Current sustainable design guidelines focused on the conservation of energy (e.g. eco-lighting) invariably reduce sensory bias to the purely visual. This is problematic as without attempting to employ cross-modal analyses, much design research fails to escape the reductionist methodologies of mainstream science. The shortcomings of unimodal analysis is perhaps best outlined in the latest research for neuroaesthetics, a visually-biased program which aims to uncover the mysteries of human creativity and art. In its current state, it misses the mark on two counts; first, not only are responses to art ‘creatively’ biased (via Gazzaniga’s ‘interpreter’) but second, if we accept that aesthetic appreciation involves the entire body, neuroimaging is an incredibly narrow window into the connections between body function and response. The neuroenthusiasta hype has gathered significant momentum in the past decade, with fields of neurolaw, neuroarthistory, neuromarketing and neuroeconomics all jumping on the proverbial bandwagon. Few would doubt the need for cross-fertilization between the two cultures, however researchers and policy makers would do well to remain skeptical of what Raymond Tallis (above) refers to as neuromythologies: ‘if you come across a new discipline with the prefix “neuro” and it is not to do with the nervous system itself, switch on your bullshit detector. If it has society in its sights, reach for your gun.’

The psychological bias of organizational structures and reward systems as highlighted by the Hawthorne effect are clearly problematic for environmental research. Often hampered by a lack of time-based analysis, many theories are so entrenched in environmental research that they become part of an accepted wisdom among social scientists (Parsons, 1973). Economists John List and Steven Levitt have recently challenged this wisdom, stating that the production variance shown in the Hawthorne experiments can be attributed to other biochemically induced factors relating to work production and climate, confirming earlier studies by Steven Jones. While design research methods may vary (from questionnaires, interviews, focus groups and online surveys), cognitive rationalization is fundamentally the same, integrated by what neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga refers to as the Interpreter. Therefore, environmental researchers (and anyone else who depend on memory recall to make judgements) rarely operate left-brain rationale, forming ‘creative’ rationalizations from the same non-cognitive (irrational) areas of the brain which process emotions.

E.g., Why do many architects specify aeron chairs over other more appropriate somatic alternatives?  Regardless of personal taste, many would repond with something like, ‘I preferred the design’ or ‘they were within budget.’ Occaisionally, this response seems valid and the left-hemisphere rules. In the majority of cases however, the repsonse is impossible to explain, based solely on emotional instinct. The clear message here is that before environmental researchers consider what methodology to adopt, they need to be aware that responses given by subjects about their behavior will generally be skewed.

Levitt, S.D. & List, J.A. ‘Was there Really a Hawthorne Effect at the Hawthorne Plant? An Analysis of the Original Illumination Experiments.’ (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2009)

Parsons, H. M. ‘What happened at Hawthorne?’ (Science 183, 922-932, 1974) argued the Hawthorne effect was due to feedback-promoted learning.

Berkeley Rice, ‘The Hawthorne Defect: Persistence of a Flawed Theory’ (Psychology Today, 1982)

If we accept that all built environments consist of multiple arrays of media ecologies (books, smartphones, laptops, lighting, hvac, etc.) and that such ecologies enable us to extend our own psychophysical potential, it follows that all environments are essentially networked extensions of the body. Thus, before challenging the separatist methods of architectural praxis, concepts of active externalism and the extended mind thesis (EMT) need to be examined if we are to more accuately define how environments shape cognition.

The extended mind thesis simply questions where the mind stops and the world begins. Most of us would answer the skin or the skull. However, Clark and Chalmers suggest cognition is inextricably looped throughout the environment. Citing the behaviour of garden spiders who build intricate webs despite their blindness, a recent paper further supports Clark’s thesis, stating ‘it is easy to be misled into thinking that intelligent action is always the sole product of neural mechanism… always something that must reside in the ‘head’ of an agent… what the case of web construction teaches us is that agents may often co-opt a variety of far flung forces and factors into a problem-solving routine, and not all of these forces and factors need to be biological in nature.’

Realizing environments as extended cognitive networks presents a great challenge for the traditional schizm between design and facility management. A good example of this can be seen at Arup who operate over 10 specialist divisions including Advanced Technology, Lighting, Acoustics, Product and Theatre design. Despite a plethora of design and engineering expertise (incl. communications), no department currently facilitates the necesssary integration fundamental to servicing the interactive demands of media environments. A disappointing but not surprising revelation. Such effects have been recognized for decades, as John Dewey noted in his seminal book on aesthetics - Art as Experience:

‘Comparmentalization of occupations and interests bring about a separation of that mode of activity commonly called “practice” from insight, of imagination from executive doing. Each of these activities is then assigned its own place in which it must abide. Those who write the anatomy of experience then supppose that these divisions inhere in the very constitution of human nature.‘ Dewey, J., Art as Experience (1934) p.21

Countering the communications fallout between design and engineering, Munro’s model for Integral Architecture (right) extends traditional linear production (left) in favor of a more integrated approach, whereby five motivational specialisms operate within one non-hierachical framework. The role of human needs and how media ecosystems and user-experience are cultivated and nurtured can not be understated, indeed many crossmodal applications have already begun to emerge, within retail and leisure sectors, with financial, education and health sectors not far behind.

Clay Shirkey discusses Cognitive Surplus¹ at TED

After 20 years of research, the core argument presented in The Master and his Emissary by Iain McGilchrist seems wildly out of sync with modern times. Nowhere throughout this incredibly referenced book have the effects of communications media (e.g., Innis, McLuhan) been addressed. While philosophers still debate the levels of influence screen media impart upon human consciousness, few would doubt we live in a highly pervasive pop culture. Sadly, McGilchrist’s analysis of how the dominance of brain lateralization has shaped human culture suffers from what McLuhan coined the rear-view mirror, i.e. we evaluate present environmental media via nostalgic metaphors of the past. Their effects therefore remain invisible to us.

Since the 1960s explosion of entertainment technologies, media ecologists have been examining the considerable shifts in cognitive perception, with many reporting a gradual feminization of the male psyche (70s sexual liberation, 80s androgyny, 90s metrosexuality). So where exactly has McGilchrist been residing? If the latest studies into the effects of social networks (Zac, 2009) and cognitive surplus are correct (Leadbeater, 2009; Shirkey, 2010) McGilchrist should be championing a left-brain renaissance rather than lamenting right-brain obsolescence. Such phenomenological analyses result in a philosophical dead-end, as McLuhan noted in his posthumous Laws of Media:

There is in Heidegger still no sense of interplay between figure and ground; the attention has just been shifted from one to the other wihout trying to take the new thing on its own terms. That is, ground cannot be dealt with conceptually or abstractly: it is ceaselessly changing, dynamic, discontinuous and heterogenous, a mossaic of intervals and contours. As von Bekesy discovered, the appropriate form of awareness is acoustic-tactile-kinetic and alive to the stress and coercion that each exerts on the other.³

1. Clay Shirkey, Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age (Allen Lane, 2010)

2. Charles Leadbeater, We-think: The Power of Mass Creativity (Profile, 2008)

3. Marshall & Eric McLuhan, Laws of Media: The New Science (UTP, 1988)  p.63

Foodfrequency – connect your perception from Sara Lenzi – Lorelei on Vimeo.

In collaboration with Heston Blumenthal, the Crossmodal Research Laboratory in Oxford has shown that the flavours of bacon and egg ice cream can be switched by altering the background sound. For example the ice cream tastes more “bacony” with the sound of sizzling bacon, and more “eggy” with the sound of clucking chickens. In the above video, the flavour of oysters is shown to increase with the sound of seagulls and crashing waves. In testing the freshness response of Univlever’s Pringles the lab also confirmed that by altering the volume or frequency (above 2 KHz) of the crunching sound in real-time via a microphone and headset, people rated Pringles 15% fresher and crisper.

Head of research at the Crossmodal laboratory, Charles Spence notes that ‘taken together, these results suggest that our perception and evaluation of food and drink depends not just on the taste, smell, sight touch and sound of the food itself, but also on the packaging, and even on the environment in which those foods are eaten.’