Parallels between the brain and architecture

At a first glance neuroscience and architecture seem to be fields that are worlds apart, one from science and the other from the world of arts. But on a second look, one might find a connection, however slim, between the two said fields. Loosely put, architecture refers to buildings and built up spaces. More deeply, architecture refers to the form of those built up spaces, the interrelationships of various parts of that form. In that respect architecture comes close to the field of geometry. But an important aspect of architecture that distinguishes it from the purely objective and mathematical study of form which geometry embodies, is the question of the aesthetics of form. The reference to aesthetics immediately brings in the mind of the viewer since that is exactly where beauty is appreciated. Just one more step leads us to the brain since, the brain as an organ in the substrate for all mental activity.

The effect of architecture or built up spaces on the thoughts and emotions of those who dwell in those spaces is an emerging field of intense research. Reviewing the link between architecture and the brain Eberhardt (2009) argues that the link has been recognized even by the architects of antiquity. In a 2000 year old writing De Architectura, Roman architect Marcus Pollio states that any built up space must have three qualities firmitas (durability), utilitas (usefulness) and venustas (beauty). Referring to the emotional and pleasurable effect of architecture on the mind German poet, playwright and scientist Goethe says: “I call architecture frozen music.”

More recent developments in neuroscience have shown that there are regions in the brain – both cortical and subcortical – that are exclusively dedicated to the representation of form. A primary cortical region involved in representation of space is the right posterior parietal cortex (PPC). Damage to the right PPC leads the subject to completely neglect the left half of the space in from of him/her, a condition known as hemi-neglect. In addition, functional imaging studies have shown that there is a cortical area known as the Parahippocampal Place Area (PPA) that is more active when the subjects viewed complex scenes, city streets and landscapes than when they viewed pictures of objects and faces ie visual stimuli without a significant spatial context. The key subcortical structure involved in representation of space is the hippocampus. There is a whole class of neurons broadly labeled the spatial cells that encode space in various ways. There are place cells that fire in the neighborhood of a location (in 2D and 3D). There are grid cells that fire at an array of locations with a spatial periodicity that is typically hexagonal. On the whole, it is apparent that there is an elaborate brain system that comprises both cortical and subcortical areas for processing, understanding and evaluating space.

Thus one possible connection between the brain and architecture is to study the effect of architecture on the brain. In this preliminary article, I explore a different kind of link between the brain and architecture. Here I consider the brain itself as an architectural system and draw parallels between the architectural features of a building or a built up space, and the brain.

 The 9 common features between the brain and any built up space (“architecture”) are:

1. Input and output:
   • In the brain, the sensory input from the world flows in, spread over a few centers, and finally output flows out through various motor channels.
     
     
     
     
     
   • In an architectural space – be it a single building, a college campus or an entire village – people who intend to use that space enter that space through certain gateways, move from room to room or building to building in that space, and exit through certain gateways.
     

     

     A village with well-defined pathways that lead traffic in and out (Charlottenburg, Romania)



2. Disproportionate allocation of space
   • In the brain, centers that process more information are larger in area.
   • In an architectural space, places that are used by greater number of people, are larger in area or volume e.g. auditoria, function halls, administrative buildings etc.


3. Memory areas
   • In the brain, there are regions simply meant to store information; these are regions that serve the function of memory. Here again there are memories that correspond to different time scales – milliseconds to hours to years.
   • In an architectural space, there are places that “store” people, or simply permit them to stay for an extended periods of time e.g., hostels, residential areas etc. Here too there are places that house people for minutes (eg toilet) or for hours (like a classroom or a clinic) or for years (eg a residential building).


4. Save wire/distance principle
   • In the brain, there is a general organizing principle of neuroanatomy called the “save wire principle” (Cherniak 1995).
   • In an architectural space also there is an equivalent principle called the “minimum distance” principle. Accordingly, if there is a higher likelihood of people going from room (or building) A to room (building) B, the two rooms (building) must be close to each other.


5. Modularity
   • Constrained by the minimum wire principle, brain regions performing similar functions are located close to each other thereby forming subsystems e.g. the basal ganglia, or the hippocampal complex.
     
     

     

     The basal ganglia

   • In architectural space also, separate “departments” or “divisions” are housed together, in adjacent rooms, or in the same floor or the same building, or in the same neighborhood of a city e.g., the central government office complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
     
     

     

     A government office building on Lodhi Road, New Delhi.



6. Hierarchical organization
   • In the brain, there is a hierarchy of regions. In fact, there is a hierarchy of hierarchies. There are verticals like the visual hierarchy, motor hierarchy and so on. All these hierarchies refer to the highest centers of the hierarchy in the prefrontal and posterior parietal areas.
   • In an architectural space, the hierarchy of the organization which it houses, is, or must be, reflected in the geographical organization of the various buildings or rooms. Thus the architectural space must be a sort of a “diagram” of the functional organization. A natural way to realize that is to have the highest power center actually situated in the center, with various hierarchies extended away radially from the center to the peripheries. That is, the organizational tree, is architecturally frozen in the form of a center-out “dendritic” tree.


7. Connectivity pattern
   • In the brain, the highest centers are richly connected to a large number of other brain regions.
   • In an architectural space, the highest power center must be located centrally, on the widest roads. Eg. the location of the administrative building close to the Gajendra Circle, a central landmark in IIT Madras campus.


8. Diffuse projection systems
   • In the brain, there are diffuse projection systems (dopamine, serotonin etc) that richly project to many brain regions. These are small in size themselves. They are not very high in the hierarchy; in fact they slightly stand apart from the standard hierarchies. All other brain regions are dependent on these systems for their regular operation and coordination of those operations among different regions.
     

     

     Dopamine projections in the brain

   • In an architectural space, there are separate support systems like various forms of maintenance (electrical, water, civil etc). They are not high in the hierarchy but serve the entire organization which is crucial dependent on their supporting functions.


9. Dynamic core
   • The brain has a dynamic core, consisting of a tightly integrated network of highest centers in various hierarchies (Edelman and Tononi, 2008). Particularly areas in prefrontal and posterior parietal form part of the dynamic core. Other brain systems are connected to the dynamic core in “feedforward/feedback” fashion forming on the whole a “star-like” network with dynamic core in the center.
   • In an architectural space also, the highest centers/divisions form a closely interacting network, and therefore most likely, closely located in spatial sense.
    
   Eg. 1) The offices of the deans and the director’s office are like a “dynamic core” of an academic campus. Ideally they must be collocated in the same building or in nearby buildings. The dynamic core forms a star-like network wrt to various departments. 
    
   Eg 2) at the level of an apartment, the living room is analogous to the dynamic core. There is a lot of circulation within the living room. Furthermore, the other rooms are usually connected independently with the living room, forming a star-like organization. 
    

   

   A sample plan of an apartment showing the centralized location of a living room.

 References

1. Eberhard, J. P. (2009). Applying neuroscience to architecture. Neuron, 62(6), 753-756.
2. Eberhard, J. P. (2009). Brain landscape the coexistence of neuroscience and architecture. Oxford University Press.
3. O’Keefe, J.; Dostrovsky, J. (November 1971). “The hippocampus as a spatial map. Preliminary evidence from unit activity in the freely-moving rat”. Brain Research. 34 (1): 171–175.
4. Fyhn, M.; Molden, S.; Witter, M. P.; Moser, E. I.; Moser, M. -B. (2004). “Spatial Representation in the Entorhinal Cortex”. Science. 305 (5688): 1258–1264. 
5. Epstein, R., Harris, A., Stanley, D., & Kanwisher, N. (1999). The parahippocampal place area: recognition, navigation, or encoding?. Neuron, 23(1), 115-125.
6. Cherniak, C. (1995). Neural component placement. Trends in neurosciences, 18(12), 522-527.
7. Edelman, G., & Tononi, G. (2008). A Universe of Consciousness How Matter Becomes Imagination: How Matter Becomes Imagination. Basic books.

About the Author: V. Srinivasa Chakravarthy

V. Srinivasa Chakravarthy is a professor in the Department of Biotechnology, IIT Madras. He obtained his BTech from IIT Madras, MS /PhD from the University of Texas at Austin. His received postdoctoral training in the neuroscience department at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. The Computational Neuroscience Lab (CNS Lab) that he heads works on developing models of the basal ganglia, spatial navigation, stroke rehabilitation and neurovascular coupling. He is the author of two books in neuroscience. He is the inventor of a novel script called Bharati, a unified script for Indian languages.