The Differentiated Effects Of Spatial Conditions In Educational Settings On Preference And EEG-Based Affect: A Comparative Study In Two Classrooms

Yavuz Bahadır Certel; Hacer Mutlu Danaci

doi:10.29284/4s31q956

Authors

Yavuz Bahadır Certel Architecture Department, Faculty of Architecture, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Türkiye
Hacer Mutlu Danaci Architecture Department, Faculty of Architecture, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Türkiye

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29284/4s31q956

Keywords:

Educational spaces, EEG, neuroarchitecture, spatial conditions, visual comfort.

Abstract

The physical characteristics of educational spaces can shape students’ spatial preferences and the affective patterns that emerge during task performance. This study compared two classroom conditions (Classroom-1 vs Classroom-2) differing in a bundle of spatial attributes (light level, openness/window configuration, and volumetric features such as ceiling height), rather than isolating a single lighting effect. First, 128 students completed a preference survey. Next, 30 students drawn from the survey sample performed short exam-like tasks (mathematics and translation) in both classrooms using a counterbalanced within-subject design. EEG was recorded with Emotiv EPOC X. After quality control, valence-arousal (VA) analyses were conducted for n = 29, and band power/topography plus Emotiv Performance Metrics (PM) for n = 24. Matched comparisons used paired t/Wilcoxon tests, effect size (dz), bootstrap 95% confidence intervals, and Benjamini-Hochberg FDR correction. Survey responses showed a clear preference for the brighter, more open condition. During task performance, EEG-based VA results indicated significantly higher valence in Classroom-2 (t(28)=2.28, p=0.031, dz=0.42; 95% CI [0.06, 0.56]), with no significant change in arousal (p=0.463). Transition analyses showed no systematic VA category shifts between conditions. While most band-power indices did not differ, topographic analysis revealed a robust change in lateral frontal alpha asymmetry (F8-F7) after FDR (q=0.028). PM-Engagement decreased only before correction. These findings suggest that stated spatial preferences and task-related affect may diverge; combining surveys with neurophysiological measures can strengthen evidence for educational space design decisions.

References

[1] T. Gunter and J. Shao, “Synthesizing the Effect of Building Condition Quality on Academic Performance,” Educ. Finance Policy, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 97–123, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1162/EDFP_a_00181.

[2] G. I. Earthman, “School Facility Conditions and Student Academic Achievement,” 2002.

[3] S. I. Higgins, E. Hall, K. Wall, P. Woolner, and C. McCaughey, “The Impact of School Environments : A literature review Produced for the Design Council,” 2005.

[4] C. Cajochen, “Alerting effects of light,” Sleep Med. Rev., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 453–464, Dec. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2007.07.009.

[5] S. L. Chellappa, R. Steiner, P. Blattner, P. Oelhafen, T. Götz, and C. Cajochen, “Non-Visual Effects of Light on Melatonin, Alertness and Cognitive Performance: Can Blue-Enriched Light Keep Us Alert?,” PLoS One, vol. 6, no. 1, p. e16429, Jan. 2011, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016429.

[6] P. Barrett, F. Davies, Y. Zhang, and L. Barrett, “The impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning: Final results of a holistic, multi-level analysis,” Build. Environ., vol. 89, pp. 118–133, Jul. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.02.013.

[7] I. Bower, R. Tucker, and P. G. Enticott, “Impact of built environment design on emotion measured via neurophysiological correlates and subjective indicators: A systematic review,” J. Environ. Psychol., vol. 66, p. 101344, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101344.

[8] M. Llorens-Gámez, J. L. Higuera-Trujillo, C. S. Omarrementeria, and C. Llinares, “The impact of the design of learning spaces on attention and memory from a neuroarchitectural approach: A systematic review,” Frontiers of Architectural Research, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 542–560, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.foar.2021.12.002.

[9] J. Meyers-Levy and R. Zhu, “The Influence of Ceiling Height: The Effect of Priming on the Type of Processing That People Use,” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 174–186, Aug. 2007, doi: 10.1086/519146.

[10] O. Vartanian et al., “Architectural design and the brain: Effects of ceiling height and perceived enclosure on beauty judgments and approach-avoidance decisions,” J. Environ. Psychol., vol. 41, pp. 10–18, Mar. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.006.

[11] G. Franz, M. von der Heyde, and H. H. Bülthoff, “An empirical approach to the experience of architectural space in virtual reality—exploring relations between features and affective appraisals of rectangular indoor spaces,” Autom. Constr., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 165–172, Mar. 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2004.07.009.

[12] İ. Erkan, “Examining wayfinding behaviours in architectural spaces using brain imaging with electroencephalography (EEG),” Archit. Sci. Rev., vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 410–428, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1080/00038628.2018.1523129.

