Presenting the Pseudoscientific Neuroaesthetic Model as an Analytical Framework of City Centers' Streetscape Architecture

Abstract

Every day, the architecture and built environment we inhabit envelopes our minds and bodies and influences how we feel and mentally behave.

Full text

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5619
ISSN: 0974-5823 Vol. 7 No. 1 January, 2022
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
Presenting the Pseudoscientific Neuroaesthetic
Model as an Analytical Framework of City Centers’
Streetscape Architecture
Ma’in Fayez Abu-Shaikha
ABSTRACT
Every day, the architecture and built environment we inhabit envelopes our minds and bodies and influences how we feel and
mentally behave. (Ku¨ leer & Lindsten, 1992; Baker & Standeven, 1995; Brager, Paliaga, & De Dear, 2004; Mehta & Zhu, 2009;
Fich et al., 2014; Ellard, 2015). When people interact with a given environment, they perceive and respond to qualities of the whole
system created by the organization of many interdependent parts (Adams, 2014; R. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Following a developed
neuroaesthetic model as a foundational framework that was inspired by the aesthetic triad of (Chatterjee and Vartanian, 2014; Coburn, 2020).
The framework is set to explore the mental responses of street users to the aesthetics of the visual exterior stimuli in streetscapes in the context
of city centers. This area has never been strongly investigated, presenting an identified gap in the relevant literature, and is going to be explored
through a multi-dimensional literature survey. This research believes that the streetscape design in city centers has a significant neuro
aesthetical effect. The research presents an author observational survey framework to inductively arrive at data consisting of five
phases. Image survey: is the author's observation and analysis of (photos, drawings, etc.) as research materials while referring to
theories to arrive at the data. In the framework, each pre-analysis survey observation is going to be connected to the most relevant of the
three mental reactions: the sense of belonging, visual comfort, and fascination, in order to arrive at data outcomes. The final step is to classify
these data outcomes into the three aesthetic qualities: formal, sensory, and symbolic.
Key Words: City-center, Streetscape, Aesthetic, Street User, Neuroaesthetic.
INTRODUCTION
Commercial, cultural, economic, political, and climatic aspects are usually significant in shaping city center streetscapes.
The aesthetical reaction of street users can easily be neglected in architectural designs. In such cases, the streetscapes in city centers
are formed to favor commercial, cultural, economic, and climatic benefits in the first degree. The psychological and aesthetic
responses to the built environment are derived from the cognition of aesthetic properties in urban configurations and are examined
based on the different design features of the environment. (Nasar, 1994; Heft and Nasar, 2000; Olascoaga, 2003). Evidence suggests
that the aesthetic qualities of the built environment may predict wellbeing better than any single design variable measured in isolation
(Adams, 2014; S. C. Brown, 2014; Ellaway, 2014; Kyttä et al., 2011). The façades, however, are the first and most impactful element
on street users in the urbanized built environment. In addition to that, the facade is not only a reflection of the architectural character
of a region; it is also a representation of local, cultural, social, climatic, political, and economic circumstances (Askari & Dola,
2009). Building façades are an integrated system between the rationality of function and the surrealism of beauty, capturing people's
imagination and triggering emotive reactions (Bechtel and Churchman, 2003).
Many studies suggest that contemporary urbanization is associated with higher levels of anxiety, depression, and other
mental disorders (Lederbogen et al. 2011; Peen et al., 2010). Every day, the architecture we inhabit envelopes our minds and bodies
and influences how we feel and behave (Ellard, 2015). The design of our built environment can modulate how comfortable (Baker
& Standeven, 1995; Brager, Paliaga, & De Dear, 2004) or focused (Mehta & Zhu, 2009) we feel in a given moment, can influence
hormonal patterns (Fich et al., 2014; Ku¨leer & Lindsten, 1992), speed up recovery from surgery (Ulrich, 1984), and long-term
cardiac health (Kardan, Gozdyra, et al., 2015).
Studies indicate that the aesthetic qualities of architecture have an impact on our mood, cognitive functioning, behavior,
and mental health (Adams, 2014; Hartig, 2008; Huppert & Cooper, 2014; Joye, 2007b). In their study, Dornbusch and Gelb (1977)
consider that the aesthetics of buildings are the most important criterion in evaluating environmental quality and users' productivity.
The aesthetics of the buildings were also linked to visual recognition (a significant cognitive phenomenon of visual reasoning) in
the theories of design emergence that can be reflected in architecture (Oxman, 2002).
The research is going to develop a neuroaesthetic model as an analytical framework that architects and urban designers can
follow to pseudoscientifically explore the street users’ neuroaesthetic reactions to streetscapes. The outcomes are not necessary to
be accurate as this is not fully scientific research. The citations that this research relies on are mainly referred to experiments on a
particular group of participants under particular circumstances. Most of the experiments that are referred to are mostly based on
participants' own preferences and do not use neurological techniques such as galvanic skin response (GSR) tests, blood cortisol
tests, and neuroimaging to understand the aesthetic mental effects on them. Hence, this makes the research more pseudoscientific.

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5620
Most neuroaesthetic research involves two-dimensional images. This makes sense when the stimuli viewed are flat paintings,
although issues of scale and visual texture remain relevant in so far as experiments are typically conducted on a computer screen in a laboratory.
Even architecture-specific investigations have relied on flat visual stimuli to represent three-dimensional architectural space, and thus might
be treated more like artwork than buildings in these experiments. Real buildings induce more immersive and multisensory experiences than
images of architecture or visual art. The specific experience of being in such a space might be more difficult to capture experimentally. A
similar issue arises with installation art, which has not been investigated in any systematic way in neuroaesthetics. Perhaps in the near future,
virtual reality techniques will permit a reasonable approximation of the experience of immersion in an architectural space.
Relatively little empirical work has been conducted on the neuroscience of architecture. Future research must go beyond inferences
from neuroscientific knowledge applied to architecture to direct experimental work in which architectural experience itself is the target of
neuroscientific research. (Coburn, 2018). This research explores the mental responses of street users to the aesthetics of the visual exterior
stimuli (architectural outdoor streetscapes) in the context of city centers’ streets, following a developed neuroaesthetic model as a foundational
framework, which was inspired by the aesthetic triad of (Chatterjee and Vartanian, 2014; Coburn, 2020).
There has been limited research to date on the neuroscience and psychology of aesthetics in architecture, and the disparate
neuropsychological response measures that have been tested remain disconnected from any cohesive psychological or neuroscientific
framework (Chatterjee & Vartanian, 2014; Graham et al., 2015; Eberhard, 2008). Hence, the research will present a pseudo-scientific
framework that can present a first step towards future neuroscientific research. It can also help us neuroaesthetically explore streetscapes using
multi-dimensional case and literature survey methods. As far as we reviewed, no such framework has ever been used in exterior built-
environment streetscape research. By investigating and providing empirical evidence, this research tries to support this gap by providing
enough base for future neuroaesthetic explorations. This paper believes that the visual design of the streetscapes in city centers is
significant in street users' neuroaesthetical mental reactions. The framework that the paper aims to use starts with an observational
survey and then considers relative theories to analyze them to deliver the data as outcomes. It is a pseudoscientific explorative
framework study on people's mental reactions to streetscape aesthetics.
The framework uses mixed quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods to be conducted. This increases the validity
and reliability of the indicator’s measurement of aesthetic value and allows us to objectively explore the dependent variable's
aesthetic, including the highlighted area and buildings of attention. As a result, the framework will assist researchers in exploring
the city center streetscapes' neuroaesthetic qualities.
The framework is based on streetscape aesthetic guidelines and design principles to be analyzed while referring to a list of
psychological dimensions that evoke specific neural signatures in the form of a developed neuroaesthetic model as a foundational
framework, which was inspired by the aesthetic triad of (Chatterjee and Vartanian, 2014; Coburn, 2020). The outcome data is going to be
classified into the three main aesthetic qualities: formal, sensory, and symbolic.
The research significantly contributes to several areas, including neuroscience, architectural design aesthetics, design
psychology, urban environmental behavior research, and methodological design implications based on empirical evidence. The
research does not just draw its conclusion on the statistical evidence; rather, the findings are discussed before being translated into
aesthetic architectural design recommendations. This study's findings can provide architects and urban designers with practical
insights into healthy aesthetical architectural external appearance for more comfortable vision and mental well-being. This paper
aims to produce a neuroaesthetic model as an aesthetical analysis framework that architects and urban designers can follow to
pseudoscientifically explore streetscapes. The exploration data of the selected streetscapes can also present guidelines that have a
high potential to neuroaesthetically improve the existing outcomes or elevate the quality of architects' and urban designers’ future
outcomes to make them more aesthetically united and positioned toward one clear positive mental effect. It will not only alert
architects and urban designers to pay attention to the three main mental reactions, but also the qualities of aesthetics: symbolic
qualities, formal qualities, and sensory qualities, and deal with them properly.
NEUROAESTHETICS
This chapter provides a first step towards a deep understanding of research with such topics as aesthetics, design theories,
neuro-architecture, and architectural perception. The visual design significance of the environment on the people who use it presents
a challenge to the architecture and planning realm. This challenge is rooted in the general yet important objective of providing the
users of the built environment with comfortably perceivable designs.
This chapter begins by reviewing the broad concept of design theories, including environmental and architectural design
psychology and perception, while expounding the neurophysiological and neurochemical approaches and interpretations. The
findings of these reviews aim to help accentuate and justify this research topic by identifying the gap, providing valuable
methodological insights, and significantly pointing to the research problem area.
The field of neuroarchitecture studies the effects of the built environment on its inhabitants by using neuroscientific tools
(Edelstein, 2008; Nanda et al., 2013). This paper by Coburn et al. (2017) focuses on the burgeoning interest in the intersection of
neuroscience and architecture and promises to offer biologically inspired insights into the design of spaces. The goal of such
interdisciplinary approaches to architecture is to motivate the construction of environments that would contribute to people's
flourishing in behavior, health, and well-being. Studies suggest that this nascent field of neuroarchitecture is at a pivotal point at
which neuroscience and architecture are poised to extend to a neuroscience of architecture. In such a research program, architectural
experiences themselves are the target of neuroscientific inquiry. Coburn (2020) draws lessons from recent developments in
neuroaesthetics to suggest how neuroarchitecture might mature into an experimental science. The review includes the extant
literature and offers an initial framework from which to contextualize such research.
Referring to the aesthetic triad by Coburn et al. (2017) and another research by Ellard (2015), both pointed out that the
aesthetical experience of buildings and spaces has an important role in shaping people’s behavior, health, and wellbeing. Noted that,

