Brain–Environment Rhythmic Coupling: An Interdisciplinary Review of Rhythm Synchronization between the brain and the environment
Farzaneh Behzadi, Amir Kalantarifard, Dylan Chau Huynh, Lars Brorson Fich, Aja Khalid Hussein, Zakaria Djebbara
PsyArXiv September 23, 2026 preprint DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/2gc6d_v1 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper |
|---|---|
| Key points | Proposes a conceptual framework treating rhythm as a bridge between built environments and brain–body dynamics, hypothesizing that movement through patterned spaces may produce "brain–environment rhythmic coupling." Argues that although periodic laboratory stimulation can produce phase-consistent neural responses, it remains unknown whether repeated, aperiodic, or movement-dependent architectural structures generate comparable temporal organization during active navigation. |
Abstract
Rhythm is a fundamental aspect of both architectural design and brain–body dynamics, yet research across these domains remains fragmented and largely descriptive. The absence of a shared conceptual framework limits systematic investigation of how architectural rhythms interact with human brain–body dynamics and may influence cognition and behavior. Drawing on enactivism and the concept of natural attunement, we propose that movement through patterned spaces may convert spatial organization, such as repeated forms, geometric intervals, and variations in light, into temporally structured sensory input. Neuroscience studies have shown that sub-second, strictly periodic sensory stimulation can produce phase-consistent neural responses under restricted laboratory conditions. However, it remains unknown whether repeated, aperiodic, or movement-dependent architectural structures generate comparable temporal organization in neural activity during active navigation. We therefore hypothesize that temporally structured environmental input may align with ongoing neural and bodily activity, a process we refer to as brain–environment rhythmic coupling. To better understand this hypothesis, we first propose a structured vocabulary that classifies architectural rhythms according to their structural complexity, spatiotemporal arrangement, and constituent visual elements, with particular emphasis on visuomotor rhythms. We then consider candidate mechanisms that may support this coupling, including magnocellular processing, stimulus-locked responses, phase resetting, and, under restricted conditions, neural entrainment. By integrating insights from architecture, neuroscience, and cognitive science, this paper proposes a conceptual framework that positions rhythm as a bridge between built environments and brain–body dynamics, while providing a basis for future empirical research on design, action, cognition, and well-being.