People’s interactions with the environment shape their experiences. Thus, understanding these interactions is critical to enhancing human well-being. Aural attributes play a significant role in shaping the perception of space in addition to visual attributes. It is well known that sounds evoke an emotional response, but less is known about how the acoustic characteristics of environments reinforce such an emotional impact. By adopting virtual reality as a platform for recreating 3D sounds and 360° visuals of built environments of worship spaces as case studies, this study aims to investigate the influence of the acoustic environment considering audiovisual congruency on enhancing the human experience through self-report and physiological response analysis. It also examines the role of cultural background in terms of familiarity with the acoustic environment. The convergent mixed-methods approach, merging both quantitative and qualitative analysis, provides a deep understanding of the role of the acoustic environment in enhancing the auditory experience. The results show that the acoustic environment and audiovisual congruency amplify the intensity of the emotional impact, and the amplification of the impact can vary depending on the acoustic environment of the building. They also reveal that familiarity with sound and acoustic characteristics can increase this impact.
BowerITuckerREnticottPG. Impact of built environment design on emotion measured via neurophysiological correlates and subjective indicators: a systematic review. J Environ Psychol2019; 66: 101344.
2.
KaplanRKaplanS. Humanscape: environments for people. Ann Arbor, MI: Ulrich’s Books, 1982.
3.
MarchandGCNardiNMReynoldsD, et al. The impact of the classroom built environment on student perceptions and learning. J Environ Psychol2014; 40: 187–197.
4.
ScopellitiMVittoria GiulianiM. Choosing restorative environments across the lifespan: a matter of place experience. J Environ Psychol2004; 24(4): 423–437.
5.
XieHGeYLuoF. Effects of socio-economic indicators on perceptions of urban acoustic environments in Chinese megacities. Indoor Built Environ2021; 30: 1663–1675.
6.
LeeHParkJLeeJ. Comparison between psychological responses to ‘object colour produced by paint colour’ and ‘object colour produced by light source’. Indoor Built Environ2021; 30: 502–519.
7.
BlesserBSalterL-R. Spaces speak, are you listening?: experiencing aural architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007.
8.
GiménezACibriánRMCerdáS, et al. Mismatches between objective parameters and measured perception assessment in room acoustics: a holistic approach. Build Environ2014; 74: 119–131.
9.
Álvarez-MoralesLZamarreñoTGirónS, et al. A methodology for the study of the acoustic environment of catholic cathedrals: application to the cathedral of Malaga. Build Environ2014; 72: 102–115.
10.
BeranekL. Concert halls and opera houses. New York, NY: Springer, 2004.
11.
PätynenJLokkiT. Concert halls with strong and lateral sound increase the emotional impact of orchestra music. J Acoust Soc Am2016; 139: 1214–1224.
12.
AndoY. Opera house acoustics based on subjective preference theory. Tokyo, Japan: Springer, 2015.
13.
Álvarez-MoralesLGirónSGalindoM, et al. Acoustic environment of Andalusian cathedrals. Build Environ2016; 103: 182–192.
14.
ElicioLMartellottaF. Acoustics as a cultural heritage: the case of orthodox churches and of the ‘Russian church’ in Bari. J Cult Herit2015; 16: 912–917.
15.
SuárezRAlonsoASendraJJ. Archaeoacoustics of intangible cultural heritage: the sound of the Maior Ecclesia of Cluny. J Cult Herit2016; 19: 567–572.
16.
MaffeiLBrambillaGDi GabrieleM. Soundscape as part of the cultural Heritage. In: KangJSchulte-FortkampB (eds) Soundscape and the built environment. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2016, pp.215–242.
17.
KleinerMKlepperDLTorresRR. Worship space acoustics. Fort Lauderdale, FL: J Ross Publishing, 2010.
18.
CirilloEMartellottaF. Acoustics and architecture in Italian Catholic churches. In: International symposium on room acoustics, Seville, 10–12 September 2007.
19.
AlgargooshAS. Review of aspects that shape the aural experience in worship spaces. In: Proceedings of meetings on acoustics 22ICA, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 5–9 September 2016.
20.
DawsonMESchellAMFilionDL. The electrodermal system. In: BerntsonGCacioppoJTTassinaryLG (eds) Handbook of Psychophysiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp.159–181.
21.
JaimovichJ. Emotion recognition from physiological indicators for musical applications. Belfast: Queen’s University Belfast, 2013.
22.
JaimovichJCoghlanNKnappRB. Emotion in motion: a study of music and affective response. In: AramakiMBarthetMKronland-MartinetR, et al. (eds) From sounds to music and emotions. CMMR 2012. Lecture notes in computer science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2013, pp.19–43.
23.
ZenterMEerolaT. Self-report measures and models. In: JuslinPNSlobodaJA (eds) Handbook of music and emotion: theory, research, applications. Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp.187–221.
24.
LubmanD. Acoustics at the shrine of St. Werburgh. J Acoust Soc Am2004; 116: 2500–2500.
