Architectural Allostatic Overloading: Exploring a Connection between Architectural Form and Allostatic Overloading

Abstract

This paper examines, conceptually, the relationship between stress-inducing architectural features and allostatic overload by drawing on literature from neuroimmunology and neuroarchitecture. The studies reviewed from the field of neuroimmunology indicate that chronic or repeated exposure to stress-inducing events may overwhelm the body’s regulatory system, resulting in a process termed allostatic overload. While there is evidence from the field of neuroarchitecture that short-term exposure to particular architectural features produce acute stress responses, there is yet to be a study on the relationship between stress-inducing architectural features and allostatic load. This paper considers how to design such a study by reviewing the two primary methods used to measure allostatic overload: biomarkers and clinimetrics. Of particular interest is the observation that the clinical biomarkers used to measure stress in neuroarchitectural studies differ substantially from those used to measure allostatic load. Therefore, the paper concludes that while the observed stress responses to particular architectural forms may indicate allostatic activity, further research is needed to determine whether these stress responses are leading to allostatic overload. Consequently, a discrete longitudinal public health study is advised, one which engages the clinical biomarkers indicative of allostatic activity and incorporates contextual data using a clinimetric approach.

The “Modern” Campus: Case Study in (Un)Sustainable Urbanism

“…Several publications demonstrate that there is no evidence to associate any of these desirable traits with the actual buildings [129,130]. Yet a deep-rooted architectural myth couples techno-modernist images to a fervently optimistic goal.…”

The impact of architectural form on physiological stress: a systematic review

“…This allowed the authors to manipulate architectural variables easily. However, it should be noted that VR and 2D images may fail to capture the multisensory nature of physical architecture, and therefore, the transferability of these findings may be limited (Valentine, 2023a). Additionally, VR has been known to induce physiological stress and subsequent distress and discomfort, often referred to as "cybersickness" or "simulator sickness" (Howard and Van Zandt, 2021).…”

“…As digital technologies become more immersive, the risk of exacerbating physiological stress responses increases incrementally. Media architecture's dynamic nature might overstimulate occupants, causing disorientation or discomfort (Valentine, 2023a). For instance, the occurrence of an excessive multiplicity of sensory stimuli has the potential to precipitate sensory overload.…”

The Impacts of Online Experience on Health and Well-Being: The Overlooked Aesthetic Dimension

“…The issue of the incomplete nature of the virtual experience can be seen as a potential obstacle and has already been discussed [4,150]. A serious limitation of VR is the lack of gravitational sensation (and generally accelerational sensation, except in specialized installations) and, hence, the lack of multisensory integration.…”

“…We must deal with the impacts of aesthetics on health and well-being, with a focus on brain function (e.g., the important work of Semir Zeki and closely related research) [147][148][149]. Cleo Valentine's work on neuroinflammation defines new and important directions in this investigation [150].…”