I have compared two carefully selected conditions: contemplative landscapes (CL) with non-contemplative landscapes (NCL). After data aquisition and processing I have obtained a statictically significant difference between conditions in the temporal activity for all power spectra, more precisely right temporal lobe activity greater for the CL condition .
There is no statistical differences between conditions in terms of frontal and parietal lobes.
I would be grateful for some guidlines on how to interpret and explain that. So far I am trying to connect it with visual attention , or ADHD, but still didn´t figure out how. And what about the right asymmetry...
Dear Napoleon, by subjects I mean humans of course. I am sure you are enough smart to figure out what I wanted to say :)
PS: Indeed my experiment focuses itself on landscape design
I'm no expert, but my understanding is that the function of the right temporal lobe is to process non-verbal memories, including visual scenes. I'm not sure how you have defined the difference between a contemplative and non-contemplative landscape, as we have to 'contemplate' or consider all landscapes, however it seems to me that a landscape which particularly inspires greater contemplative focus would naturally trigger greater brain function as it works to translate the picture presented into a longer term memory.
The way to distinguish contemplative landscapes from non-contemplative was long and complicated. Especially because contemplation (of an art or nature) is not technical term, but exist in the consciousness of designers for ages. I managed to operationalize this term, and used experts support in order to distinguish 7 key-elements that make landscape contemplative, it has a lot to do with the long distance views, archetypes, type of vegetation etc.... The classification method proved to be reliable and valid psychometric tool, so now everyone who uses it can rate landscape settings in terms of its contemplativeness. The lab experiment seemed to prove that too - there is a difference in brain activity between CL and NCL. But I would like to go a step forward and explain this differences.
most preferably I would like to explain why designing contemplative landscapes is better for humans than designing whatever landscapes...
temporal right activity is associated with visual attention, so as you suggested... I did not know about the memory. Thank you for that tip..
Still, how the images that are staying in our memory can be beneficial for us?
It sounds that you have managed to establish a good classification for types of landscapes, this is a good initial outcome, and one that can be shared with others already.
Secondly you appear to have identified a link between certain types of landscapes and altered cognitive activity, another good outcome, giving you evidence to support your types of classification. i.e. you have proven that there is actually a difference between CL and NCL as you have classified them, by showing it affects our cognitive activity.
The next step requires some hypotheses about why this might be the case. This is more complex and will also require evidence. I have suggested one idea; that the characteristics of a 'contemplative landscape' cause us to focus more closely, thus increasing brain activity. I am sure that there are other potential reasons. Another reason may be that CLs facilitate a more meditative mindset which allows for deeper thinking or the retrieval of more meaningful memories, or thoughts. While it is possible to suggest possible explanations you will need to do some more tests for each hypothesis to identify which is right.
Finally, in order to identify whether there are any benefits of CLs over NCLs, you will need to establishing some metrics against which you can measure difference. What constitutes 'better'? Is it that we are happier when we look at CLs, is it beneficial for our physical health, or mental wellbeing? Do we live longer if we are in places with CLs? The question will affect the tests. For example, if you want to know how CLs affect our physical health, then you will have to find a way of measuring health changes of subjects who are engaged with a particular type of landscape.
Be careful of trying to justify an idea that is not yet evidenced by your research. Though there is a connection, as you show, between certain types of landscape and cognitive responses, there is nothing yet to imply that this response is 'better' for humans. Unless you have other information that you have not shared yet, I can't see from your approach why CLs should mean an increased quality of life. You should be asking 'do CLs provide an increase quality of life? Then ask why if it turns out that they do. The question is most important. Think about what question is within your capability of answering.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Communications (Networks)
- Simulators