[13] H. Laufs et al., “EEG-correlated fMRI of human alpha activity,” Neuroimage, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1463–1476, Aug. 2003, doi: 10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00286-6.

[14] D. Metzen, E. Genç, S. Getzmann, M. F. Larra, E. Wascher, and S. Ocklenburg, “Frontal and parietal EEG alpha asymmetry: a large-scale investigation of short-term reliability on distinct EEG systems,” Brain Struct. Funct., vol. 227, no. 2, pp. 725–740, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s00429-021-02399-1.

[15] J. J. B. Allen, P. M. Keune, M. Schönenberg, and R. Nusslock, “Frontal EEG alpha asymmetry and emotion: From neural underpinnings and methodological considerations to psychopathology and social cognition,” Psychophysiology, vol. 55, no. 1, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1111/psyp.13028.

[16] A. T. Pope, E. H. Bogart, and D. S. Bartolome, “Biocybernetic system evaluates indices of operator engagement in automated task,” Biol. Psychol., vol. 40, no. 1–2, pp. 187–195, May 1995, doi: 10.1016/0301-0511(95)05116-3.

[17] F. G. Freeman, P. J. Mikulka, L. J. Prinzel, and M. W. Scerbo, “Evaluation of an adaptive automation system using three EEG indices with a visual tracking task,” Biol. Psychol., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 61–76, May 1999, doi: 10.1016/S0301-0511(99)00002-2.

[18] R. Ramirez and Z. Vamvakousis, “Detecting Emotion from EEG Signals Using the Emotive Epoc Device,” 2012, pp. 175–184. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-35139-6_17.

[19] I. Marcantoni et al., “Ratio Indexes Based on Spectral Electroencephalographic Brainwaves for Assessment of Mental Involvement: A Systematic Review,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 13, p. 5968, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.3390/s23135968.

[20] J. A. Russell, “A circumplex model of affect.,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1161–1178, Dec. 1980, doi: 10.1037/h0077714.

[21] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011,

[22] A. Mollahosseini, B. Hasani, and M. H. Mahoor, “AffectNet: A Database for Facial Expression, Valence, and Arousal Computing in the Wild,” IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 18–31, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1109/TAFFC.2017.2740923.

[23] S. S. Shapiro and M. B. Wilk, “An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples),” Biometrika, vol. 52, no. 3–4, pp. 591–611, Dec. 1965, doi: 10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591.

[24] F. Wilcoxon, “Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods,” Biometrics Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 6, p. 80, Dec. 1945, doi: 10.2307/3001968.

[25] D. Lakens, “Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs,” Front. Psychol., vol. 4, 2013, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.

[26] H. Hotelling, “The Generalization of Student’s Ratio,” The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 360–378, Aug. 1931, doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177732979.

[27] Y. Benjamini and Y. Hochberg, “Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing,” J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 289–300, Jan. 1995, doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x.

[28] A. H. Bowker, “A Test for Symmetry in Contingency Tables,” J. Am. Stat. Assoc., vol. 43, no. 244, pp. 572–574, Dec. 1948, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1948.10483284.

[29] J. Cohen, “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales,” Educ. Psychol. Meas., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 37–46, Apr. 1960, doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104.

[30] A. E. Maxwell, “Comparing the Classification of Subjects by Two Independent Judges,” British Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 116, no. 535, pp. 651–655, Jun. 1970, doi: 10.1192/bjp.116.535.651.

[31] Q. McNemar, “Note on the Sampling Error of the Difference Between Correlated Proportions or Percentages,” Psychometrika, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 153–157, Jun. 1947, doi: 10.1007/BF02295996.

[32] A. Stuart, “A Test for Homogeneity of the Marginal Distributions in a Two-Way Classification,” Biometrika, vol. 42, no. 3/4, p. 412, Dec. 1955, doi: 10.2307/2333387.

[33] B. Efron and R. J. Tibshirani, An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1994. doi: 10.1201/9780429246593.

[34] R. J. Davidson, “Anterior cerebral asymmetry and the nature of emotion,” Brain Cogn., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 125–151, Sep. 1992, doi: 10.1016/0278-2626(92)90065-T.

[35] J. A. Coan and J. J. B. Allen, “Frontal EEG asymmetry as a moderator and mediator of emotion,” Biol. Psychol., vol. 67, no. 1–2, pp. 7–50, Oct. 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.03.002.

[36] W. Klimesch, “EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: a review and analysis,” Brain Res. Rev., vol. 29, no. 2–3, pp. 169–195, Apr. 1999, doi: 10.1016/S0165-0173(98)00056-3.