Compares the effects of multisensory biophilic conditions on stress recovery, suggesting improved indoor design could enhance well-being.
This study compared psychophysiological responses under visual, visual–olfactory, and visual–olfactory–auditory biophilic conditions using subjective ratings, ECG, and EEG. Results showed all biophilic environments promoted stress recovery, with multisensory stimulation being more effective than single-sensory input. Visual–olfactory–auditory stimuli significantly enhanced parasympathetic activity (LF/HF decreased by 19.88–29.74%), while visual–olfactory stimuli better suppressed alertness-related microstates and increased relaxation-related microstates. MS-F correlated positively with restorative perception. A CatBoost model predicted comfort and preference with over 87% accuracy. Findings highlight distinct neural mechanisms of multisensory stimulation, offering insights for optimizing indoor environmental quality and promoting healthoriented design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
ZHANG et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: