Scholarlink

<p>Prior research has highlighted the psychophysiological benefits of natural environments while underestimating the restorative potential of built cultural environments. Moreover, most evidence derives from laboratory studies with limited ecological validity. A field experiment compared the restorative effects of art museums and botanical gardens on psychophysiological states, using electroencephalogram (EEG) and the abbreviated Profile of Mood States (POMS). Key findings were: (1) Both environments enhanced psychophysiological well-being, with natural environments promoting physical restoration and built cultural environments fostering psychological restoration; (2) Natural environments more effectively reduced negative affect, whereas cultural environments more strongly increased positive affect; (3) Natural environments provided restorative benefits to a larger proportion of participants; (4) Changes in psychological indicators partially explained variations in physiological indicators. These results inform the strategic use of diverse environments to support mental and physical health and advance restoration research.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Psychophysiological restoration in natural versus built cultural environments: a Chinese field-EEG study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月18日

查看全文
  • Genmao Wang,
  • Shuangquan Zhang,
  • Xianjie Chen

摘要

Prior research has highlighted the psychophysiological benefits of natural environments while underestimating the restorative potential of built cultural environments. Moreover, most evidence derives from laboratory studies with limited ecological validity. A field experiment compared the restorative effects of art museums and botanical gardens on psychophysiological states, using electroencephalogram (EEG) and the abbreviated Profile of Mood States (POMS). Key findings were: (1) Both environments enhanced psychophysiological well-being, with natural environments promoting physical restoration and built cultural environments fostering psychological restoration; (2) Natural environments more effectively reduced negative affect, whereas cultural environments more strongly increased positive affect; (3) Natural environments provided restorative benefits to a larger proportion of participants; (4) Changes in psychological indicators partially explained variations in physiological indicators. These results inform the strategic use of diverse environments to support mental and physical health and advance restoration research.