The C O N N E C T I O N between N E U R O S C I E N C E and A R C H I T E C T U R E strives to be evidential to the effectiveness of design that improves patient experience and healing process. These investigations continue to not only attempt to measure the extent to which architecture causes emotional responses, but to identify how these responses can impact health. When these factors are determined, healing spaces can be better integrated into hospitals (Sternberg, 2009, pp7). The body provides scientists with indicators such as nerve chemicals in the brain, hormones and even ‘immune system molecules and stress-related chemicals in sweat’ (Sternberg, 2009, pp251), explaining the signals that define our senses and perception of space (Sternberg, 2009, pp13).
In an age where hospital architecture has largely detached from cultural, religious and spiritual influence and is based on its ability to accommodate increasing medical demand and technological advancements, it is becoming evident that the human response to our surroundings is vital at critical times in our health. Scientifically, and disputably whether it was of priority and interest, the notion that ‘emotional responses to architecture affect health’ (Sternberg, 2009, pp7) could not be measured prior to scientific advancements introduced in the late 20th century (Sternberg, 2009, pp10).
H O V E R O V E R M E
The first scientifically measured studies occurred in the 1980’s when Roger Ulrich, Professor of Architecture at Chalmers University of Technology, explored how hospital architecture impacts patients (Maddox, 2014). Studying gallbladder surgery patients, he revealed average post-operation stays reduced by 18 hours when subjected to views of nature in comparison to those with views of walls (Ulrich, 1992, pp24). Similar results highlighted fewer health complications and need for pain reducing drugs (Ulrich, 1992, pp20). Ulrich advises against poor wayfinding, poor lighting, sensory deprivation and spaces void of facilitating social support due to their impact on stress, increased blood pressure and extended hospital stays (Ulrich, 1992, pp20). Expanding on research, Associate Chair of Psychiatry at Stanford University, David Spiegel, conducted a study whereby breast cancer patients participating in group therapy lived up to eighteen months longer than those who did not attend (Heathcote and Jencks, 2010, pp39). Whilst not being a comment on architectural impact, spaces for human interaction support, such as recreational zones, could act as a secondary form of healthcare alongside medicine.
The degree that architecture can directly influence patient healing is disputed; with hospital design being largely influenced by economic efficiency factors. Of 2000 articles submitted between 1999 to 2002 on health and architecture only 35 ‘stood up to scientific scrutiny’ (From and Lundin, 2009, pp260-261). Referring to primary research results, 91 out of 93 survey participants stated that architecture and the design of spaces can support patient health and well-being, suggesting design is an important element of hospital planning.
Evidence-based design (EVB) is the most substantial research element between neuroscience and architecture. Originating from the USA during the 1980’s, it continues ‘to prove that stress-reducing factors, such as a reduced sound level and access to natural surroundings, aid the healing process’ (From and Lundin, 2009, pp251). EVB provides architects with the knowledge to create healing spaces that simultaneously accommodate high quality healthcare. EVB is not entirely patient focused; an increasing value is set on providing a positive workplace for staff to allow for efficient patient support (Bauer, 2014).
Hospitals are generally known to harbour stress. ‘A stressor knocks you out of homeostatic balance, and the stress response is what your body does to re-establish homeostasis’ (Sapolsky, 2004, pp7). The experience of waiting, busy staff schedules and noisy medical equipment are examples of common hospital stressors. With research revealing that stress affects our health thus slowing the physical healing process (Sternberg, 2009, pp226-227), reducing stress inducing factors has the potential to speed up rates of patient recovery. For instance, experiencing an unfamiliar environment can determine stress responses (Sternberg, 2009, pp99) and poses the idea that the stress of hospitals can be reduced from inception. In addition to providing a welcoming entrance, survey participants prioritised making hospitals easy to navigate, access to nature and control over their surroundings as methods of reducing stress.
FIG 22
FIG 23
FIG 24
FIG 26
HAYLEY MARCROFT
INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE | NTU
N0495471
FIG 25