Architecture with Neuroscience Applications
(Following is a summary of our discussion from the recent Woods Hole workshop on “Mapping Memory of Space and Place” where we used the Krasnow addition as a case study to structure a working session on design approach with neuroscience applications.)
Discussion Group Participants included:
Matthew A. Wilson, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, group moderator
Meredith Banasiak, ANFA
Discussion Group Participants included:
Matthew A. Wilson, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, group moderator
Meredith Banasiak, ANFA
John Eberhard, FAIA, ANFA
Roger Goldstein, FAIA, Goody Clancy Associates
Roger Goldstein, FAIA, Goody Clancy Associates
Merlin Lickhalter, FAIA, FACHA, Academy of Architecture for Health
Fred Marks, AIA, ANFA
Upali Nanda, Ph.D., ANFA
James Olds, Ph.D., Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study
Steven Senft, Ph.D., Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study
Ron Skaggs, FAIA, HKS Architects
Krasnow, as an interdisciplinary cognitive research institute, requires the following 4 categories of spaces:
- Collaborative space (nodes and hubs and the links between them)
- Research Labs
- Core facilities
- Retreat/sanctuary
Collaborative spaces:
Studies on topological continuity in rat experiments indicate that spaces are stored in memory according to their contiguity versus their metric distances (cognitive proximity versus metric proximity). Impediments and barriers – visual, physical or psychological – create disparate memories of distinct spaces. A barrier within a space confers two spaces versus one single space. This cognitive disconnect/separation of space also restricts physical movement between areas. By increasing physical connectivity, we can reduce the impediments/barriers to collaboration, the impediments being defined as anything that segregates space and therefore people. This can be achieved by increasing physical connectivity (thereby decreasing the number of memories of disparate spaces), or, in instances where a disconnect is forced to occur (e.g., a vertical level change between floors), we can create a necessity for the barrier to be transgressed. The free flowing of ideas is directly related to the free flowing of the architecture; collaborative free flow must be contiguous space.
Architects have conventionally grouped things like demountable walls, doors, and transparent (glass) walls / windows into a “soft-barrier” category (like the semi-permeable membrane). Research in animal studies has shown that these are perceived by the brain as barriers nonetheless. A window may create an opportunity for visual exploration but it does not serve to unite two spaces. Though regarded as easily surmountable barriers, they still disconnect the space, serve to create disparate memories of spaces, and restrict movement. When a partition is put in place, one space physically and perceptually becomes multiple spaces and results in a diminished opportunity for movement between spaces.
We have mentioned one of the two major issues of collegiate design – movement between spaces. In addition to getting people to flow to a space, we also need to design stopping points – to encourage people to linger within a space. “Placemaking” can be achieved with spatial calibrators: 3-D objects which are interactive make a greater memory (and therefore richer experience) because they engage more neural responses. More cells are dedicated when space is interactive across diverse or multiple behaviors (versus strictly circulation, or spaces where nothing happens) with the result being that the associated places are more salient, more important.
Two-dimensional architectural attempts to define a space (such as changing the wall color) have proven to be weak cues with respect to placemaking. The most effective strategy is to place 3-D, interactive objects and instruments at critical intersections.
Daylight is a successful orienting cue and wayfinding device because it provides an external frame of reference as well as clues to cardinal direction, time of day, and weather. Circulation spaces are often devoid of natural light because they occur in the most inner regions of a building, flanked by rooms on all sides. A narrow, double loaded corridor (meaning that it can be entered from rooms on either side) that does not have an external frame of reference or stopping points along its length can actually prove to be a stressful space to occupy and therefore will inhibit collegiate interactions. If we think of this in terms of a freeway analogy, I know that I become a more nervous driver when there is traffic entering and exiting on both the right and left, and in tunnel situations where there is not an opportunity to stop or exit, and there is no external frame of reference.
Research Labs:
While I do not have scientific based evidence to apply to this category, the presiding architectural theory is that lab planning must be autonomous in granting the end users the ability to determine their own future, and the freedom to make changes as necessary. This is very much in line with the “Labs must be flexible” assumption.
Core facilities:
While research labs need to be flexible, it is important to note that there are certain specialized lab facilities which require complex walls, security and infrastructure.
