People spend nearly 90% of their time indoors, yet the cognitive and emotional effects of office environments remain poorly understood. This study explored the neural impacts of biophilic and spatial features in immersive virtual office settings using electroencephalography (EEG). Ten participants viewed ten 360° office scenarios categorised as either positively (VS1) or negatively (VS2) perceived based on natural light, window-to-wall ratio, greenery, material and spatial openness. It was hypothesised that (1) biophilic features would increase alpha and theta activity in occipital and parietal regions, reflecting attentional recovery and emotional regulation; and (2) open, visually complex layouts would enhance beta and theta activity in frontal and parietal regions, indicating attentional engagement. Results supported both hypotheses. Compared with VS2, VS1 environments elicited significantly higher alpha power at occipital (O1) and frontal (F8) sites, theta power at parietal (P4) and frontal regions and beta activity in temporal regions (T4) (p < 0.05). These neural responses are associated with greater comfort, visual processing and cognitive engagement. By identifying neurophysiological markers of comfort and engagement, this study offers evidence-based guidance for designing occupant-centric offices that promote well-being and productivity. Future research should increase participant diversity, examine longer exposures and incorporate multi-modal physiological data.
Clements-CroomeDJ. Creating the productive workplace. New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis, 2018.
2.
KepezOÜstS. Furniture configurations in an active learning classroom make further differences in student outcomes. Archnet-IJAR: Int J Archit Res2024; 18: 121–141.
3.
SchweikerMAmpatziEAndargieMSAndersenRKAzarEBarthelmesVMBergerCBourikasLCarlucciSChinazzoGEdappillyLPFaveroMGauthierSJamrozikAKaneMMahdaviAPiselliCPiselloALRoetzelARysanekASharmaKZhangS. Review of multidomain approaches to indoor environmental perception and behaviour. Build Environ2020; 176: 106804.
4.
AslanoluRKazakJKvan HoofJ. Mindful design for well-being: exploring neuroarchitecture in the built environment. Indoor Built Environ2025; 34: 1447–1452.
5.
BlackenbergerDVan Den WymelenbergKStensonJ. Visual effects of wood on thermal perception of interior environments. In Proceedings of the Architectural Research Centres Consortium 2019 International Conference. Toronto, Canada. 29 May–1 June 2019; pp.631–639. https://www.arcc-journal.org/index.php/repository/article/view/619/493.
6.
JafarianHDemersCBlanchetPLaundryV. Effects of interior wood finishes on the lighting ambiance and materiality of architectural spaces. Indoor Built Environ2017; 27: 786–804.
7.
LederSNewshamGRVeitchJAManciniSCharlesKE. Effects of office environment on employee satisfaction: a new analysis. Build Res Inf2016; 44: 34–50.
8.
BrennanAChughJSKlineT. Traditional versus open office design: a longitudinal field study. Environ Behav2002; 34: 279–299.
9.
YeomSKimHHongTLeeM. Determining the optimal window size of office buildings considering the workers’ task performance and the building's energy consumption. Build Environ2020; 177: 106872.
10.
MoscosoCChamilothoriKWienoldJAndersenMMatusiakB. Window size effects on subjective impressions of daylit spaces: indoor studies at high latitudes using virtual reality. Leukos2021; 17: 242–264.
11.
KoWHKentMGSchiavonSLevittBBettiG. A window view quality assessment framework. Leukos2022; 18: 268–293.
12.
AydoganACeroneR. Review of the effects of plants on indoor environments. Indoor Built Environ2021; 30: 442–460.
13.
KellertSRWilsonEO. The biophilia hypothesis. Washington DC: Island Press, 1993.
14.
RyanCOBrowningWDClancyJOAndrewsSLKallianpurkarNB. Biophilic design patterns: emerging nature-based parameters for health and well-being in the built environment. ArchNet-IJAR: Int J Archit Res2014; 8: 62–75.
15.
SzewrańskiSMrówczyńskaMMvan HoofJ. Biophilia in contemporary design: navigating future opportunities and challenges. Indoor Built Environ2025; 34: –6.
16.
TerblancheRKhumaloD. The impact of biophilic design in university study areas on students’ productivity. Archnet-IJAR: Int J Archit Res2025; 19: 230–247.
17.
LeeSKimS. The impact of outdoor environments in public rental housing complexes on residents’ psychological restoration. Archnet-IJAR: Int J Archit Res2025; 19: 248–268.
18.
KaplanRKaplanS. The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
19.
YinJYuanJArfaeiNCatalanoPJAllenJGSpenglerJD. Effects of biophilic indoor environment on stress and anxiety recovery: a between-subjects experiment in virtual reality. Environ Int2020; 136: 105427.
20.
BarbieroGBertoR. Biophilia as evolutionary adaptation: an onto- and phylogenetic framework for biophilic design. Front Psychol2021; 12: 700709.
21.
ZhongWSchröderTBekkeringJ. Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: a critical review. Front Archit Res2022; 11: 114–141.
22.
GaoWJinDWangQZhuP. Integrating user-centered design and biophilic design to improve biophilia and intelligentization in office environments. Buildings2023; 13(7): 1687.
23.
AristizabalSByunKPorterPClementsNCampanellaCLiLMullanALySSeneratANenadicIZBrowningWDLoftnessVBauerB. Biophilic office design: exploring the impact of a multisensory approach on human well-being. J Environ Psychol2021; 77: 101682.