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5621
if people feel visually uncomfortable in outdoor spaces, the consequences may be dysfunctional and destructive patterns of behavior,
passive-aggressive denial, or distorted self-perception. In its turn, this can lead to restlessness, or discomfort, hypersensitivity,
lethargy, or anxiety. Moreover, our reactions to design are largely unconscious (Best, 2012). This indicates that each design element
can have an unconscious effect on the viewers and their temporary mental behavior. In neurology, mental change occurs when a
specific neurological message, including visual messages coming from the eye (visual cortex), can have a role in resulting in a
normal brain neurophysiological reaction, therefore, mental behavior such as mood changes and anxiety (Sewilam, 2013).
Sewilam explained in (2013) that upon observing a visual message, a neurochemical reaction must occur in our brain by
releasing neurotransmitters such as norepinephrine, serotonin, dopamine, GABA (Gamma Amino Butyric Acid) and some hormones
such as oxytocin (pleasure hormone), cortisol (stress hormone) and melatonin (sleepiness hormone), which all eventually lead to
anxiety as a normal and natural temporary mental reaction. Hence, there can be strong chemical-physiological evidence and
interpretation of the path of visual messages in our brains that stimulates us to behave in a specific way mentally. That comes from
the message that is sent from our eyes to the visual cortex and then to the limbic system, the emotional responsible part of our brains.
Therefore, a sudden change in visual message has a strong potential to result in a tangible mental reaction. The streetscape’s aesthetic
influence on urban outdoor users’ mental behavior is, however, going to be furtherly explored by filling the gaps in relevant
literature. Despite individual differences, consistent patterns of neural activity are emerging from this line of research that, in the
future, could help architects design brain-informed buildings.
In conjunction with increased precision in defining design concepts (Stamps, 1999), the neuroscience of architecture is
well positioned to study the biology of architectural beauty. Much work remains to be done. The hope is to improve human
experience and well-being by optimizing the built structures that surround us for much of our lives.
Figure 1. The Vitruvian triad.
Two thousand years ago, the Roman architect Vitruvius highlighted beauty as one of three core dimensions of architectural
design. His formative Vitruvian triad (see Figure 1) illustrated that a building must be strong and structurally stable (firmitas), meet
the functional needs of its occupants (utilitas), and appeal to their aesthetic sensibilities (venustas; Vitruvius Pollio, Morgan, &
Warren, 1914). the Vitruvian (aesthetic) triad suggests that sensory and emotional response patterns shaped by bio evolutionary
forces may form the foundation of architectural experience, but also that this experience is substantially modified by a person’s
education, cultural upbringing, and personal experience. Viewing architectural spaces elicits a broad range of aesthetic experiences,
from feelings of comfort and excitement to judgments about a building’s age and style. (Coburn, 2018)
The authors (Coburn et al., 2017) all confirm that philosophers since ancient Roman times have emphasized the experiential
importance of architectural aesthetics. However, only in the past decade or so have scientists started to investigate this topic with
rigor. Here, it is described how an existing model—the aesthetic triad—can serve as a useful initial framework for researching
venustas, the relatively hidden dimensions of the Vitruvian triad. Although a few theoretical models have been developed to frame
empirical research on the aesthetics of architecture, a neuroscientific model of architectural experience has been outlined to serve
as a foundational framework. Figure 2 presents the neuroscientific model of aesthetic experiences in the built environment in
general, which is mediated by three large-scale neural systems: knowledge-meaning, emotion-valuation, and sensorimotor systems
(c; Coburn et al., 2017).
A burgeoning interest in the intersection of neuroscience and architecture promises to offer biologically inspired insights into
the design of spaces. The goal of such interdisciplinary approaches to architecture is to motivate the construction of environments
that would contribute to people's flourishing in behavior, health, and well-being. (A. Coburn, O. Vartanian, and A. Chatterjee, 2017)
The design of places and spaces that provide a context for human experiences—architecture—has a long and often distinguished
history. The conscious, frontal lobe processes of shaping this context are only partially understood by architects and have yet to
surface in the roiling waters of neuroscience studies. Even less well understood is the role of architecture in shaping human
experiences. Social and behavioral scientists have explored this terrain over the past 50 years, but the results of their work are
shallow knowledge.

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5622
Coburn et al. (2020) hypothesize that interactions with architectural scenes can be explained by a limited number of underlying
psychological constructs. This hypothesis is motivated by past studies that have identified latent psychological dimensions
underlying aesthetic responses to visual stimuli in other contexts.
Coburn's PCA (principal components analysis) results in (2018) indicates that the most salient aesthetical responses to
architectural scenes are likely generated by the integration of cognitive, emotional, and sensory information. Cognitive judgments
associated with knowledge-meaning systems, emotional responses derived from emotion-valuation systems, and behavioral-
motivational responses linked to sensorimotor activation. Within this psychological framework, Coburn et al., (2020) applied sixteen
aesthetic rating scales (measures) that capture the three mentioned important aspects of the aesthetical experience (see Table1).
The sixteen measures are divided into three parts by five key measures of cognitive judgement in the built environment:
complexity, organization, modernity, naturalness, and beauty. Eight measures of emotional experience in the built environment
are outlined below: personalness, hominess, relaxation, comfort, stimulation, uplift, vitality, and valence. Lastly, three behavioral
measures are
interest, approachability, and explorability. All the 16 response measures have featured prominently in previous environmental
psychology and empirical aesthetics research. The following subsections clarify that the measures are highly correlated with
the visual scene aesthetic preference.
1. Knowledge - Meaning Systems
Education, memories, and the context in which a person encounters an aesthetic object or a built environment can have an
impact on the person’s experience. Expertise, for instance, is known to influence aesthetic experiences. In one fMRI study,
architecture students recruited different cortical areas when viewing buildings than students from other disciplines (Wiesmann &
Ishai, 2011). Another experiment showed that architects, compared to nonarchitects, had increased activation of reward circuitry,
including the bilateral medial orbitofrontal cortex and the subcallosal cingulate gyrus, when making aesthetic judgments about
buildings (Kirk, Skov, Christensen, & Nygaard, 2009). Architects also exhibited greater activation of the hippocampus and
precuneus compared to control participants when viewing buildings but not faces, suggesting that memories are rendered.
Figure 2. The aesthetic triad. Adopted from Chatterjee and
Vartanian (2014).
Table 1. Prompts and end anchors of 7-point rating scales for the aesthetic rating scales. (Coburn et al., 2020).

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5623
A person’s past experiences in a built environment can modulate their present interactions with that space. Exposure to an
environment generates a cognitive map using place and grid cells of the hippocampus (McNaughton, Battaglia, Jensen, Moser, &
Moser, 2006; O’Keefe & Nadel, 1978), which in turn facilitates more efficient navigation in future encounters (Astur, Taylor,
Mamelak, Philpott, & Sutherland, 2002; Maguire et al., 2000). Grid cells encode memories of both events and the places in which
they occur (Edelstein et al., 2008). Since familiarity influences liking (Montoya, Horton, Vevea, Citkowicz, & Lauber, 2017), it is
likely that familiarity and ease of navigation will influence the aesthetic experience of spaces.
Cuborn (2020) discussed five key measures of cognitive judgement in the built environment: complexity, organization,
modernity, naturalness, and beauty. Visual complexity has drawn attention from many architectural theorists (Alexander, 2002a;
Kroll, 1987; Salingaros, 2007; Venturi, Scully, & Drexler, 1977), environmental psychologists (R. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; S.
Kaplan, Kaplan, & Wendt, 1972; Ulrich, 1983), and aesthetics researchers (Daniel E. Berlyne, 1971; Frith & Nias, 1974). Visual
complexity refers to “the volume of information present in a space” (Dosen & Ostwald, 2016, p. 3) and the informational “richness”
of a scene (R. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989, p. 53). Positive, linear correlations between complexity and preference have been found in
various contexts, including the evaluation of artwork (Day, 1967; Leder et al., 2004; Taylor, Micolich, & Jonas, 1999), natural
landscapes (S. Kaplan, 1987; Ulrich, 1977, 1983), and built environments (Ç. Imamoglu, 2000; S. Kaplan et al., 1972). In some
cases, preference ratings have been found to follow an inverted U-shaped curve when plotted as a function of stimulus complexity
(Daniel E. Berlyne, 1970, 1971; Güçlütürk, Jacobs, & van Lier, 2016; Taylor et al., 1999). This relationship often depends on how
complexity is operationalized (Nadal, Munar, Marty, & Cela-Conde, 2010a), which may explain the variability in findings.
personalness is also critical to the psychology of architecture. Visual order implies both an absence of randomness (Tullett,
Kay, & Inzlicht, 2015) and the presence of predictable patterns like symmetry (Alexander, 2002a; Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman,
2004; Salingaros, 2007) and structural redundancy in scenes (Kinchla, 1977; Kotabe, Kardan, & Berman, 2016b). The psychological
effects of visual organization have been discussed extensively in architectural theory (Alexander, 2002a; Salingaros, 2007; Vitruvius
Pollio, Morgan, & Warren, 1914) and art aesthetics literature (Birkhoff, 1933; Eysenck, 1957; Reber et al., 2004). Perception of
order can also be modulated by a building’s age, condition, and architectural style. These variables have been captured in past
studies by measuring participants’ perceptions of modernity in the built environment (Acking & Kuller, 1973; Ç. Imamoglu, 2000;
V. Imamoglu, 1979).
Interacting with natural environments enhances many aspects of psychological functioning (Berman et al., 2012; Berto,
2005; Bratman, Daily, Levy, & Gross, 2015; S. Kaplan, 1995; Ryan, Weinstein, Bernstein, & Brown, 2010). Naturalness appears
to be a salient measure of environmental judgement (Berman et al., 2014; Kotabe, 2016) that correlates highly with scene preference
ratings (Kardan, Demiralp, et al., 2015). Recent studies also show that the perception of naturalness is not merely determined by
natural content (e.g., recognition of trees and vegetation) but is also predicted by specific low-level visual patterns that can occur
in both natural and man-made objects and environments (Berman et al., 2014; Coburn et al., 2019; Kardan, Demiralp, et al., 2015;
Kotabe, 2016). For instance, Graham and Field (2007) found certain man-made paintings have similar low-level visual properties
to natural scenes. Indeed, several scholars propose that nature-like aesthetic qualities are present, to varying degrees, in the built
environment, and that naturalistic architectural spaces may confer some of the same psychological benefits as natural landscapes
(Alexander, 2002a; Joye, 2007; Kellert, 2003; Salingaros, 1998).
Beauty, which is perhaps the most global measure of aesthetic judgment, is among the most frequently measured qualities
in empirical aesthetics (Chatterjee, 2013; Ishizu & Zeki, 2011; Leder & Nadal, 2014; Nadal et al., 2010). Beauty has long been
regarded as an important quality of architectural design in cultures around the world (Mak & Thomas Ng, 2005; Patra, 2009;
Vitruvius Pollio et al., 1914). Efforts to understand environmental beauty have gained traction in both environmental psychology
(Cooper, Burton, & Cooper, 2014; S. Kaplan, 1987; Zhang, Piff, Iyer, Koleva, & Keltner, 2014) and architectural research (Kirk,
Skov, Christensen, & Nygaard, 2009; Vartanian et al., 2013, 2015), perhaps because of the growing view that "attractiveness is a
key element in how the built environment affects our wellbeing" (Cooper & Burton, 2014), as well as the primary role that beauty
plays in our desire to live in a place (Ritterfeld & Cupchik, 1996).
Although this research authors provisionally categorized these five response measures as cognitive judgments, they likely
depend on input from all three nodes of the aesthetic triad, rather than from cognitive processing alone. For instance, low-level
spatial and color features of environmental scenes significantly predict subjective ratings of complexity, order, and naturalness
(Berman et al., 2014; Kardan, Demiralp, et al., 2015; Kotabe et al., 2016b; Kotabe, Kardan, & Berman, 2017), even when the
semantic content of scenes is removed (Kotabe, Kardan, & Berman, 2016a; Kotabe et al., 2016b), suggesting that these measures
can be shaped by low-level sensory input. Furthermore, the experience of beauty likely involves complex interactions among
sensory, emotional, and cognitive inputs (Chatterjee & Vartanian, 2014; Leder & Nadal, 2014; Leder et al., 2004).
2. Emotion-Valuation Systems
The emotions people feel in the presence of beautiful architecture are likely mediated by the brain’s reward circuitry. In a
meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies investigating positivevalence aesthetic appraisal, Brown and colleagues proposed that the
processing of aesthetic emotions occurs through a core neural circuit involving the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), the basal ganglia,
the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and the anterior insula (S. Brown, Gao, Tisdelle, Eickhoff, & Liotti, 2011). One study revealed
that curvilinear building interiors are judged as more beautiful and pleasing than rectilinear spaces, and that ratings of the beauty of
curved rooms are correlated with increased activation of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), which is a region of the brain associated
with emotional salience monitoring (Vartanian et al., 2013). The ACC is connected with both the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), which
processes emotion and reward in decision-making, and the anterior insula, which is also involved in emotional processing. The ACC
is often co-activated with these regions in neuroimaging studies of rewards (S. Brown et al., 2011).
Cuborn (2020) indicated eight measures of emotional experience in the built environment, and they are outlined below:
personalness, hominess, relaxation, comfort, stimulation, uplift, vitality, and valence. The degree of personal feeling that a
building generates is an important consideration in architectural design (Alexander, 2002a; L. T. Graham et al., 2015; Sommer,

