Brain Electrical Responses to High- and Low-Ranking Buildings
Since the ancient world, architecture generally distinguishes two categories of buildings with either high- or low-ranking design. High-ranking buildings are supposed to be more prominent and, therefore, more memorable. Here, we recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) to drawings of buildings with...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical EEG and neuroscience 2009-07, Vol.40 (3), p.157-161 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 161 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 157 |
| container_title | Clinical EEG and neuroscience |
| container_volume | 40 |
| creator | Oppenheim, Ian Mühlmann, Heiner Blechinger, Gerhard Mothersill, Ian W. Hilfiker, Peter Jokeit, Hennric Kurthen, Martin Krämer, Günter Grunwald, Thomas |
| description | Since the ancient world, architecture generally distinguishes two categories of buildings with either high- or low-ranking design. High-ranking buildings are supposed to be more prominent and, therefore, more memorable. Here, we recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) to drawings of buildings with either high- or low-ranking architectural ornaments and found that ERP responses between 300 and 600 ms after stimulus presentation recorded over both frontal lobes were significantly more positive in amplitude to high-ranking buildings. Thus, ERPs differentiated reliably between both classes of architectural stimuli although subjects were not aware of the two categories. We take our data to suggest that neurophysiological correlates of building perception reflect aspects of an architectural rule system that adjust the appropriateness of style and content (“decorum”). Since this rule system is ubiquitous in Western architecture, it may define architectural prototypes that can elicit familiarity memory processes. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/155005940904000307 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67623048</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_155005940904000307</sage_id><sourcerecordid>21322141</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-18abe39fd87a64ef9e42f82d83e88f8fcc389a04f5fd6d15343fd59b6013822e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0U9LwzAYBvAgipvTL-BBioK3urz50yQHD25MJwyEoeeSNcns7NqZrIjf3owNFGV4Sg6_90leHoTOAd8ACNEHzjHmimGFGcaYYnGAugQylXKCySHqbkC6ER10EsIikoxQdow6oATwGNFFtwOvyzoZVbZY-7LQVTK1YdXUwYZk3STjcv6aJro2yaT5SKe6fivreTJoy8rESzhFR05XwZ7tzh56uR89D8fp5OnhcXg3SQtGxDoFqWeWKmek0BmzTllGnCRGUiulk64oqFQaM8edyQxwyqgzXM0yDFQSYmkPXW9zV755b21Y58syFLaqdG2bNuSZiIthJv-FBCghwCDCy19w0bS-jkvkBGcUBAgW0dU-BAowozT-OyqyVYVvQvDW5StfLrX_zAHnm6Lyv0XFoYtddDtbWvM9smsmgv4WBD23P97dH_kFpuqXVw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1910433389</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Brain Electrical Responses to High- and Low-Ranking Buildings</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Oppenheim, Ian ; Mühlmann, Heiner ; Blechinger, Gerhard ; Mothersill, Ian W. ; Hilfiker, Peter ; Jokeit, Hennric ; Kurthen, Martin ; Krämer, Günter ; Grunwald, Thomas</creator><creatorcontrib>Oppenheim, Ian ; Mühlmann, Heiner ; Blechinger, Gerhard ; Mothersill, Ian W. ; Hilfiker, Peter ; Jokeit, Hennric ; Kurthen, Martin ; Krämer, Günter ; Grunwald, Thomas</creatorcontrib><description>Since the ancient world, architecture generally distinguishes two categories of buildings with either high- or low-ranking design. High-ranking buildings are supposed to be more prominent and, therefore, more memorable. Here, we recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) to drawings of buildings with either high- or low-ranking architectural ornaments and found that ERP responses between 300 and 600 ms after stimulus presentation recorded over both frontal lobes were significantly more positive in amplitude to high-ranking buildings. Thus, ERPs differentiated reliably between both classes of architectural stimuli although subjects were not aware of the two categories. We take our data to suggest that neurophysiological correlates of building perception reflect aspects of an architectural rule system that adjust the appropriateness of style and content (“decorum”). Since this rule system is ubiquitous in Western architecture, it may define architectural prototypes that can elicit familiarity memory processes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1550-0594</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2169-5202</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/155005940904000307</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19715177</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aesthetics ; Architecture ; Asymmetry ; Brain ; Brain Mapping - methods ; Buildings ; Conflicts of interest ; Design ; Electroencephalography - methods ; Event-related potentials ; Evoked Potentials, Visual - physiology ; Explicit knowledge ; Familiarity ; Female ; Form Perception - physiology ; Historical buildings ; Humans ; Hypotheses ; Male ; Medical ethics ; Middle Aged ; Principal components analysis ; Prototypes ; Ranking ; Ratings & rankings ; Studies ; Symmetry ; Textbooks ; Visual Cortex - physiology</subject><ispartof>Clinical EEG and neuroscience, 2009-07, Vol.40 (3), p.157-161</ispartof><rights>2009 EEG and Clinical Neuroscience Society</rights><rights>Copyright EEG and Clinical Neuroscience Society (ECNS) Jul 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-18abe39fd87a64ef9e42f82d83e88f8fcc389a04f5fd6d15343fd59b6013822e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-18abe39fd87a64ef9e42f82d83e88f8fcc389a04f5fd6d15343fd59b6013822e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/155005940904000307$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/155005940904000307$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19715177$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Oppenheim, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mühlmann, Heiner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blechinger, Gerhard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mothersill, Ian W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hilfiker, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jokeit, Hennric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kurthen, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krämer, Günter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grunwald, Thomas</creatorcontrib><title>Brain Electrical Responses to High- and Low-Ranking Buildings</title><title>Clinical EEG and neuroscience</title><addtitle>Clin EEG Neurosci</addtitle><description>Since the ancient world, architecture generally distinguishes two categories of buildings with either high- or low-ranking design. High-ranking buildings are supposed to be more prominent and, therefore, more memorable. Here, we recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) to drawings of buildings with either high- or low-ranking architectural ornaments and found that ERP responses between 300 and 600 ms after stimulus presentation recorded over both frontal lobes were significantly more positive in amplitude to high-ranking buildings. Thus, ERPs differentiated reliably between both classes of architectural stimuli although subjects were not aware of the two categories. We take our data to suggest that neurophysiological correlates of building perception reflect aspects of an architectural rule system that adjust the appropriateness of style and content (“decorum”). Since this rule system is ubiquitous in Western architecture, it may define architectural prototypes that can elicit familiarity memory processes.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aesthetics</subject><subject>Architecture</subject><subject>Asymmetry</subject><subject>Brain</subject><subject>Brain Mapping - methods</subject><subject>Buildings</subject><subject>Conflicts of interest</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Electroencephalography - methods</subject><subject>Event-related potentials</subject><subject>Evoked Potentials, Visual - physiology</subject><subject>Explicit knowledge</subject><subject>Familiarity</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Form Perception - physiology</subject><subject>Historical buildings</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical ethics</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Principal components analysis</subject><subject>Prototypes</subject><subject>Ranking</subject><subject>Ratings & rankings</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Symmetry</subject><subject>Textbooks</subject><subject>Visual Cortex - physiology</subject><issn>1550-0594</issn><issn>2169-5202</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0U9LwzAYBvAgipvTL-BBioK3urz50yQHD25MJwyEoeeSNcns7NqZrIjf3owNFGV4Sg6_90leHoTOAd8ACNEHzjHmimGFGcaYYnGAugQylXKCySHqbkC6ER10EsIikoxQdow6oATwGNFFtwOvyzoZVbZY-7LQVTK1YdXUwYZk3STjcv6aJro2yaT5SKe6fivreTJoy8rESzhFR05XwZ7tzh56uR89D8fp5OnhcXg3SQtGxDoFqWeWKmek0BmzTllGnCRGUiulk64oqFQaM8edyQxwyqgzXM0yDFQSYmkPXW9zV755b21Y58syFLaqdG2bNuSZiIthJv-FBCghwCDCy19w0bS-jkvkBGcUBAgW0dU-BAowozT-OyqyVYVvQvDW5StfLrX_zAHnm6Lyv0XFoYtddDtbWvM9smsmgv4WBD23P97dH_kFpuqXVw</recordid><startdate>20090701</startdate><enddate>20090701</enddate><creator>Oppenheim, Ian</creator><creator>Mühlmann, Heiner</creator><creator>Blechinger, Gerhard</creator><creator>Mothersill, Ian W.