24.
YinJZhuSMacNaughtonPAllenJGSpenglerJ. Physiological and cognitive performance of exposure to biophilic indoor environment. Build Environ2018; 132: 255–262.
25.
GonçalvesGSousaCFernandesMJAlmeidaNSousaA. Restorative effects of biophilic workplace and nature exposure during working time: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health2023; 20(21): 6986.
26.
VecchiatoGTieriGJelicADe MatteisFMaglioneAGBabiloniF. Electroencephalographic correlates of sensorimotor integration and embodiment during the appreciation of virtual architectural environments. Front Psychol2015; 6: e1944.
27.
MagossoERicciGUrsinoM. Modulation of brain alpha rhythm and heart rate variability by attention-related mechanisms. AIMS Neurosci2019; 6: 1–24.
28.
BowerISClarkGMTuckerRHillATLumJAGMortimerMAEnticottPG. Built environment colour modulates autonomic and EEG indices of emotional response. Psychophysiology2022; 59: e14121.
29.
LiJWuWJinYZhaoRBianW. Research on environmental comfort and cognitive performance based on EEG + VR + LEC evaluation method in underground space. Build Environ2021; 198: 107886.
30.
Higuera-TrujilloJLlinaresCMacagnoE. The cognitive-emotional design and study of architectural space: a scoping review of neuroarchitecture and its precursor approaches. Sensors2021; 21: 2193.
31.
KlemGH. The ten-twenty electrode system of the international federation. The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology Supplement1999; 52: 3–6.
32.
JelićATieriGDe MatteisFBabiloniFVecchiatoG. The enactive approach to architectural experience: a neurophysiological perspective on embodiment, motivation, and affordances. Front Psychol2016; 7: e481.
33.
FerreeTCLuuPRussellGSTuckerDM. Scalp electrode impedance, infection risk, and EEG data quality. Clin Neurophysiol2001; 112: 536–544.
34.
BoucseinW. Electrodermal activity. New York: Springer Science and Business Media, 2012.
35.
van HoofJMazejMHensenJLM. Thermal comfort: research and practice. Front Biosci2010; 15: 765–788.
36.
CohenMX. Analyzing neural time series data: theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014.
37.
LuckSJ. An Introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2014.
38.
DelormeAMakeigS. EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods2004; 134: 9–21.
39.
WelchP. The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: a method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms. IEEE Trans Audio Electroacoust1967; 15: 70–73.
ElsadekMLiuB. Effects of viewing flowering plants on employees’ wellbeing in an office-like environment. Indoor Built Environ2020; 30: 1429–1440.
42.
SextonPTWalshJJamrozikKParsonsR. Risk factors for sudden unexpected cardiac death in Tasmanian men. Aust N Z J Med1997; 27: 45–50.
43.
ChoiYKimMChunC. Measurement of occupants’ stress based on electroencephalograms (EEG) in twelve combined environments. Build Environ2015; 88: 65–72.
44.
ShinYBWooSHKimDHKimJKimJJParkJY. The effect on emotions and brain activity by the direct/indirect lighting in the residential environment. Neurosci Lett2015; 584: 28–32.
45.
LipovacDBurnardMD. Effects of visual exposure to wood on human affective states, physiological arousal and cognitive performance: a systematic review of randomized trials. Indoor Built Environ2020; 30: 1021–1041.
46.
RicciGDe CrescenzioFSanthoshSMagossoEUrsinoM. Relationship between electroencephalographic data and comfort perception captured in a virtual reality design environment of an aircraft cabin. Sci Rep2022; 12(1): 10938.
47.
HuMRobertsJ. Built environment evaluation in virtual reality environments – a cognitive neuroscience approach. Urban Sci2020; 4: 48.
48.
KimSParkHChooS. Effects of changes to architectural elements on human relaxation-arousal responses: based on VR and EEG. Int J Environ Res Public Health2021; 18: 4305.
49.
AncoraLABlanco-MoraDAAlvesIBonifácioAMorgadoPMirandaB. Cities and neuroscience research: a systematic literature review. Front Psychiatry2022; 13: 983352.
50.
RadNPShahroudiAAShabaniHAjamiSLashgariR. Encoding pleasant and unpleasant expression of the architectural window shapes: an ERP study. Front Behav Neurosci2019; 13: 86.
51.
RoundsJDCruz-GarzaJGKalantariS. Using posterior EEG theta band to assess the effects of architectural designs on landmark recognition in an urban setting. Front Hum Neurosci2020; 14: 584385.
52.
SouzaRHCENavesELM. Attention detection in virtual environments using EEG signals: a scoping review. Front Physiol2021; 12: 727840.
53.
UlrichRSSimonsRFLositoBDFioritoEMilesMAZelsonM. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol1991; 11: 201–230.
54.
GaekwadJSMoslehianASRoösPB. A meta-analysis of physiological stress responses to natural environments: biophilia and stress recovery theory perspectives. J Environ Psychol2023; 90: 102085.
55.
Ríos-RodríguezMLTesta MorenoMMoreno-JiménezP. Nature in the office: a systematic review of nature elements and their effects on worker stress response. Healthcare2023; 11: 2838.
56.
ChamilothoriKWienoldJAndersenM. Adequacy of immersive virtual reality for the perception of daylit spaces: comparison of real and virtual environments. Leukos2019; 15: 203–226.