25.
HaleSE. Sacred space, sacred sound the acoustic mysteries of Holy Places. Wheaton: Quest Books, 2007.
26.
PentchevaBV. Hagia Sophia and multisensory aesthetics. Gesta2011; 50: 93–111.
27.
LiZKangJ. Sensitivity analysis of changes in human physiological indicators observed in soundscapes. Landsc Urban Plan2019; 190: 103593.
28.
MedvedevOShepherdDHautusMJ. The restorative potential of soundscapes: a physiological investigation. Appl Acoust2015; 96: 20–26.
29.
CainRJenningsPPoxonJ. The development and application of the emotional dimensions of a soundscape. Appl Acoust2013; 74(2): 232–239.
30.
YilmazerSAcunV. A grounded theory approach to assess indoor soundscape in historic religious spaces of Anatolian culture: a case study on Hacı Bayram mosque. Build Acoust2018; 25: 137–150.
31.
CoxTJ. The sound book: the science of the sonic wonders of the world. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2014.
32.
HunterMDEickhoffSBPheasantRJ, et al. The state of tranquility: subjective perception is shaped by contextual modulation of auditory connectivity. Neuroimage2010; 53: 611–618.
33.
Tajadura-JiménezALarssonPVäljamäeA, et al. When room size matters: acoustic influences on emotional responses to sounds. Emotion2010; 10: 416–422.
34.
GuillebaudCLavandierC. Worship sound spaces: architecture, acoustics and anthropology. London; New York, NY: Routledge, 2020.
35.
SchroederMRGottlobDSiebrasseKF. Comparative study of European concert halls: correlation of subjective preference with geometric and acoustic parameters. J Acoust Soc Am1974; 56: 1195–1201.
36.
ISO 3382-1. Acoustics—measurement of room acoustic parameters—part 1: performance spaces. Geneva: International Standards Organization, 2009.
37.
GalianaMLlinaresCPageÁ. Impact of architectural variables on acoustic perception in concert halls. J Environ Psychol2016; 48: 108–119.
38.
PreisAKocińskiJHafke-DysH, et al. Audio-visual interactions in environment assessment. Sci Total Environ2015; 523: 191–200.
39.
HodgesDA. Psyco-physiological measures. In: JuslinPSlobodaJ (eds) Handbook of music and emotion: theory, research, applications. Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp.279–311.
40.
BradleyMMLangPJ. Emotion and motivation. In: BerntsonGCacioppoJTTassinaryLG (eds) Handbook of Psychophysiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp.581–607.
41.
ChamilothoriKChinazzoGRodriguesJ, et al. Subjective and physiological responses to façade and sunlight pattern geometry in virtual reality. Build Environ2019; 150: 144–155.
42.
ParkSHLeePJJeongJH. Effects of noise sensitivity on psychophysiological responses to building noise. Build Environ2018; 136: 302–311.
43.
GuanHHuSLuM, et al. People’s subjective and physiological responses to the combined thermal-acoustic environments. Build Environ2020; 172: 106709.
44.
LuckGToiviainenPErkkiläJ, et al. Modelling the relationships between emotional responses to, and musical content of, music therapy improvisations. Psychol Music2008; 36: 25–45.
45.
DeutschD. The psychology of music. 3rd ed.London; Waltham, MA: Academic, 2013.
46.
GarbarinoMLaiMBenderDPicardRWTognettiS. Empatica E3—A wearable wireless multi-sensor device for real-time computerized biofeedback and data acquisition. In 2014 4th International Conference on Wireless Mobile Communication and Healthcare-Transforming Healthcare Through Innovations in Mobile and Wireless Technologies (MOBIHEALTH). IEEE, November 2014, pp.39–42.
SchubertE. When is an event in a time-series significant? In: SchubertEBuckleyKEliottR, et al. (eds) The inaugural international conference on music communication science. Sydney, Australia: ARC Research Network in Human Communication Science (HCSNet), University of Western Sydney, 2007, pp.135–138.
49.
BraithwaiteJWatsonDJonesR. A guide for analysing electrodermal activity (EDA) & skin conductance responses (SCRs) for psychological experiments. Psychophysiology2013; 49: 1017–1034.
50.
SchubertE. Continous self-report methods. In: JuslinPSlobodaJ (eds) Handbook of music and emotion: theory, research, applications. Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp.223–253.
VästfjällDLarssonPKleinerM. Emotion and auditory virtual environments: affect-based judgments of music reproduced with virtual reverberation times. Cyberpsychol Behav2002; 5: 19–32.
53.
MurphyDShelleySFoteinouABreretonJDaffernH. Acoustic heritage and audio creativity: the creative application of sound in the representation, Understanding and experience of past environments 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/2436/620678. DOI: 10.11141/ia.44.12.
54.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO/TS 12913 2:2018 acoustics—soundscape—part 2: data collection and reporting requirements. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO, 2018.
55.
HamilakisY. Archaeology and the senses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
