신경건축 연구의 패러다임 전환에 따른 공간디자인의 전략적 매개 역할에 관한 연구 ― 연구동향과 한계 분석을 중심으로

초록

(Background and Purpose) Neuroarchitecture is an interdisciplinary field that explores how spatial environments affect the human brain and body through the convergence of neuroscience and architecture. As rapid urbanization has produced standardized urban environments, research on the relationship between space and human responses has accumulated. In recent years, the scope of neuroarchitecture has expanded beyond cognitive responses to include mental health, recovery, adaptation, and well-being. Despite this development, a limitation remains in that research outcomes have not been sufficiently translated into spatial design practice. This study aims to analyze the developmental trajectory of neuroarchitecture research, its recent shifts, trends, and limitations, and to examine the mediating role of spatial design in linking neuroarchitecture research with spatial design practice. (Method) This study employed a literature review of domestic and international journal articles and scholarly publications on neuroarchitecture from the 1970s to the present. The research flow was reconstructed by examining changes in research objectives, methodologies, technological levels, and application targets across different periods. Attention was given to studies published after the COVID-19 pandemic in order to review paradigm shifts, trends, and structural limitations in the field. Based on this approach, the study interpreted the development of neuroarchitecture research not as a chronological sequence but as a structural trajectory shaped by changes in research characteristics and methodologies. (Results) The findings show that the development of neuroarchitecture research can be classified into four stages. The first stage, human-environment relationship-based research (1970s-1990s), focused on theoretically explaining the relationship between space and human responses through environmental psychology and environment-behavior studies. The second stage, neurophysiological measurement-based research (2000s-early 2010s), introduced EEG, fMRI, PET, and techniques to objectively measure neurophysiological responses to spatial experience. The third stage, digital convergence-based research (mid to late 2010s), expanded research methods and applications through VR, mobile EEG, wearable sensors, AI, and machine learning. The fourth stage, well-being and recovery-oriented research (since the 2020s), shifted research toward mental health, healing, recovery, and well-being after COVID-19. Across these stages, limitations were identified, including the lack of standardized experimental protocols and indicators, limited ecological validity, and the gap between research outcomes and design application. (Conclusions) The future expansion of neuroarchitecture lies not merely in accumulating data, but in establishing interpretive and applicative frameworks that can translate research findings into grounds for spatial design decision-making. From this perspective, this study suggested the methodological possibility of translating the empirical achievements of neuroarchitecture research into a design decision-making framework, and indicated that spatial design can function as a strategic mediator linking neuroarchitecture research and actual design practice. Furthermore, by structurally reconstructing the developmental trajectory of neuroarchitecture research, it laid the groundwork for interpreting this trajectory as a History of Neuroarchitecture.

키워드