending time in nature could alleviate stress at a neural level. These findings imply that integrating green spaces in architecture could enhance mental and brain health.
At the same time, there’s a growing body of work examining how architectural features influence human psychology. Architecture can evoke psychological responses, which can be either beneficial or detrimental to well-being.
We need more neuroscientific research, which provides objective measures, to establish clear causal relationships and build a solid framework that can inform policies, strategies, and procedures for creating spaces that promote mental health and wellness.
Natalia: Can I just add a comment from my medical perspective? We often create dichotomies between mental and physical health, but we know these processes are deeply intertwined. Psychological health affects the nervous system, which can impact the hormonal and immune systems, modulating responses.
For example, chronic stress influences health significantly. Exposure to architecture and the environments we experience daily undoubtedly affects health to some degree. Ongoing and future research will reveal more about the specific mechanisms and impacts.
Nour: Absolutely. There’s actually emerging research into the connection between architecture and immunology. I believe you’ve already interviewed Cleo Valentine, who’s working in this area.
What is Environmental Neuroscience?
Natalia: I’d like to delve into your research. Before we discuss your PhD work, could you explain the idea of environmental neuroscience? Where does it come from? We’ve spoken with others about combining neuroscience and architecture, but you work in a group focused on environmental neuroscience. What is its scope, and how does it differ from neuroarchitecture? Where are the research groups, and what are they working on?
Nour: Environmental neuroscience is an interdisciplinary field that combines methods from neuroscience, psychology, behavioral genetics, computer science, geography, architecture, and other disciplines to study how the brain reacts to multisensory environmental stimuli.
Our group recently published a paper outlining three main research objectives in environmental neuroscience:
- Identifying the specific components or “active ingredients” of physical environments that promote positive mental health outcomes.
- Determining the primary sensory channels through which these beneficial components are perceived.
- Uncovering the neural processes that underlie interactions with the physical environment.
By exploring both acute and long-term effects, the field aims to inform the design of healthier environments that enhance psychological well-being while identifying elements to preserve in the face of challenges like urbanization and climate change.
Unlike neuroarchitecture, which focuses on built spaces, environmental neuroscience examines the entire physical environment, including both natural and built spaces, and how they affect brain, behavior, and mental health.
This broader scope allows it to consider factors such as noise, air pollution, and green settings. Despite these differences, both disciplines aim to influence policies, design strategies, urban planning, and architecture.
Natalia: It sounds like the field also delves into molecular and genetic levels, making it much more complex. Could you share more about the origins of environmental neuroscience, its founders, and examples of recent projects?
Nour: The founder of our group is Professor Dr. Simone Kühn, who has a strong background in brain plasticity research. She previously conducted intervention studies aimed at promoting healthier lifestyles but found that people often reverted to old habits after training. This led to questions about environmental factors that could enhance quality of life.
Dr. Kühn founded the lab in 2019 as a Lise Meitner group at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin. In July 2024, the group evolved into a permanent research department, the Center for Environmental Neuroscience.
Another notable researcher is Professor Marc Berman from the University of Chicago. I would say that the discipline isn’t tied to any single founder; it’s the result of contributions from many researchers.
In our group, we focus on both acute and long-term effects. For acute effects, we use controlled lab experiments, such as virtual reality, to manipulate specific environmental features while keeping others constant.
We also conduct field studies, sending participants on walks or studying them in their living environments using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) tools and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).
For long-term effects, we investigate the relationship between habitats and brain structure and function. This involves analyzing brain scans from large cohort studies combined with georeferencing information. Georeferencing allows us to quantify environmental features, like tree density, air pollution, or proximity to amenities such as pharmacies or hospitals.
We also conduct twin studies, which help control for genetic factors, and use EMA methods alongside brain imaging techniques and cognitive testing. I hope this answers all your questions—there were quite a few!
Is Neuroarchitecture a Buzzword?
Natalia: Thank you. This is serious because we’re talking about the real, tangible impact of architecture on the human brain. When studying these effects, making claims, and applying research to projects, this is substantial work.
At the same time, I’m noticing growing interest from architects in neuroscience. Neuroarchitects are emerging all over the world, but many lack any formal preparation in the field. What’s your take on this? Is it good for the field that it’s becoming popular, or are we risking its reputation?
I remember reading about neuromarketing and how it gained popularity, but as more unqualified people entered the field, serious scientists had to distance themselves by founding a new discipline, experimental marketing.
Nour: Neuroarchitecture has recently become a buzzword in the media. The prefix “neuro” is added to many things to lend credibility.
I see this trend as somewhat positive because it shows that people are curious about the field. Of course, I’m not referring to those making false claims or offering services they aren’t qualified to provide. But the general interest in the topic could drive changes in education, encouraging systems to incorporate basic knowledge of human anatomy, perception, and cognition.