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5624
1969; Wiking, 2017). Personal spaces feel warm and intimate (L. T. Graham et al., 2015; Sommer, 1969) and generate feelings of
“depth, tenderness, and longing” (Alexander, 2002a, p. 302), whereas impersonal spaces often feel cold and standardized (Linnet,
2012). A related measure, the degree to which an architectural space makes a person feel cozy or “at home” (Daniels, 2015; L. T.
Graham et al., 2015; Ritterfeld & Cupchik, 1996), is captured by the Canadian concept of hominess (Linnet, 2012; Wiking, 2017).
Considerable emphasis has been placed on the degree of stress or, conversely, relaxation that people experience in response to
environmental design (Baum & Davis, 1980; Fich et al., 2014; L. T. Graham et al., 2015; Tullett et al., 2015; Tyrväinen et al., 2014;
Ulrich et al., 1991). Comfort is also a salient measure of occupant experience that abounds in architectural research (Baker &
Standeven, 1995; Brager et al., 2004; Fanger, 1973; Nicol & Humphreys, 2002; Thorsson, Honjo, Lindberg, Eliasson, & Lim, 2007).
Researchers have taken an interest in understanding how design parameters modulate the degree of physiological
stimulation that occupants experience (Acking & Kuller, 1973; L. T. Graham et al., 2015; Ritterfeld & Cupchik, 1996). A related
measure is the extent to which a place feels uplifting, on the one extreme, and depressing, on the other (Evans, 2003). This scale
may be particularly relevant to wellbeing, as the frequency of daily uplifts a person experiences predicts long-term health measures
like stress and depression (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981; Vitaliano, Scanlan, Ochs, & Syrjala, 1998). Scholars have
also measured the impact of environmental design on vitality (Ryan et al., 2010; Tyrväinen et al., 2014), which covaries with
important physiological and psychological health measures (Ryan & Deci, 2008; Ryan & Frederick, 1997). Vitality has been defined
as “a positive sense of aliveness and energy” (Nix, Ryan, Manly, & Deci, 1999, p. 530) and is closely related to the Chinese concept
of chi, which Nix and colleagues defined as a source of calm energy that “can be more or less accessed by individuals depending
on their lifestyles and personal practices” (Nix et al., 1999, p. 268). A related but broader measure, valence, describes the degree to
which an architectural space makes an occupant feel good or bad. Valence is among the most frequently studied affective measures
in empirical aesthetics and is closely related to other common measures such as preference, liking, and pleasantness (Acking &
Kuller, 1973; Daniel E. Berlyne, 1970; Di Dio et al., 2007; Leder et al., 2004).
Although these affective response scales are associated with neural networks regulating pleasure and emotion, it is likely
that cognitive and sensory processes also influence emotional responses to architecture. For instance, hominess ratings are likely
modulated by cognitive evaluations based on an individual’s culture, upbringing, and memories of home. Pleasure responses to
architectural scenes have also been shown to depend on education and expertise (Kirk et al., 2009), suggesting that valence may be
influenced by top-down cognitive processing.
3. Sensory-Motor Systems
The final class of aesthetic response scales encompasses the psychological measures of behavior, movement, and
motivation, which may be, to a first approximation, linked to sensorimotor processing in the brain. Aesthetic parameters such as
olfaction (odour), somatosensory sensations, and acoustics, including reverberation time, have also impacted on how we observe
our built environment. For instance, they influence an occupant’s comfort, emotional state, and perception of beauty. Aesthet ic
parameters also have an impact on decisions to approach or avoid a space (Vartanian et al., 2015), which may be governed by reward
and emotion processing areas like the nucleus accumbens, the anterior insula, and the basolateral amygdala (Vartanian et al., 2013).
Aesthetic parameters like enclosure have an impact on decisions to approach or avoid a space (Vartanian et al., 2015),
which may be governed by reward and emotion processing areas like the nucleus accumbens, the anterior insula, and the basolateral
amygdala (Vartanian et al., 2013). Intriguingly, Joye and Dewitte found that exposure to images of tall buildings, which were
associated with heightened feelings of awe, caused participants to experience greater immobility and respond more slowly to a
manual clicking task than exposure to images of low buildings (Joye & Dewitte, 2016). These findings suggest that our aesthetic
evaluations of architecture can propel or inhibit motor activity and influence the specific qualities of the viewers’ experiences.
Coburn, (2020) focused on three behavioral measures: interest, approachability, and explorability. Interest, an important
response measure in empirical aesthetics (Daniel E. Berlyne, 1971; Day, 1967; Silvia, 2005, 2012) and environmental psychology
(R. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich, 1983), is closely linked to sensory perception (Day, 1967) and motivation (Silvia, 2008). James
(1892) described interest as an automatic psychological process that enables us to identify and attend to sensory stimuli that are
important for our welfare. Environmental psychologists later applied this idea to landscape perception by proposing that sensory
features of the environment are more likely to capture human interest if they prove beneficial or detrimental to our species’ survival
over the course of evolutionary history (Appleton, 1975; S. Kaplan, 1987; Wilson & Kellert, 1995).
Interest can also motivate motor responses to physical surroundings (Joye & Dewitte, 2016; R. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989;
Ulrich, 1983), including fundamental decisions to approach or avoid architectural spaces (Ritterfeld & Cupchik, 1996; Vartanian
et al., 2015, 2013). Another important behavioral response to architecture is “the need to explore, to find out more about what is
going on in one’s surroundings” (R. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989, p. 51). Although these response measures are associated with
sensorimotor processing, they likely involve input from the cognitive and affective domains discussed previously. Despite being
strongly influenced by sensory content, interest has often been described as a measure of emotion (Silvia, 2005, 2008, 2012), and
could be categorized as an effective response measure. Like valence and beauty, approachability describes a global psychological
response that is likely modulated by cognitive and emotional processes.

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5625
THE FRAMEWORK: THE NEUROAESTHETIC MODEL
The most significant pre-analysis survey observations of each streetscape are connected with the most relevant mental reactions
in order to arrive at data outcomes. The mental reactions are the sense of belonging, visual comfort, and fascination. The final step
is to classify these data outcomes into the three aesthetic qualities: formal, sensory, and symbolic.
3.1 Pre-Analysis Observations Collection
Pre-analysis guidelines were mainly derived from (Santayana, 1896; Lang, 1988; Berleant, 2004; Coburn, 2020; Spanjar,
2020; GAM,2021). In this research, there are seventeen observation guidelines, each of which is concerned directly with streetscape
aesthetics. Every guideline helps us to objectively analyze streetscape architecture in the form of mages (pictures, drawings, plans...).
See pre-analysis survey observation guidelines measured in Figure 4.
The pre-analysis guidelines were mainly based on the neuroscientific model of streetscape architecture, which was adopted
from the Aesthetic Triad of Chatterjee and Vartanian (2014). See figure 5.
Neuroaesthetics is an emerging discipline within cognitive neuroscience that is concerned with understanding the biological
basis of aesthetic experiences. These experiences involve appraisals of natural objects, artifacts, and environments. Because
aesthetic encounters are common in everyday life, exploration of their biological basis can deepen our understanding of human
Figure 4. Pre-Analysis Survey Observation Guidelines
Figure 5. The Neuroscientific model of streetscape architecture Adopted
from the Aesthetic triad of Chatterjee and Vartanian (2014).
Figure 3. Neuroaesthetic Analysis Model

