Nature imagery's influence on ERN amplitude: an examination of Attention Restoration Theory using EEG

Abstract

Empirical research on the mental health and cognitive benefits of nature immersion has expanded significantly in recent decades, building support for Attention Restoration Theory. However, the field still faces interpretive challenges due to inconsistent definitions of 'nature' (whether nature imagery, real-world nature immersion, or other forms) and varied methodologies, which collectively limit our understanding of the underlying mechanisms that potentially drive these benefits. Addressing some of these limitations, the current study investigated whether exposure to virtual nature imagery influences attention restoration, as measured by the amplitude of the error-related negativity (ERN), similarly to real-world nature. In a repeated-measures randomized control design, 63 participants completed the Eriksen Flanker Task at three testing sessions. At Session 1, participants completed the task after viewing a neutral stimulus for 10 minutes. At Session 2, participants completed the task after viewing either nature or urban imagery for 10 minutes. At Session 3, participants completed the task after viewing the neutral stimulus again for 10 minutes. The ERN component generated from the Eriksen Flanker Task was quantified at each of the three testing sessions to assess changes in cognitive control and error monitoring associated with viewing different types of environmental imagery. Results showed no significant differences in ERN amplitude across sessions or between nature imagery and urban imagery at Session 2. Collectively, these results suggest that brief exposure to the 2-D nature imagery used within this study may not elicit the same attention-dependent responses as real-world nature exposure.

Keywords: Attention Restoration Theory; EEG; ERN; attention; nature and cognition; nature and health; nature images; virtual nature.

Figure 1

Flow chart illustrating the overall study design, with the start of the process on the left and the end on the right. A dotted arrow indicates the individual session design, specifying whether participants viewed the concrete wall (i.e., a neutral stimulus) or the nature/urban image condition.

Figure 2

Illustration of outdoor recording set up used in all three testing sessions.

Figure 3

Example of nature (left) and urban (right) images used at session 2.

Figure 4

Mean amplitude of correct, incorrect, and ERN (incorrect minus correct) waveforms at electrode Cz, comparing sessions (1, 2, and 3) and image conditions (nature vs. urban). Green indicates the mean amplitude during the nature imagery condition and gray represents the mean amplitude during the urban imagery condition. Different line types (as shown in the top left corner of each panel) indicate correct, incorrect, and ERN trials across sessions and conditions. The gray shaded box (15–65 ms post-response) indicates the measurement window used for ERN extraction. Shaded areas surrounding each waveform represent the standard error of the mean.

Figure 5

Grand average ERN (incorrect minus correct) mean amplitude at electrode Cz, comparing sessions (1, 2, and 3) and image conditions (nature vs. urban). Green waveforms represent the nature condition and gray waveforms represent the urban condition. The gray shaded box (15–65 ms post-response) indicates the measurement window used for ERN extraction. Shaded areas surrounding each waveform represent the standard error of the mean.

Figure 6

Observed means for accuracy (proportion of correct responses) and reaction time across session (1, 2, and 3) and condition (nature vs. urban). Error bars represent one standard error of the mean.