</creator><creator>Hilfiker, Peter</creator><creator>Jokeit, Hennric</creator><creator>Kurthen, Martin</creator><creator>Krämer, Günter</creator><creator>Grunwald, Thomas</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090701</creationdate><title>Brain Electrical Responses to High- and Low-Ranking Buildings</title><author>Oppenheim, Ian ; Mühlmann, Heiner ; Blechinger, Gerhard ; Mothersill, Ian W. ; Hilfiker, Peter ; Jokeit, Hennric ; Kurthen, Martin ; Krämer, Günter ; Grunwald, Thomas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-18abe39fd87a64ef9e42f82d83e88f8fcc389a04f5fd6d15343fd59b6013822e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aesthetics</topic><topic>Architecture</topic><topic>Asymmetry</topic><topic>Brain</topic><topic>Brain Mapping - methods</topic><topic>Buildings</topic><topic>Conflicts of interest</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Electroencephalography - methods</topic><topic>Event-related potentials</topic><topic>Evoked Potentials, Visual - physiology</topic><topic>Explicit knowledge</topic><topic>Familiarity</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Form Perception - physiology</topic><topic>Historical buildings</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical ethics</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Principal components analysis</topic><topic>Prototypes</topic><topic>Ranking</topic><topic>Ratings & rankings</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Symmetry</topic><topic>Textbooks</topic><topic>Visual Cortex - physiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Oppenheim, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mühlmann, Heiner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blechinger, Gerhard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mothersill, Ian W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hilfiker, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jokeit, Hennric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kurthen, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krämer, Günter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grunwald, Thomas</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical EEG and neuroscience</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Oppenheim, Ian</au><au>Mühlmann, Heiner</au><au>Blechinger, Gerhard</au><au>Mothersill, Ian W.</au><au>Hilfiker, Peter</au><au>Jokeit, Hennric</au><au>Kurthen, Martin</au><au>Krämer, Günter</au><au>Grunwald, Thomas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Brain Electrical Responses to High- and Low-Ranking Buildings</atitle><jtitle>Clinical EEG and neuroscience</jtitle><addtitle>Clin EEG Neurosci</addtitle><date>2009-07-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>157</spage><epage>161</epage><pages>157-161</pages><issn>1550-0594</issn><eissn>2169-5202</eissn><abstract>Since the ancient world, architecture generally distinguishes two categories of buildings with either high- or low-ranking design. High-ranking buildings are supposed to be more prominent and, therefore, more memorable. Here, we recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) to drawings of buildings with either high- or low-ranking architectural ornaments and found that ERP responses between 300 and 600 ms after stimulus presentation recorded over both frontal lobes were significantly more positive in amplitude to high-ranking buildings. Thus, ERPs differentiated reliably between both classes of architectural stimuli although subjects were not aware of the two categories. We take our data to suggest that neurophysiological correlates of building perception reflect aspects of an architectural rule system that adjust the appropriateness of style and content (“decorum”). Since this rule system is ubiquitous in Western architecture, it may define architectural prototypes that can elicit familiarity memory processes.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>19715177</pmid><doi>10.1177/155005940904000307</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1550-0594 |
| ispartof | Clinical EEG and neuroscience, 2009-07, Vol.40 (3), p.157-161 |
| issn | 1550-0594 2169-5202 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67623048 |
| source | SAGE Complete A-Z List; MEDLINE |
| subjects | Adult Aesthetics Architecture Asymmetry Brain Brain Mapping - methods Buildings Conflicts of interest Design Electroencephalography - methods Event-related potentials Evoked Potentials, Visual - physiology Explicit knowledge Familiarity Female Form Perception - physiology Historical buildings Humans Hypotheses Male Medical ethics Middle Aged Principal components analysis Prototypes Ranking Ratings & rankings Studies Symmetry Textbooks Visual Cortex - physiology |
| title | Brain Electrical Responses to High- and Low-Ranking Buildings |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T17%3A41%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Brain%20Electrical%20Responses%20to%20High-%20and%20Low-Ranking%20Buildings&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20EEG%20and%20neuroscience&rft.au=Oppenheim,%20Ian&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=157&rft.epage=161&rft.pages=157-161&rft.issn=1550-0594&rft.eissn=2169-5202&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/155005940904000307&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E21322141%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1910433389&rft_id=info:pmid/19715177&rft_sage_id=10.1177_155005940904000307&rfr_iscdi=true |