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5626
behavior in important domains such as mate selection, consumer behavior, communication, and art. (Anjan Chatterjee and Oshin
Vartanian, 2014).
A burgeoning interest in the intersection of neuroscience and architecture promises to offer biologically inspired insights
into the design of spaces. The goal of such interdisciplinary approaches to architecture is to motivate the construction of
environments that would contribute to people's flourishing in behavior, health, and well-being. (A. Coburn, O. Vartanian, and A.
Chatterjee, 2017)
The design of places and spaces that provide a context for human experiences—architecture—has a long and often
distinguished history. The conscious, frontal lobe processes of shaping this context are only partially understood by architects and
have yet to surface in the roiling waters of neuroscience studies. Even less well understood is the role of architecture in shaping
human experiences. Social and behavioral scientists have explored this terrain over the past 50 years, but the results of their work
are shallow knowledge.
3.1.1 Visual Additions
Visual additions are anything that has been added to the streetscape buildings post-construction. These visual additions are:
1. Signs that cover buildings’ architectural features, such as windows, doors...
2. Banners are not unified in size, shape, and design.
3. Signs and flags cover the stone.
4. Exposed A/C boxes.
5. Random cables.
6. Un-unified lighting fixtures.
7. Awnings that cover buildings’ architectural features.
8. Blocked entrances.
9. Unpreserved structures.
10. Exposed satellite dishes and water tanks.
11. Exposed sewage ducts and gutters.
12. Paint covers the originality of the building.
3.1.2 Materials
Building materials play a major role in affecting the observer's mind. It is an aesthetic quality that can be explained in many
different ways. According to Santayana (1896), building materials are one of the variables that carry meanings in the building
environment. Moreover, he also mentioned that materials have a formal value.
3.1.3 Colors
Berleant (2020) mentioned that color is one of the features that excites certain perceptual responses in the viewer. Neither
inhering in objects nor originating in consciousness, such invitational qualities are rather characteristics to which perceptual
awareness is receptive and to which it responds. They emerge only in the intimate reciprocity that is central to aesthetic engagement.
Furthermore, Santayana (1896) mentioned that colors are one of the guidelines that carry meaning in the building environment, in
addition to their concern with the appreciation of shapes and structures in response to certain patterns.
3.1.4 Approachability & Explorability
Approachability describes the difficulty of arriving at the streetscape and the difficulty of walking between the buildings
inside the streetscape itself. According to Coburn et al. (2020), the approachability guideline is one of the behavioral measures that
may be, to a first approximation, linked to sensorimotor processing in the brain. Another important behavioral response to
architecture is "the need to explore, to find out more about what is going on in one's surroundings" (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989, p. 51).
Like valence and beauty, approachability describes a global psychological response that is likely modulated by cognitive and
emotional processes.
3.1.5 Style & Culture
An architectural style is characterized by the features that make a building or other structure notable and historically
identifiable. A style may include such elements as form, method of construction, building materials, and regional character.
However, culture represents the amount of visual respect that the streetscape has for its environment.
3.1.6 Principles of Composition (Shape, Size - Scale, Proportion)
According to Santayana (1896), principles of design guidelines are concerned with the appreciation of shapes and structures
of the environment in response to certain patterns, proportions, or shapes that are not biologically based but rather based on self-
conscious and intellectual reasoning. It is also connected to Gestalt theories.
3.1.7 Complexity
Visual complexity has drawn attention from many architectural theorists (Alexander, 2002a; Kroll, 1987; Salingaros, 2007;
Venturi, Scully, & Drexler, 1977), environmental psychologists (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan, Kaplan, & Wendt, 1972; Ulrich,
1983), and aesthetics researchers (Berlyne, 1971; Frith & Nias, 1974). Visual complexity refers to "the volume of information
present in a space" (Dosen & Ostwald, 2016, p.3) and the informational "richness" of acene (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989, p. 53). Positive,
linear correlations between complexity and preference have been found in various contexts, including the evaluation of artwork
(Day, 1967; Leder et al., 2004; Taylor, Micolich, & Jonas, 1999), natural landscapes (Kaplan, 1987; Ulrich, 1977, 1983), and built
environments (Imamoglu, 2000; Kaplan et al., 1972). (Coburn, 2020).
3.1.8 Shadowing Effects
According to Santayana (1896), shadowing effects are one of the formal aesthetic guidelines. This guideline evaluates the
shadowing techniques on the buildings in the streetscape. Where shadowing effects are defined as the effects obtained as a result of
using shadowing techniques.

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5627
3.1.9 Order & Disorder
In architecture, "order" refers to a system of rules that structure the shape, structure, layout, and proportions of a design.
Order is an indispensable function of any organized system. As maintained by Santayana (1896), order and disorder guidelines are
concerned with the appreciation of shapes and structures of the environment in response to certain patterns, proportions, or shapes
that are not biologically based but rather based on self-awareness and intellectual reasoning. It is also connected to Gestalt theories.
3.1.10 Unity & Rhythm
Coburn (2020) claimed that unity is a formal aesthetic variable. The guideline of unity deals with visual composition in
design, where its elements should be both visually and conceptually harmonious. In this paper, unity is applied to the streetscapes,
utilizing repeating styles to maintain visual consistency. Whereas, rhythm in streetscapes takes concrete forms. It involves
movement or the perception of movement as suggested by bodies, objects, or surface patterns in space.
3.1.11 Textures
The word "texture" generally refers to the designed appearance and feel of a surface material. However, it could also mean
the physical composition or structure of something, especially with respect to its size, shape, and arrangement of its parts. As stated
by Santayana (1896), pleasurable sensations can be obtained from texture.
3.1.12 Vitality/ Kinesthetic
Vitality is the streetscape aesthetic of being energetic, lively, and active. As stated by Coburn (2020), scholars have also
measured the impact of environmental design on vitality (Ryan et al., 2010; Tyrvainen € et al., 2014), which covaries with important
physiological and psychological health measures (Ryan & Deci, 2008; Ryan & Frederick, 1997). Vitality has been defined as "a
positive sense of aliveness and energy" (Nix, Ryan, Manly, & Deci, 1999, p. 530) and is closely related to the Chinese concept of
chi, which Nix and colleagues defined as a source of calm energy that "can be more or less accessed by individuals depending on
their lifestyles and personal practices" (Nix et al., 1999, p. 268).
Kinesthetic is the basic aesthetic appeal of the city to the person as a pedestrian, and this appeal takes the form of an
attraction to the moving body, enticing one to follow along a street in relaxed rhythms of stopping and starting and wandering along.
Also, the meaningful relationships that are generated by the person-in-motion His movement is the purpose of the space, and it
should function to activate his kinesthetic experience in a series of interesting rhythms and variations in speed and force. (Berleant,
2004).
3.1.13 Naturalness
The results of a final experiment suggest that preferences for nature-like architectural patterns may be associated with
feelings of comfort and excitement that such patterns generate. (Coburn, 2018). Interacting the streetscape with natural environments
enhances many aspects of psychological functioning (Berman et al., 2012; Berto, 2005; Bratman, Daily, Levy, & Gross, 2015;
Kaplan, 1995; Ryan, Weinstein, Bernstein, & Brown, 2010). Naturalness appears to be a salient measure of environmental
judgement (Berman et al., 2014; Kotabe, 2016) that correlates highly with scene preference ratings (Kardan, Demiralp, et al., 2015).
Recent studies also show that the perception of naturalness is not merely determined by natural content (e.g., recognition of trees
and vegetation) but is also predicted by specific low-level visual patterns that can occur in both natural and man-made objects and
environments (Berman et al., 2014; Coburn et al., 2017; Kardan, Demiralp, et al., 2015; Kotabe, 2016).
3.1.14 Memory
Memory refers to the processes that are used to acquire, store, retain, and later retrieve information. It involves the ability
to both preserve and recovers information that they have learned or experienced. Education, memories, and the context in which a
person encounters an aesthetic object or a built environment can have an impact on the person’s experience (Coburn et al. 2020). In
this research, the memory measure studies the shared memory that is related to a streetscape for a majority of people, showing the
relationship between people and the history of the place that concerns community identity.
3.1.15 Greenery
According to Moztarzadeh (2014), the existence and accessibility to greenery create a sense of belonging and unity to the
place. Such places can help relieve the person's tiredness. Some others believe that green spaces are a cause of people's gathering,
which helps them have social interactions, dialogue, and discussion.
3.1.16 Furniture
According to Moztarzadeh (2014), diversity, functionality, adaptability, and beauty of furniture are factors that help people
stay in their places and create a sense of belonging for individuals toward the environment. Most researchers believe that the most
important factor in staying in a place is efficient and appropriate furniture.
3.2 Observations Analysis
The most significant pre-analysis image observation is going to be connected with the most appropriate mental reaction.
The application mainly consists of three mental reactions: visual comfort, sense of belonging, and fascination. These mental
reactions have a positive linear correlation with aesthetics (Coburn et al. 2020); Coburn et al. (2018) recruited 798 US-based adults
(391 women, 401 men, and 6 others) from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to participate in a study to rate 200 images of architectural
interiors on 16 psychological dimensions that capture the three aspects of the aesthetic triad. Their demographic data was collected
in order to verify that the sample group was comprised of a diverse pool of participants representing a randomly-selected sample
from the US adult population. The final step is to classify these data outcomes into the three aesthetic qualities: formal, sensory, and
symbolic.
3.2.1 Visual Comfort
It is already known that the shape of a building and its form, design, patterns, colors, and daylighting can affect the visual
comfort of people (Belichambers & Godby, 1972; Shen et al., 2014). Also, as stated by (Ilvitskaya et al., 2020), architecture should

