Sensorimotor brain dynamics reflect architectural affordances

Abstract

Anticipating meaningful actions in the environment is an essential function of the brain. Such predictive mechanisms originate from the motor system and allow for inferring actions from environmental affordances, and the potential to act within a specific environment. Using architecture, we provide a unique perspective on the ongoing debate in cognitive neuroscience and philosophy on whether cognition depends on movement or is decoupled from our physical structure. To investigate cognitive processes associated with architectural affordances, we used a mobile brain/body imaging approach recording brain activity synchronized to head-mounted displays. Participants perceived and acted on virtual transitions ranging from nonpassable to easily passable. We found that early sensory brain activity, on revealing the environment and before actual movement, differed as a function of affordances. In addition, movement through transitions was preceded by a motor-related negative component that also depended on affordances. Our results suggest that potential actions afforded by an environment influence perception.

Keywords: architectural cognition; mobile EEG; mobile brain/body imaging; predictive processing; sensorimotor.

Fig. 1.

(A) Participants are instructed to stand in the start square. A black sphere restricts their vision to pure black for 3 s (σ = 1 s). The moment the black sphere disappears, participants perceive the door they have to pass. They wait for the imperative stimulus, either a green door (Go) or a red door (NoGo), for 6 s (σ = 1 s). In the case of Go, participants were instructed to pass the opening, virtually touch the red circle (which in turn releases a monetary bonus), return to the start square, and complete the virtual SAM questionnaire. In the case of NoGo, participants were instructed to turn around and complete the virtual SAM questionnaire. (B) The three different doors had the following dimensions: Narrow, 0.2 m; Mid, 1 m; Wide, 1.5 m. Note the color code for each door as used throughout the paper. (C) Diagrammatic timeline depicting the sequences of events for a single trial in a conceptual manner.

Fig. 2.

MoBI setup. The participants wore a backpack, carrying a high-performance gaming computer (Zotac, cyan), powered by two batteries (red). An EEG amplifier (ANT eegoSports, yellow) was attached to the backpack and connected to the computer. The participants wore a VR head-mounted display (Windows Mixed Reality) on top of a 64-channel cap. This setup allowed participants to move freely around while recording data.

Fig. 3.

Boxplot of the SAM questionnaire results for the three different SAM scales (Arousal, Dominance, and Valence) as a function of the door width (Narrow, Mid, or Wide). (Left) Pictorial representation of the SAM manikin for the highest value of each condition presented. (Middle) SAM ratings for the Go condition. (Right) SAM ratings for the NoGo condition. Means are indicated by dashed lines; medians, by solid lines. P < 0.1, *P < 0.05, and ***P < 0.001; ns, not significant.

Fig. 4.

Raincloud plot of approach times for each door width condition. Post hoc comparisons using Tukey’s HSD test. Means are indicated by dashed lines; medians, by solid lines. **P < 0.01; ns, not significant.

Fig. 5.

Three time-locked ERPs (FCz, Pz, and Oz) at the onset of the lights on event. The Narrow condition is in yellow, the Mid condition is in blue, and the Wide condition is in red. Two time windows are indicated with dashed lines and a gray transparent box. The first time window (50–200 ms) marks the anterior N140 and posterior P140, while the second window (140–290 ms) marks the anterior P215 and posterior N215. The components are marked with arrows.

Fig. 6.

(A) Posterior P140. Raincloud plot of detected mean amplitude of the positive peak in the time-locked lights on event in the time range of 50–200 ms for Pz, POz, and Oz. Means are indicated by dashed lines; medians, by solid lines. The significance was calculated using Tukey’s HSD test. We observed significant differences for Oz in Narrow × Mid (P = 0.0021) and Narrow × Wide (P = 0.0065), while POz in Narrow × Wide revealed a significant difference (P = 0.028); however, no significant differences were observed in other electrodes and other contrasts. (B) Posterior N215. Raincloud plot of detected mean amplitude of the negative peak in the time-locked lights on event in the time range of 140–290 ms for Pz, POz, and Oz. We observed significant differences only for Oz in Narrow × Mid (P = 0.0113) and Narrow × Wide (P = 0.0372). (C) Anterior N140. Raincloud plot of detected mean amplitude of the negative peak in the time-locked lights on event in the time range of 50–200 ms for Fz, FCz, and Cz. We observed no significant differences for any electrode. (D) Anterior P215. Raincloud plot of detected mean amplitude of negative peak in the time-locked lights on event in the time range of 140–290 ms for Fz, FCz, and Cz. We observed significant differences in all channels in Narrow × Wide, with the exception of only a tendency in Fz (P = 0.0717), FCz (P = 0.0071), and Cz (P = 0.0214). (E) Double plot. Frontal (dashed line) and posterior (solid line) time-locked ERPs (Fz and Oz) at the onset of the lights on event. The Narrow condition is in yellow, the Mid condition is in blue, and the Wide condition is in red. Two time windows are indicated with dashed lines and a gray transparent box. The first time window (50–200 ms) marks the anterior N140 and posterior P140, while the second window (140–290 ms) marks the anterior P215 and posterior N215. P < 0.1, *P < 0.05, and **P < 0.01; ns, not significant.

Fig. 7.

Three time-locked ERPs (FCz, Pz, and Oz) at the onset of Go/NoGo. The Narrow condition is in yellow, the Mid condition is in blue, and the Wide condition is in red. The time window, indicated with dashed lines and a gray transparent box, illustrates the selected time window for analyzing the MRCP by a global 2 × 3 × 6 factorial repeated-measures ANOVA. The anterior and posterior PINV are marked with arrows.

Fig. 8.

Raincloud plots of mean amplitude of negative development in the time-locked event of Go/NoGo in the time range of 600–800 ms for FCz, Pz, and Oz. Means are indicated by dashed lines; medians, by solid lines. The Tukey HSD contrast revealed differences only in FCz and Oz, between Narrow × Mid for FCz (P = 0.0059) and Oz (P < 0.0001) and between Narrow × Wide for FCz (P = 0.0323) and Oz (P < 0.0001). No differences were observed for NoGo. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001; ns, not significant.