Despite the risks posed by false claims, this trend could help transform architecture and urban design into fields that are scientifically validated as beneficial for humans.
Michal: That seems to happen in other fields too. We live in an age where something becomes popular, hype builds, and everyone uses the term. Then, over time, knowledgeable and experienced individuals are distinguished from the rest. It takes time for this sorting process.
Nour: Exactly. This field is still very new. Frameworks are currently being developed, and applying these insights to architecture isn’t straightforward.
It’s not feasible to research every aspect of architecture. Even if there’s evidence for one beneficial factor, its implementation can vary significantly depending on the functionality of the project, the project brief, and its applicability.
Building a strong foundation for this field will take time. First, we have to convince clients of the importance of this approach and show them they’re investing in people’s well-being. At the same time, research in this area is still limited and scarce. We’re doing our best, but there’s a long way to go.
Natalia: This naturally leads to another question. Often, people argue that this is a new field and question whether we have enough evidence. I’ve heard different perspectives on this. Some believe that even though we need more evidence, we should apply what we already know whenever possible. They argue that the scarcity of evidence isn’t a reason to avoid using the research we have.
On the other hand, there’s the approach of translational research. While we need basic research, it’s worth considering how much of what we already know—about humans from psychology and neuroscience—can inform decisions that benefit building users.
Even though we’re not entirely sure how architectural features impact brain mechanisms or health, can this knowledge be applied now, keeping in mind that we’re making a leap of faith? What’s your take on that?
Nour: Definitely, starting somewhere is important. Architects often rely on intuition in their designs. The key is to shift the paradigm to incorporate more evidence-based approaches so we’re not relying purely on intuition. Why not support that with translational research, which provides insights into how humans interact with planned spaces, bridging the gap between basic research and practical application?
If we wait for basic research to provide data on every factor, combination, and solution, it would take hundreds of years. Therefore, it’s crucial to start somewhere and look at the design process differently—not just from the perspective of sketches or bubble diagrams, which often drive how designs are created. Instead, we should incorporate insights from years of research. Even if it requires a leap of faith, using scientific evidence to inform design is a valuable starting point.
Natalia: I’d love to hear more about your research interests. You could focus on your work during the Venice NAAD program, your PhD, or both. Beyond presenting the scope of your research, I’d like to know how these experiences have shaped you as a designer and architect. Where were you a few years ago, before entering this field, and where do you see yourself today?
Why People Prefer Curves
Nour: During my NAAD years, I was focused on mental health. My project involved proposing design changes for the psychiatric facility Villa San Pietro in Italy, which sparked my interest in further researching the links between architecture and mental health.
When I started my PhD, I initially wanted to conduct research with populations suffering from mental disorders. However, we realized that studying healthy populations first was necessary to build a foundation for testing those with mental health challenges.
In my PhD, I investigated how angularity and curvature in interior environments affect psychological outcomes. Based on previous evidence for a preference for curvature, we conducted a virtual reality study immersing participants in four contrasting rooms, two angular and two curved conditions, which were fully matched and rendered with realistic effects. Interestingly, we didn’t find the expected effects on a broad set of psychological domains, which surprised us.
We then generated images of these environments and exposed participants to them. This approach revealed significant positive effects of curvature on aesthetic preferences, stress responses, and approach-avoidance behavior (measured through reaction time tasks).
While the effects were present when showing participants images, the realism of the virtual environments or maybe the presentation mode may have influenced the impact of angularity and curvature.
We are now exploring brain activity in response to these environments. Instead of static images, we’ve created dynamic exploration videos of the spaces. We’re combining virtual reality with magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to create an immersive experience inside the scanner. One limitation of traditional fMRI studies is the lack of immersion when viewing static images.
These experiences have profoundly shaped me as an architect. Although I have always been interested in human-centric design, a few years ago, I was primarily focused on traditional design methods. Today, I see myself more and more committed to integrating scientific insights into architectural practice, aiming to create environments that enhance mental health and well-being.
Michal: Can you summarize what you found in the study? You mentioned effects on approach and avoidance when comparing environments with more curvature versus angular forms. What does that mean? How did behavior or preferences change?
Nour: In terms of approach-avoidance tendencies, we used tasks typically applied in social psychology, such as the Implicit Association Task (IAT) and the Stimulus-Response Compatibility Task (SRCT), which measure biases or automatic tendencies.
In the IAT, participants were shown images of the environments that had either curved or angular features. They were asked to assign these images to pairs of categories displayed on top of the screen. For congruent pairings, “angular” was mapped with “avoid,” and “curved” with “approach.” For incongruent pairings, the categories were reversed.