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5628
not only have functional value; it should also create emotional comfort for a person. At the same time, the issue of a favorable
perception of the architectural environment is closely related to the quality of the visual aspect of the surrounding space.
For the visual space of the interior, natural elements can appear in a color scheme that matches the natural colors of nature;
in the formation of open structural elements (for example, supporting columns, supplemented by curved elements in the likeness of
natural elements); in solving a system of natural lighting, taking into account the area of the glazed surface, the shape of the window
opening, and the presence of a second light. For example, ribbon glazing or panoramic windows allow not only enough sunlight to
penetrate, but also open the inner space of the environment as much as possible. Sunlight can further enrich the interior with an
ornament if it passes through carved decorative surfaces. A sufficient amount of space also creates a favorable perception of the
interior. The interior of the "Houses on the Lake" room combines several techniques for creating a positive internal space in harmony
with the external natural environment. The visibility of the background emphasizes the contrast with the natural environment and,
at the same time, combines the interior and landscape into a single whole. This technique especially enhances the plasticity of the
interior space. Natural materials and natural colors in the room are also complemented by the natural colors of the exterior, which
creates the impression of common composition and merging of spaces. (Ilvitskaya et al., 2020).
For a household territory, the natural component is manifested primarily in the merger of the architectural complex of
buildings with the landscape and the surrounding landscape, and in the presence of house gardening. The effect of the visual
interaction of the house with nature can be enhanced by compositional unity in architecture, where all elements of the building
complement each other. An interesting technique may be the unity of the material for the facade and interior, visually combining
the interior with the exterior. Representatives of organic architecture concluded that an environment that is as close to nature as
possible has a positive visual effect. (Ilvitskaya et al., 2020).
To systematize the visual activity of the natural environment, we should consider the features of the relationship between
architecture and nature from the point of view of visual auspiciousness. In the architecture of a residential building, the natural
component is manifested as following: (Ilvitskaya et. al, 2020)
 Arrangement of open terraces, patios
 Dividing the space of the house into volumes of different sizes and shapes
 Local materials
 Curved shapes, lines, pathways
 Natural color approximation of facades.
Several studies have tried to evaluate aesthetic preferences for visual quality in architecture. From these studies, it has been
found that primary factors such as balance, symmetry, regularity, and unity have a low effect, while distinctive factors such as
asymmetry, complexity, spontaneity activity could influence the analytical mind of an observer (Keshtkaran et al., 2017).
High-contrast regions often capture visual attention and interest because they contain a high density of useful visual
information for object identification (Hagerhall, Purcell, & Taylor, 2004). On the other hand, excessive architectural complexity
may also overwhelm the visual system, particularly if the information is experienced as disorganized (Kotabe et al., 2016;
Salingaros, 2003, 2007). People generally prefer at least a moderate level of visual complexity when viewing both art and
architectural interiors (Dosen & Ostwald, 2016). Common styles of architecture are full of irregularities, using a series of geometric
constructions that parametrically repeat themselves to produce complex images that could be defined as fractal. (El-Darwish, 2019).
Balance, of which symmetry is the most straightforward example, also contributes to fluency and aesthetic preference
(Wilson & Chatterjee, 2005). The evolutionary importance of symmetrical information as a reproductive fitness indicator for human
survival may underlie experimentally observed preferences for more symmetrical faces and geometric shapes (Jacobsen, Schubotz,
Höfel, & Cramon, 2006; Ramachandran & Hirstein, 1999; Rhodes, Proffitt, Grady, & Sumich, 1998; Frith & Nias, 1974). Alexander
and Carey reported that the number of local symmetries in a given pattern strongly predicts the ease with which a participant can
find, describe, and remember that pattern (Alexander & Carey, 1968).
Vartanian conducted in (2013) a functional magnetic resonance imaging experiment on 18 (12 females, 6 males)
neurologically healthy participants (M = 23.39 y, SD = 4.49) with normal or corrected-to-normal vision. The participants were
Figure 6. Visual comfort of the architectural space. ( Ilvitskaya et. al, 2020).

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5629
recruited to examine how systematic variation in contour impacts aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions, outcome
measures of interest to both architects and users of spaces alike.
Curvature, has generated much interest from aesthetics and architectural researchers. In many contexts, people have
exhibited greater preferences for curvilinear objects than their rectilinear objects (Bar & Neta, 2006; Dazkir & Read, 2012; Leder
& Carbon, 2005). Rectilinear shapes and patterns have also been shown to evoke more unpleasant emotions compared to curvilinear
forms (Hevner, 1935; Lundholm, 1921; Poffenberger & Barrows, 1924). These perceptual trends may also extend to the built
environment. A study on the perception of architectural contour, for instance, found that curved building interiors were judged as
more beautiful than rectilinear spaces. Curved buildings also activated key areas of the visual cortex, including the lingual and
calcarine gyrus, when subjects made approach-avoidance decisions (Vartanian et al., 2013).
3.2.1.1 Gestalt Theories
Understanding how the human brain works and then exploiting a person’s natural tendencies can help us create a more
seamless, understandable, and therefore more comfortable visual-mental interaction with buildings we observe in streetscapes.
Gestalt psychology, or Gestaltism, is a theory of mind developed by the Berlin School. It is a study of the laws of our
mind's ability to acquire and maintain complicated and meaningful inputs (stimuli). It is also a form of psychology that focuses on
cognitive behaviors (Arnheim, 1970). The theory goes that our mind inclines to understand and identify complex external stimuli
by grouping its parts into wholes instead of separate elements, theorizing that the whole is greater and more harmonized in our
perceptual system than the sum of its parts. The group of stimuli is structured and organized in our perceptual system following the
six laws of Gestalt as they were introduced by the prominent founders of Gestalt: Max Wertheimer, Wolfgang Köhler, Wolfgang
Metzger, and Kurt Koffka. The laws are also called the laws of simplicity, which refer to "pragnanz" a German word that means
pithiness (Arnheim, 1970; Wertheimer, 1938).
The six laws of simplicity are the law of proximity, the law of similarity, the law of closure, the law of continuation, the
law of symmetry & order, and last but not least, the law of figure & ground. All the laws, however, refer to one fact: our mind
handles every complicated stimulus by combining its objects into groups in order to get a more simplified input (Arnheim, 1970;
Wertheimer, 1938).
Gestalt principles are human perception principles or laws that describe how people perceive objects by grouping similar
elements, recognizing patterns, and simplifying complex images. In general, the theory explains how the human brain tends to order
visual input in a manner to make it more regular, simplified, and recognizable.
Gestalt theory interpretations have been explained to facilitate how understandable and comfortable the visual image
(streetscape) is. According to this research, the six laws of simplicity can be explained under the title of "visual comfort" as follows:
a. Law of Similarity
The principle of similarity states that those objects or elements that share the same visual appearance
characteristics, such as color, size, shape, texture, etc., will be seen as belonging to each other instead of being separate. In
turn, this leads to seeing it in one group even though in reality, they are different in kind.
Observing similar buildings along one streetscape is more visually comfortable for the viewer. However,
observing a different building would be confusing for the observer's mind.
To put it another way, when one object looks similar to another one close to it, viewers will often see the individual
elements as part of a pattern or a group. This effect can be used to create one single image, interpretation, or message from
a series of separate elements and objects that are similar. The law of similarity holds that a person can normally recognize
stimuli that have a physical resemblance as a part of a whole. An example of the law of similarity is putting different
flowers of varied colors in a large flower bed. The brain utilizes this principle to consider flowers with a similar appearance,
as in one bunch of flowers instead of two or more.
b. Law of Symmetry & Order
Symmetric objects or arrangements share positive features such as stability, consistency, and structure. On the
other hand, asymmetric arrangements give a slightly undesirable impression—something is missing or unbalanced.
Symmetry does not essentially have to be shaped by other elements such as aesthetics, including color and texture, because
they can effectively fulfill the desired kind of balance that the symmetrical elements have. (Idler, 2011). The gestalt law of
symmetry indicates that those objects that are symmetrical to each other are easily and innately perceived as a unified
group. The law is similar to the law of similarity. However, this rule implies that objects that appear symmetrical to one
another will be more strongly grouped together than objects that appear asymmetrical to one another. Accordingly, when
the object is symmetrical with another one, it will form one strong whole composition instead of two separate objects.
When symmetrical objects get in order, they will even appear as a stronger unified group. However, when
something unexpected and disrupts that order, the group will be separated into more than one instead of one, even though
they are symmetrical. Moreover, the separated groups are not symmetrical nor similar anymore on the side.
c. Law of Proximity
The law of proximity states that humans innately perceive stimuli that are close to each other by grouping them
and recognizing them as part of the same object instead of being separated. Therefore, stimuli that are far from one another
are parts of two or more different objects. The distance that defines how close or far the stimuli are from each other is
dependent on every individual. If they are also similar in appearance, this strengthens the connection even more. Moreover,
the principle of proximity enables us to group elements together into a unified group instead. In addition, this principle
relieves us from having to process complicated scenes that hold many elements.
In other words, the more proximate the buildings are, the more comfortable the observer's mind would be.

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5630
d. Law of Continuation
A Gestalt principle interprets objects that are innately grouped as a whole by our minds if they are co-linear or
follow a specific direction. This natural innate tendency's intention is also to simplify the complicated stimuli. Accordingly,
the direction or the path is considered as a hanger copula that holds different objects together, forming one whole instead
(Staff, 2015; Hampton-Smith, 2015; Wertheimer 1938).
The law of continuity can also be defined in another way; the points or objects on a physical or nonphysical path
are seen in a way that follows and belongs to that path instead of being separated (Staff, 2015; Grais 2015). The patch,
however, unintentionally draws the eye toward a specific element in the scene.
The observer's mind tends to see the whole streetscape as one group. This is the way the mind simplifies the scene.
Whenever there is a different building that disturbs this continuation, the observer's mind will be confused.
e. Law of Closure
The law of closure interprets the eye’s tendency to understand the unclosed shapes as closed instead. This innately
happens using the human visual experience to fill in the missing information. This comes across as the open shapes
(unfinished shapes) make the individual observe that the visual pattern is unfinished, so it serves as a distraction to the
perceiver. Accordingly, our minds will tend to close the gaps created by the stimuli and complete the unfinished shapes.
(Chang & Dooley & Tuovinen, 2002; Fisher & Smith-Gratto, 1999; Fultz, 1999).
f. Law of Figure & Ground
This law describes the eye’s tendency to distinguish objects separately from their background. This is based on
one or more variables, such as color, size, contrast, etc. In some complicated cases, however, the distinction may sometimes
lead to visual confusion by having a natural difficulty in distinguishing the figure or determining the figure outline. (Grais,
2015). If one building in the streetscape is hugely different from the other buildings, the observer's mind sees this building
as the figure and the whole streetscape as the ground. The more diverse the buildings in the streetscape, the more confusing
it is to the observer's mind.
Reviewing all relevant references that were cited above, visual comfort measures have been pointed in the following table
to be used midst applying the neuroaesthetical model on streetscapes to arrive at data. See table 2.
3.2.2 Sense of Belonging
Belonging to a place is a cognitive and symbiotic relationship with the place, which contains a common, sentimental, and
cultural meaning to create a specific space. Therefore, attachment to a place is more than an emotional and cognitive experience
and includes the cultural beliefs of the people attached to it, too. (Altman & Setha, 1992).
Belonging to a place is a higher level of sense of place, which plays a decisive role in benefiting and sustaining human
presence in the place. It is based on a sense of place that goes beyond the awareness of the settlement there. This sense results in
linking the person to the place, which he finds himself as a part of and is based on his experience of signs, meanings, functions, and
Table 3. Levels of sense of place (Moztarzadeh, 2014)
Table 2. Visual Comfort Aesthetic Measures