Retreat/Sanctuary:
Research indicates that when rats are engaged in consummatory behaviors (e.g. eating, grooming and defecating), they enter into memory recall mode. The architecture associated with these activities should support memory recall and therefore be designed as sensory environments which placate the limbic system to facilitate recall and stimulate memory. Private offices or lounge areas might have similar qualities in that they are safe, familiar, and comfortable so as to set the stage for the scientific “Eureka” moment to occur.
Fred Marks, AIA, ANFA
Upali Nanda, Ph.D., ANFA
James Olds, Ph.D., Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study
Steven Senft, Ph.D., Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study
Ron Skaggs, FAIA, HKS Architects
Krasnow, as an interdisciplinary cognitive research institute, requires the following 4 categories of spaces:
- Collaborative space (nodes and hubs and the links between them)
- Research Labs
- Core facilities
- Retreat/sanctuary
Collaborative spaces:
Studies on topological continuity in rat experiments indicate that spaces are stored in memory according to their contiguity versus their metric distances (cognitive proximity versus metric proximity). Impediments and barriers – visual, physical or psychological – create disparate memories of distinct spaces. A barrier within a space confers two spaces versus one single space. This cognitive disconnect/separation of space also restricts physical movement between areas. By increasing physical connectivity, we can reduce the impediments/barriers to collaboration, the impediments being defined as anything that segregates space and therefore people. This can be achieved by increasing physical connectivity (thereby decreasing the number of memories of disparate spaces), or, in instances where a disconnect is forced to occur (e.g., a vertical level change between floors), we can create a necessity for the barrier to be transgressed. The free flowing of ideas is directly related to the free flowing of the architecture; collaborative free flow must be contiguous space.
Architects have conventionally grouped things like demountable walls, doors, and transparent (glass) walls / windows into a “soft-barrier” category (like the semi-permeable membrane). Research in animal studies has shown that these are perceived by the brain as barriers nonetheless. A window may create an opportunity for visual exploration but it does not serve to unite two spaces. Though regarded as easily surmountable barriers, they still disconnect the space, serve to create disparate memories of spaces, and restrict movement. When a partition is put in place, one space physically and perceptually becomes multiple spaces and results in a diminished opportunity for movement between spaces.
We have mentioned one of the two major issues of collegiate design – movement between spaces. In addition to getting people to flow to a space, we also need to design stopping points – to encourage people to linger within a space. “Placemaking” can be achieved with spatial calibrators: 3-D objects which are interactive make a greater memory (and therefore richer experience) because they engage more neural responses. More cells are dedicated when space is interactive across diverse or multiple behaviors (versus strictly circulation, or spaces where nothing happens) with the result being that the associated places are more salient, more important.
Two-dimensional architectural attempts to define a space (such as changing the wall color) have proven to be weak cues with respect to placemaking. The most effective strategy is to place 3-D, interactive objects and instruments at critical intersections.
Daylight is a successful orienting cue and wayfinding device because it provides an external frame of reference as well as clues to cardinal direction, time of day, and weather. Circulation spaces are often devoid of natural light because they occur in the most inner regions of a building, flanked by rooms on all sides. A narrow, double loaded corridor (meaning that it can be entered from rooms on either side) that does not have an external frame of reference or stopping points along its length can actually prove to be a stressful space to occupy and therefore will inhibit collegiate interactions. If we think of this in terms of a freeway analogy, I know that I become a more nervous driver when there is traffic entering and exiting on both the right and left, and in tunnel situations where there is not an opportunity to stop or exit, and there is no external frame of reference.
Research Labs:
While I do not have scientific based evidence to apply to this category, the presiding architectural theory is that lab planning must be autonomous in granting the end users the ability to determine their own future, and the freedom to make changes as necessary. This is very much in line with the “Labs must be flexible” assumption.
Core facilities:
While research labs need to be flexible, it is important to note that there are certain specialized lab facilities which require complex walls, security and infrastructure.
Retreat/Sanctuary:
Research indicates that when rats are engaged in consummatory behaviors (e.g. eating, grooming and defecating), they enter into memory recall mode. The architecture associated with these activities should support memory recall and therefore be designed as sensory environments which placate the limbic system to facilitate recall and stimulate memory. Private offices or lounge areas might have similar qualities in that they are safe, familiar, and comfortable so as to set the stage for the scientific “Eureka” moment to occur.
posted by Meredith Banasiak, ANFA @ 10:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home