This method measures semantic associations between the concepts of approach-avoidance and angularity-curvature. So, the faster participants respond to either congruent or incongruent trials, this would indicate the way these categories are paired on the screen corresponds to how they are mapped in their mental representations.
We found from participants’ reaction times that they associated curvature with approach and angularity with avoidance, with a medium effect size. While this task established the presence of semantic biases, it doesn’t identify whether the effect stems from an approach towards curvature or an avoidance of angularity.
The SRCT helped clarify this. In this task, participants were shown a stimulus (angular or curved) with a mannequin above or below it. They had to move the mannequin toward or away from the stimulus based on its angularity or curvature.
We found distinct biases in motoric representations. Participants approached curvature faster than they avoided it. However, they were relatively indifferent to approaching or avoiding angularityGenerally, participants approached both form categories similarly, but it required them more effort to avoid curvature, suggesting an attraction to curvature that made it harder to disengage.
Michal: What’s the theoretical discussion behind these findings? Why do you think this happens?
Nour: There are two main explanations. One comes from Bar and Neta’s 2007 seminal study. They proposed that a preference for curvature arises from evolutionary adaptive behaviors. Humans may have developed the ability to quickly detect and avoid edginess, which could signal danger. Their fMRI study showed increased amygdala activation when participants viewed edgy objects. This supports the idea that the effect is rooted in avoidance of edginess.
Other researchers challenged this view, suggesting instead that curves, which resemble more to natural forms, may be inherently attractive and elicit a pleasant response, encouraging approach behaviors, as was observed in a study by Bertamini and Palumbo in the context of abstract shapes.
Curves might draw people in, make them linger longer, or facilitate better interaction. Another research by Vartanian and colleagues found evidence for the activation of reward-related regions when people were exposed to curvilinear designs, but no amygdala activity in response to rectilinear ones.
The evidence we’ve found so far (with matched architectural stimuli) leans towards the pleasantness of curves rather than a threat posed by angles. In our next experiment, we’ll investigate brain activations in areas related to stress (to represent avoidance) as well as reward (to represent the pleasantness or approach effect of curves).
Michal: It’s interesting, especially when we think about biophilic design. The concept encourages using natural elements to improve outcomes. With findings like these, it seems we could go beyond merely incorporating nature into designs. We could refine environments to be even better than nature by emphasizing the elements we respond to most positively. It’s like hacking our natural tendencies to create optimal environments, right?
Nour: These results suggest that curvature could be considered a biophilic parameter. However, I agree that more research is needed. First, we need to identify the specific beneficial effects of nature and which parameters are responsible for them. Is it the greenery, forms, fractals, light, or something else? Once we understand these effects, we can integrate those beneficial factors into our built environments to replicate nature’s advantages.
Natalia: I really like your perspective on selecting the best aspects of nature and using patterns to advance architecture. It reminds me of something I mention when speaking with potential clients or advocating for neuroscience-informed design. Architecture’s function has evolved over time. Initially, spaces were designed for survival. Later, they became spiritual spaces, like temples, and even intersected with healing and medicine in some cultures.
Eventually, architecture fused with decor, especially during the 17th century, when the bourgeoisie embraced the idea of decorating their homes. Now, in the 21st century, perhaps we can think of spaces as non-invasive therapies. I like the concept of “spatial therapy,” where spaces become tools to prevent disease or optimize cognitive and psychological functioning.
Could this be the future of architecture? A means to enhance human functioning? While many people look toward technology and transhumanism to solve humanity’s problems, could architecture also play a role in extending or improving our lives?
Nour: I like to think it could. My motivation in research is to explore how architecture can help people in their daily lives. Once we better understand the effects of architectural elements—or architecture as a whole—on human beings, we can move toward prevention and treatment through design. This approach could lead to spaces that not only support but actively enhance cognitive and psychological well-being, making architecture a vital component in improving quality of life.
Michal: Could you share some projects, spaces, or buildings that successfully apply the principles we’ve discussed? Even if the creators didn’t consciously use neuroscience or psychology, are there spaces aligned with what we know benefits mental and physical health?
Nour: One example is Copenhagen’s “Kid’s City Christianshavn,” designed by COBE architects. It’s a youth club and preschool built to the scale of children, offering diverse play and learning spaces. There are quiet areas for thinking and active areas for play, showing how diversity in design can support learning and growth.
Another example is the Maggie’s Cancer Centres, found in the UK and other locations. These are excellent examples of healing architecture, featuring large windows, private gardens, and spaces designed to foster interaction and comfort.
Finally, I’d mention the concept of “Green Schools,” located in Bali, New Zealand, and South Africa. These schools emphasize sustainability and aim to enhance student well-being and engagement by maintaining a strong connection to nature.
Enjoyed this article?
Support our mission with just €1! Your donation keeps our website running and supports the spread of knowledge about creating places that are good for people.