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5631
personalities, which he considers a role for the place in his mind, and the place becomes respectable for him (Moztarzadeh, 2014).
See following Table 3.
The symbolic qualities of urban design are vital in establishing a sense of belonging to a place and its inhabitants' pride in
it. (Lang, 2015).
Place attachment is the emotional bond between a person and a place and is a main concept in environmental psychology.
It is highly influenced by an individual and his or her personal experiences. Place attachments provide a wider range of positive
experiences, such as security, self-esteem, a sense of belonging, etc. (Altman & Setha, 1992).
Moztarzadeh’s study in (2014) collected some questions based on the theories and views of Fritz Steel, Mc Donald and
salvesen to provide a questionnaire in statistical population of 150 educated persons [undergraduate to Ph.D]. The research explored
users environment preferences in term of sense of belonging; spending more time in the place for studying and researching in
particular.
A desirable place is a place in which people have a sense of satisfaction, and it is created by the physical and social factors
that help to achieve a sense of belonging to a place. The physical factors of the environment affect the person's feelings and behaviors
by providing specific activities and meanings that are effective in promoting the spirit of place and inducing a sense of place.
Cognition and emotion toward the place are obtained and identified by the space's meaning perception, symbols, form, and semantic
aesthetics. (Moztarzadeh, 2014).
Fritz Steel mentions the most important physical factors affecting perception and sense of place, such as the size of the
location, restriction degree, contrast, scale, proportion, human scale, distance, texture, color, smell, sound, and visual diversity. He
also believes that features such as identity, history, fiction and fantasy, mystery, joy, surprise, security, vitality, passion, and
memories lead to an intensive relationship with the place. (Moztarzadeh, 2014).
According to Salvesen, a sense of place occurs through the interaction of three elements: location, landscape, and personal
interconnectedness; each of them alone is not enough to create a sense of place. Various factors, such as impatience, the monotony
of buildings, and the advent of the digital age, can be counted as threats to the sense of place. He believes that his physical
characteristics, ownership, authenticity, residents, and comforts of nature, such as water, plants, sky, sun, and private and common
spaces, are components of a place, which are effective in creating a sense of place. According to (Linnet, 2012), Personal spaces
feel warm and intimate (L. T. raham et al., 2015; Sommer, 1969) and generate feelings of “depth, tenderness, and longing”
(Alexander, 2002a, p. 302), whereas impersonal spaces often feel cold and standardized. (Salvesen, 2002).
The degree to which an architectural space makes a person feel cozy or "at home" (Daniels, 2015; L. T. Graham et al.,
2015; Ritterfeld & Cupchik, 1996) is captured by the Canadian concept of hominess (Linnet, 2012; Wiking, 2017).
Color is the most important factor that helps a person have a sense of belonging to a place. The results indicate that most
people believe warm colors are symbols of calmness and safety in the workplace, while they find cool colors boring and dull. On
the other hand, statistics imply that using warm and cool colors in the environment creates a sense of conflict and contrast, and most
people are in favor of this sensory conflict. It also helps a person to stay longer in places and creates a sense of belonging for them
in the environment. (Moztarzadeh, 2014).
Furniture and plants lead to the creation of perceptual and cognitive factors that result in a sense of belonging to a place in
a research center and help a person's long survival in the environment. Furniture's diversity, functionality, adaptability, and beauty
help people stay in their places and create a sense of belonging for individuals towards the environment. Most researchers believe
that efficient and appropriate furniture is the most important factor for staying in a place. They also believe that the adaptability and
variety of furniture for discussion rooms or private reading rooms has been very significant. (Moztarzadeh, 2014).
Statistics believe that the existence and accessibility of plants create a sense of vitality and freshness in a place. Such places
can help relieve the person's tiredness. In addition, green spaces encourage people to gather, which helps them have social
interactions, dialogue, and discussion. This kind of relationship with the place creates a sense of belonging and unity with the place.
(Moztarzadeh, 2014).
Reviewing all relevant references that were cited above, sense of belonging measures have been pointed in the following
table to be used midst applying the neuroaesthetical model on streetscapes to arrive at data. See table 4.
Figure 7. combine of warm colors and cool colors make contrast sense and it helps to stay in place

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5632
3.2.3 Fascination
Fascination is attraction and holding attentively by a unique power, personal charm, unusual nature, or some other special
quality. It is a scene’s informational richness and generated interest; it refers to the visual richness and complexity of space and is
closely linked to a viewer’s sense of excitement and desire to explore it (Coburn, 2018). In addition to that, and according to Coburn
experiment in (2018) curved interior scenes yielded significantly higher fascination scores than rectilinear scenes, and scenes
showing rooms with high ceilings likewise resulted in significantly higher fascination scores than those showing rooms with low
ceilings. Also, in the same study of (Coburn, 2018) The third principal component from the PCA, fascination, explained 24% and
20% of the variance in image ratings in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively. In both studies, this component represented the vector
sum of two variables, complexity and interest. In Experiment 1, explorability and stimulation also exhibited such high bivariate
correlations with interest that they were considered redundant variables. A close relationship emerged between these four measures
are identified.
A study gave rise to some attractive places “historical-cultural places” “recreational places”, and “panoramic places”. On
the other hand, next to "housing areas" a new category emerged from the most unattractive places of the city, i.e.
"administrative/service places" (this category includes places such as bus or train stations and administrative buildings). (Hidalgo
et al., 2006)
Regarding restorative power, the most attractive places were perceived as more restorative than the most unattractive ones.
Indeed, the results suggest that restorativeness is a significant predictor of a place's attractiveness. (Hidalgo et al., 2006). Moreover,
researchers in environmental psychology and social epidemiology has tried to identify design characteristics that might improve our
physical and mental health. Increasing evidence from these investigations suggests that "attractiveness is a key element in how the
built environment affects our wellbeing" (Cooper & Burton, 2014, p. 13).
In Hidalgo's research, (2006), the mean score for each of the aesthetic attributes was calculated for the most attractive and
the most unattractive place. A paired t-test was carried out for each attribute, taking into account that the places considered most
attractive obtained the highest scores in all the 11-battery items when compared to the most unattractive. All the differences were
statistically significant (p<0.0001): novel place, t (57)=4.89; facilities for leisure activities, t (57)=3.94; presence of vegetation, t
(57)=4.89; meeting place, t (57) =5.09; cleanliness, t (56)=8.37; upkeep/maintenance, t (55)=8.10; congruence of scenic elements,
t (57)=10.89; visual diversity, t (57)=14.45); luminosity, t (57)=4.63; historic or emblematic place, t (57)=8.14, and openness, t
(57)=5.87. These results suggest that for the participants, the most attractive and unattractive places in the city differed regarding
all the attributes. See Table 5.
The most attractive urban environments differ significantly from the more unattractive ones regarding several aesthetic
attributes: vegetation, visual diversity, congruence, openness, luminosity, historical places, cleanliness, maintenance, places for
leisure activities, meeting places, and novel places. This demonstrates their suitability in the field of aesthetic preference studies and
Table 4. Sense of Belonging Aesthetic Measures
Table 5. Mean score (standard deviation in parenthesis) of the 11 aesthetic
attributes of the most attractive and the most unattractive places of Malaga
(Hidalgo, 2007)

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5633
suggests that these attributes, together with restorativeness, constitute important criteria for determining scenic quality.
Nevertheless, these differences are not enough to predict the classification of a place as attractive or unattractive. (Hidalgo et al.,
2006).
Reviewing all relevant references that were cited above, Fascination measures have been pointed in the following table to
be used midst applying the neuroaesthetical model on streetscapes to arrive at data. See table 6.
3.3 Data Classification
The materials that need to be gathered for the framework are relegated into two forms: firstly, images in the form of pictures
that can be accumulated by the author's camera and online image resources; and secondly, online image resources. Secondly, images
in the form of drawings (maps, graphs, etc.) that can be accumulated from online resources such as Google Maps and Open Street
Maps. The images are going to be observed in order to extract useful actionable information with higher accuracy and observe
aesthetics to study their relation to mental reactions. The outcome relation presents this research’s data that are classified according
to aesthetic qualities as described by Santayana (1896); formal, sensory, and symbolic qualities.
According to Santayana, (1896), symbolic aesthetics is concerned with associational meanings of the patterns of the
environment that give people pleasure through significance, meanings, and feelings. Symbolic aesthetic variables are: (a) Image,
sign, and symbol. (b) Variables in the built environment that carry meaning (building configuration, spatial configuration, materials,
nature of illumination, and color) (Santayana,1896).
Formal aesthetics is concerned with the appreciation of shapes and structures in the environment in response to certain
patterns, proportions, or shapes that are not biologically based but rather based on self-conscious and intellectual reasoning based
on the Gestalt theory of perception. Formal values arise from the order of sensory material, perception of the system, and
relationships that exist in the patterns, proportions, and ordering principles. (Santayana, 1896).
Formal aesthetic variables are: (a) The shapes, proportions, rhythms, scale, degree of harmony, color harmony,
illumination, and shadowing effects of the built and natural worlds. (b) Elements of design: dots, lines, planes, and volumes. (c)
Principles of composition: simple or complex. (d) Order and disorder: perceptual order and proportional schemata. (Santayana,
1896). We know very little about sensory aesthetics. Speculations on the topic (for instance, Rasmussen, 1959 and Heschong,
1979) are largely based on highly subjective and fascinating introspective analysis (Santayana, 1896). Sensory aesthetical variables
are: (a) Sensory values are those generated by pleasurable sensations. (b) They are obtained from the textures, smells, tastes, sounds,
and sights of the world. We are more concerned with sights and hearing. (Santayana, 1896)
RESULTS & CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The framework—the neuroaesthetic model—and its explored data that comes out it, present guidelines that have a high
potential to neuroaesthetically improve architects and urban designers' existing outcomes or elevate the quality of their future
outcomes to make them more aesthetically positioned toward one clear positive mental effect. Moreover, the framework raises
architects' and urban designers’ awareness of such an emergent domain by calling their attention to different psychological
dimensions in streetscape design.
The framework includes a neuroaesthetic model that is going to be applied to the observations to arrive at data that can be
explained as follows: The most significant image observation is going to be connected with the most appropriate mental reaction.
The application mainly consists of three mental reactions: visual comfort, a sense of belonging, and fascination. These mental
reactions have a positive linear correlation with aesthetics (Coburn et al. 2020). Each of the mental reactions has been studied
intensely from a certain reference: (a) Visual comfort: according to Ilvitskaya et. al, (2020) (b) Sense of belonging: according
Moztarzadeh, (2014). (c) fascination, as stated in Hidalgo et al. (2006). The final step is to classify these data outcomes into three
aesthetic qualities as described by Santayana, (1896); formal, sensory, and symbolic qualities.
The neuroaesthetic model’s connections can significantly alert architects and urban designers to the three qualities of aesthetics
in their streetscape designs while linking them with the three mental reactions. Hence, they can deal with the pre-analysis survey
observations more neuroaesthetically.
A contradictive hypothesis presents future research that significantly can either support the current research hypothesis
Table 6. Fascination Aesthetic Measures

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5634
including the model or supporting the contradiction. The contradicting hypothesis can be stated as that the streetscape aesthetics
have a less psychological or neurological effect on street users including perceivers and observers than the designed functional
operation of the street.
REFERENCES
1. Ahmad Nia, H., & Atun, R. A. (2016). Aesthetic design thinking model for urban environments: A survey based on a
review of the literature. URBAN DESIGN International, 21(3), 195-212. doi:10.1057/udi.2015.25
2. Alex Coburn, Oshin Vartanian, and Anjan Chatterjee (2017b). Buildings, Beauty, and Brain: A Neuroscience of
Architectural Experience. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. Published.
3. Alkhalifa, F., Wilkins, A., Almurbati, N., & Pinelo, J. (2020). Examining The Visual Effect Of Trypophobic Repetitive
Pattern In Contemporary Urban Environments: Bahrain As A Case For Middle East Countries. Journal Of Architecture
And Urbanism, 44(1), 44–51. doi: 10.3846/jau.2020.11142Allen, B.P., 1994. Personality Theories. Western IIlinois
University, Allyn and Bacon, USA.
4. Altman, I., & Zube, E. H. (1989). Human behavior and environment. New York: Plenum.
5. Altman, I., & Zube, E. H. (1989). Public places and spaces. New York: Plenum Press.
6. Altman, I., L. Setha, 1992Place Attachment, Plenum Press, New York.
7. Alyssa, (2013) Interior Design Basics: Psychological Effects of a Line | RC Willey Blog. 2018. RC Willey Home
Furnishings. Retrieved 31 December 2018, from https://www.rcwilley.com/blogs/Room-To-Talk/34/2013/5/4327/Interior-
Design-Basics-Psychological-Effects-of-a-Line
8. Anjan Chatterjee and Oshin Vartanian(2016a). Neuroscience of aesthetics. ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY
OF SCIENCES. Published.
9. Arnheim, R. (1943). Gestalt and Art. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 2(8), 71-75.
10. Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley: University of California Press.
11. Bar, M. and Neta, M.. (2008), The proactive brain: Using rudimentary information to make predictive judgments. Journal
of Consumer Behavior, 7(4-5), 319-330.
12. Bechtel, W. (2013). Philosophy of mind: An overview for cognitive science. New York: Psychology Press.
13. Beck, A.T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R.A. (1988). An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: Psychometric
properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 893-897.
14. Belcher, M.C. and Kluczny, R.M., 1987, the effects of light on decision making: Some experimental results. Proceedings
of the CIE 21st Session, volume I. (Venice and Vienna: International Commission on Illumination), pp. 354–357.
15. Bell, P. A. (2011). Environmental psychology. New York: Psychology Press.
16. Berleant, A. (2004). Aesthetics and environment: Theme and variations on art and culture. Aldershot, Hants, England:
Ashgate Pub.
17. Best, J. (2012). Color design theories and application. Cambridge: Woodhead Pub Ltd.
18. Bhatt, M., Holscher, C. and F. Shipley, T.: 2011, Spatial Cognition for Architectural Design SCAD conference, New York,
16–19.
19. Boray, P., Gifford, R. and Rosenblood, L., 1989, Effects of warm white, cool white and full-spectrum fluorescent lighting
on simple cognitive performance, mood, and ratings of others. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 297–308.
20. Botton, A. D. (2008). The architecture of happiness. New York, NY: Vintage International.
21. Brachmann & Redies (2017a). Computational and Experimental Approaches to Visual Aesthetics. Experimental Aesthetics
Group, Institute of Anatomy, Jena University Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Jena, Jena, Germany. Published.
22. Broady, M. (1966). Social Theory in Architectural Design. Arena, 81, 149-154.
23. Cela-Conde, C. J., Agnati, L., Huston, J. P., Mora, F., and Nadal, M. (2011). The neural foundations of aesthetic
appreciation. Progr. Neurobiol. 94, 39–48. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2011.03.003
24. Chatterjee, A.; Vartanian, O. (2016). Neuroaesthetics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 370-375.
doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.003
25. Clark, D. B., & Donovan, J. E. (1994). Reliability and validity of the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale in an adolescent
sample. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33(3), 354–360.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199403000-00009
26. Clemons, S. A. (2017). Interior design. Tinley Park, IL: The Goodheart-Willcox Company, Inc. Could bad buildings
damage your mental health? (2016, September 16). Retrieved October 03, 2017, from https://www.architecturelab.net/bad-
buildings-damagemental-health/
27. Coburn A, Vartanian O, Kenett YN, Nadal M, Hartung F, Hayn-Leichsenring G, Navarrete G, González-Mora JL,
Chatterjee A (2020) Psychological and neural responses to architectural interiors. Cortex 126:217–241.
28. Coburn, A., Vartanian, O., & Chatterjee, A. (2017). Buildings, Beauty, and the Brain: A Neuroscience of Architectural
Experience. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(9), 1521–1531. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_01146
29. Coburn, A., Vartanian, O., Kenett, Y. N., Nadal, M., Hartung, F., Hayn-Leichsenring, G., Navarrete, G., González-Mora,
J. L., & Chatterjee, A. (2020). Psychological and neural responses to architectural interiors. Cortex; a journal devoted to
the study of the nervous system and behavior, 126, 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.01.009
30. Cupchik, G. C. (1986). A decade after Berlyne: new directions in experimental aesthetics. Poetics 15, 345–369.
31. Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes' Error. New York: New York: Grosset/Putnam.
32. Daurat, A., Aguirre, A., Foret, J., Gonnet, P., Keromes, A. And Benoit, O., (1993), Bright light affects alertness and
performance rhythms during a 24-h constant routine. Physiology and Behavior, 53, 929–936.

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5635
33. Dazkir, S. S. & Read, M. A. (2011) Furniture Forms and Their Influence on Our Emotional Responses toward Interior
Environments. Environment and Behavior 20(10), 1–13.
34. DETR (2000) Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Design Council. Retrieved October 2, 2015,
from By Design Urban Design in the Planning System towards Better Practice:
http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/bydesign_ 0.pdf, 2-10-2015
35. Diemer, J., Alpers, G. W., Peperkorn, H. M., Shiban, Y., & Mã¼Hlberger, A. (2015). The impact of perception and
presence on emotional reactions: A review of research in virtual reality. Frontiers in Psychology, 6.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00026
36. Dosen, A. S., & Ostwald, M. J. (2016). Evidence for prospectrefuge theory: A meta-analysis of the findings of
environmental preference research. City, Territory and Architecture, 3, 1–14.
37. Douchová, Veronika. (2016). Birkhoff’s aesthetic measure. AUC PHILOSOPHICA ET HISTORICA. 2015. 39-53.
10.14712/24647055.2016.8.
38. Douglass, M. (2015, September 16). Earth - Nine incredible buildings inspired by nature Retrieved October 02, 2017, from
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150913-nine-incredible-buildings-inspired-by-nature
39. Ellard, C., & Montgomery, C. (2011). Testing! Testing! A psychological study on city spaces and how they affect our
bodies and minds. Retrieved October 3, 2017, from http://cdn.bmwguggenheimlab.org/TESTING_TESTING_BMW_
40. Estren, M. J., & Potter, B. A. (2013). Healing hormones: how to turn on naturalchemicals to reduce stress. Berkeley, CA:
Ronin Pub.
41. Falahat, M.S., 2006. "The Concept of Sense of Place and Its Forming Factors" The Fine Arts Magazine,
No. 27.
42. Farah M. J., Rabinowitz C., Quinn G. E., Liu G. T. (2000). Early commitment of neural substrates for face recognition.
Cogn. Neuropsychol. 17, 117–123. 10.1080/026432900380526
43. Fechner, G. T. (1876). Vorschule der Aesthetik, Vol. 1. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
44. Frumkin, H. (2002). Urban sprawl and public health. Public Health Reports, 117, 201–217.
45. Fydrich, T., Dowdall, D., & Chambless, D. (1992). Reliability and validity of the beck anxiety inventory. Journal Of
Anxiety Disorders, 6(1), 55-61. doi: 10.1016/0887-6185(92)90026-4
46. Garner, W.R.: 1974, The processing of information and structure. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Potomac, MD.
47. Gehl, J. (2011), Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Island Press, Washington. Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M.,
Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H. & Van De
48. Glover, T. D. (2006). Toward a critical examination of social capital within leisure contexts From production and
maintenance to distribution. Leisure/Loisir, 30(2), 357–367. doi:10.1080/14927713.2006.9651357
49. Gourav et. Al, (2017). Application of Aesthetics in Architecture and Design. International Journal of Engineering Research
and Technology. Published.
50. Graves, M. (1941). The art of color and design. 2d ed. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill
51. Green, C. D. (1995). All that glitters: a review of psychological research on the aesthetics of the golden section. Perception
24, 937–968.
52. Grove, J.R., & Prapavessis, H. (1992). Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of an abbreviated Profile of
Mood States. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 93-109.
53. Gubbels, J., Kremers, S., Droomers, M., Hoefnagels, C., Stronks, K., Hosman, C., & de Vries, S. (2016). The impact of
greenery on physical activity and mental health of adolescent and adult residents of deprived neighborhoods: A longitudinal
study. Health & Place, 40, 153-160. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.06.002
54. Hagerhall, C. M., Purcell, T., & Taylor, R. (2004). Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of
landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 247–255.
55. Hjelle, L.A., & Ziegler, D.J., 1981. Personality Theories. NcGraw-Hill book company, NY.
56. Hover over the menu items to seBruce, V., Georgeson, M. A., & Green, P. R. (2014). Visual Perception Physiology,
Psychology and Ecology. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
57. Hutchison, E. D. (2008). Dimensions of human behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
58. Hutchison, E. D. (2015). Dimensions of human behavior: person and environment. Los Angeles: SAGE.
59. Hutchison, E. D. (2019). Dimensions of human behavior: person and environment. Los Angeles: SAGE.
60. Ingy Ibrahim El-Darwish (2019). Fractal design in streetscape: Rethinking the visual aesthetics of building elevation
composition. Https://Www.Sciencedirect.Com/.
61. Interior Design Basics: Psychological Effects of a Line | RC Willey Blog. (2018). RC Willey Home Furnishings. Retrieved
30 December 2018, from https://www.rcwilley.com/blogs/Room-To-Talk/34/2013/5/4327/Interior-Design-Basics-
Psychological-Effects-of-a-Line
62. Jackson, R. J., & Kochtitzky, C. (n.d.). Creating A Healthy Environment: The Impact of the Built Environment on Public
Health. Sprawl Watch. Retrieved October 2, 2017, from http://www.sprawlwatch.org/health.pdf
63. Jacobsen, T., Schubotz, R. I., Höfel, L., & Cramon, D. Y. (2006). Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty.
Neuroimage, 29, 276–285.
64. Jerald, J. (2016). The VR book: Human-centered design for Virtual Reality. San Rafael: ACM; M&C.
65. K. Aysha Jennath and Nidhish P. J.b (2016). Aesthetic judgement and visual impact of architectural forms: a study of
library buildings. ScienceDirect. Published.
66. Kasper, S., Wehr, T.A., Bartko, J.J., Gaist, P.A. and Rosenthal, N.E., (1989), Epidemiological findings of seasonal changes
in mood and behavior. A telephone survey of Montgomery County, Maryland. Archives of General Psychiatry, 46, 823–

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5636
833.
67. Knez, I. and Kers, C., (2000), Effects of indoor lighting, gender, and age on mood and cognitive performance. Environment
and Behavior, 32, 817–831.
68. Kotabe, H. P., Kardan, O., & Berman, M. G. (2016). The order of disorder: Deconstructing visual disorder and its effect
on rule-breaking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(12), 1713–1727.
69. Kuller, R. and Mikellides, B., (1993), Simulated studies of color, arousal, and comfort. In Environmental Simulation.
Research and Policy Issue, R.W. Marans and D. Stokols (Eds.), pp. 163–190 (New York: Plenum Press).
70. Kuller, R. and Wetterberg, L., (1996), the subterranean work environment: Impact on well-being and health. Environment
International, 22, 33–52.
71. Kuller, R., (2002), the influence of light on circarhythms in humans. Journal of Physiological Anthropology and Applied
Human Science, 21, 87–91.
72. Kwallek, N., Lewis, C.M., Lin-Hsiao, J.W.D. and Woodson, H., (1996), Effects of nine monochromatic office interior
colors on clerical tasks and worker mood. Color Research and Application, 21, 448–458.
73. Lang, J (1987). “Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design”, Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company: USA.
74. Lang, J. 1974. Designing for Human Behavior: Architecture and the Behavior al Sciences. Pennsylvania: Dowden,
Hutchinson and Ross.
75. Lang, J. (1988) Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
76. Lang, J. (1988) Symbolic aesthetics in architecture: toward a research agenda; pp. 11–26 in J.L. Nasar (ed) Environmental
Aesthetics. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.
77. Lang, J. (2015). International urban design: theory and practice. ICE Virtual Library. Published.
https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.2009.162.1.7
78. Li, D., & Sullivan, W. (2016). Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue. Landscape
And Urban Planning, 148, 149-158. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.015
79. Linnet, J. T. (2012). The social-material performance of cozy interiority. In Presented at the Ambiances in
action/Ambiances en acte(s) - international Congress on Ambiances, Montreal 2012 (pp. 403e408). International
Ambiances Network
80. Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place
attachment: Human behavior and environment (Vol. 12, pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
81. Lundin, K. (2018). The Psychology of Logo Design: How Fonts, Colors, Shapes and Lines Influence Purchasing Decisions
- crowdspring Blog. crowdspring Blog. Retrieved 12 June 2019, from https://www.crowdspring.com/blog/logo-design-
psychology/
82. M. Carmen Hidalgo, Rita Berto, Maria Paz Galindo y Anna Getrevi (2006). Identifying attractive and unattractive urban
places: categories, restorativeness and aesthetic attributes. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano. Published.
https://mach.webs.ull.es/PDFS/Vol7_2/Vol7_2_f.pdf
83. Madani Nejad, K. (2007). Curvilinearity in architecture: Emotional effect of curvilinear forms in interior design.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University. Retrieved from
http://repository.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/5750?show = full
84. Maslow, A. H. (2015). A theory of human motivation. United States: BNPublishing.
85. Maurer D., Le Grand R., Mondloch C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6, 255–260.
10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-
86. Mccloughan, C.L.B., Aspinall, P.A. and Webb, R.S., (1999), the impact of lighting on mood. Lighting Research and
Technology, 31, 81–88.
87. McNair, D.; Lorr, M.; Doppleman, L. (1971). POMS Manual for the Profile of Mood States. San Diego, CA: Educational
and Industrial Testing Service
88. Mehta, V. (2013). The street: A quintessential social public space. London: Routledge.
89. Merrifield, C. (2010). Characterizing the psychophysiological signature of boredom.
90. Montello, D. and Sas, C. (2013). Human Factors of way-finding in Navigation. Department of geography and psychology,
university of California, CA 93106, USA.
91. Montello, Daniel. (2007). The contribution of space syntax to a comprehensive theory of environmental psychology.
Proceedings. 6.
92. Moore G. (1979). Architecture and human behavior: the place of environment-behavior studies in architecture. Wisconsin:
the University of Sydney
93. Nasar, J. L. (1988). Environmental aesthetics theory, research, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
94. Nasar, J. L. (1989). Perception, Cognition, and Evaluation of Urban Places. Public Places and Spaces, 31-56.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-5601-1_3
95. Navarrete, G., Vartanian, O., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L.B., Leder, H., Modrono, C. and Skov, M.: 2013, “Impact of Contour
on Aesthetic Judgments and Approach-Avoidance Deci- sions in Architecture.” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 110.Suppl 2 (2013): 10446–10453. PMC. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.
96. Niedenthal, P. M. (2007). Embodying emotion. Science, 316(5827), 1002-1005.
97. Noe, A.: 2004, Action in perception. MIT Press.
98. OED (2017). Oxford English Dictionary Online. Available online
at: http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/293508 (Accessed May 24, 2017).

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5637
99. Pallasmaa, J. (2005), The Eyes Of The Skin, Architecture And The Senses. Academy Press, Hoboken, Nj.
100. Pi, Y., Lu, J., Liu, M., & Liao, W. (2008). Theory of Cognitive Pattern Recognition. INTECH Open Access Publisher.
101. Piepers D. W., Robbins R. A. (2012). A review and clarification on the terms holistic, configural and relational in the face
perception literature. Front. Psychol. 3:559. 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00559
102. Porteous, J. D. (2007). Environmental aesthetics: Ideas, politics and planning. London: Routledge.
103. Quintão, Sónia, Delgado, Ana R., & Prieto, Gerardo. (2013). Validity study of the Beck Anxiety Inventory (Portuguese
version) by the Rasch Rating Scale model. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 26(2), 305-310. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-
79722013000200010
104. R. Keshtkaran et al, Aesthetic preferences for visual quality of urban landscape in Derak high-rise buildings, J.
Sustain.Develop. 10 (5) (2017) 94–104.
105. Rawal, S. O. (2016). Impact of Urban Park Design on Recovery from Stress: An experimental approach using physiological
biomarkers (PhD's thesis, North Carolina State University). North Carolina: North Carolina State University.
106. Reber, R., Schwarz, N. and Winkielman, P.: 2004, Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's
processing experience? Personality and social psychology review, 8(4), 364-382.
107. Roberts, M. N. (2007). COMPLEXITY AND AESTHETIC PREFERENCE FOR DIVERSE VISUAL STIMULI.
Departament de Psicologia Universitat de Les Illes Balears. Published.
108. Ronald, S., California State University, (2001). Learning About Art: A Multicultural Approach (Web. 24, June 2008. ed.).
109. Rossion B., Gauthier I. (2002). How does the brain process upright and inverted faces? Behav. Cogn. Neurosci. Rev. 1,
63–75. 10.1177/1534582302001001004
110. Ruggles, D. (in press). Beauty, Neuroscience & Architecture. Denver, CO: Fibonacci, LLC.
111. S V Ilvitskaya et al 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 962 032085
112. Sadalla, E.K., Montello, D.R., 1989, “Remembering Changes in Direction”, Environment and Behavior, 21, 346-363.
113. Sakoulas, T. (October). The Parthenon. Retrieved December 02, 2017, from http://ancient
greece.org/architecture/parthenon.html
114. Salvesen, D., 2002. The making of Place”
115. Santayana, G. (1896). The sense of beauty, being the outlines of aesthetic theory, by George Santayana. C. Scribner's Sons.
116. Santosa et al (2018). Visual quality evaluation of urban commercial streetscape for the development of landscape visual
planning system in provincial street corridors in Malang, Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental
Science. Published.
117. Sascha Mahlke (2008). Visual aesthetics and the user experience. Berlin University of Technology Franklinstrasse 28/29
– FR2-6, 10587 Berlin, Germany. Published.
118. Scott, D. (2019, October 16). What is Shape in Art? Retrieved from https://drawpaintacademy.com/shape/
119. Scruton, R., Gowans, A., Collins, P., & Ackerman, J. S. (2019, October 10). Architecture. Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/topic/architecture
120. Sewilam M. (2013) Psychiatry made easy. Cairo: Cairo University
121. Shacham, Saya (1983). "A Shortened Version of the Profile of Mood States". Journal of Personality Assessment. 47 (3):
305–306. Doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4703_14. PMID 6886962.
122. Skinner B.F., (1974) About Behaviorism. New York: Knopf
123. Spanjar, G., & Suurenbroek, F. (2020). Eye-Tracking the City: Matching the Design of Streetscapes in High-Rise
Environments with Users’ Visual Experiences. Journal of Digital Landscape Architecture (JoDLA), 5(2020), 374-385.
https://gispoint.de/gisopen-paper/6344-eye-tracking-the-city-matching-the-design-of-streetscapes-in-high-rise-
environments-with-users-visual-experiences.html?IDjournalTitle=6
124. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
125. Steel, F., 1981. “The Sense of Place” CBI Publishing Company, Boston.
126. Stone, N.J., (2001), Designing effective study environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 179–190.
127. Stone, P.T., (1999), The effects of environmental illumination on melatonin, bodily rhythms and mood states: A review.
Lighting Research and Technology, 31, 71–79.
128. Sussman, A., & Hollander, J. B. (2015). Cognitive architecture: designing for how we respond to the built environment.
New York: Routledge.
129. Tennessen, C.M. and Cimprich, B., (1995), Views to nature. Effects on attention. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
15, 77–85.
130. Veitch, J. and Mccoll, S., (2001), A critical examination of perceptual and cognitive eects attributed to full- spectrum
fluorescent lighting. Ergonomics, 44, 255–279.
131. Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., Modrono, C., Nadal, M., Rostrup, N., &amp; Skov, M.
(2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement_2), 10446–10453. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1301227110
132. Wahba, S. M. (2010). Friendly and Beautiful: Environmental Aesthetics in Twenty-First-Century Architecture. Geometries
of Rhetoric, 459-469. doi:10.1007/978-3-0346-0522-9_7
133. Weisman, G.D. (1981). Modeling environment-behavior systems: A brief note. Journal of Man-Environment Relations, 1
(2), 21-30
134. Wilson, A., & Chatterjee, A. (2005). The assessment of preference for balance: Introducing a new test. Empirical Studies
of the Arts, 23, 165–180.

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 7 No. 1 (January, 2022)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
5638
135. World War II/Post-War Building Styles. (2016, December 07). Retrieved October 02, 2017, from
136. Zajonc, R.B.: 1968, Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of personality and social psychology, 9(2p2), 1.