In design, materiality with its array of textures, finishes, and compositions, captivates and communicates with the senses in subtle yet profound ways. GMS’s exploration of materiality invites people to engage through their senses. GMS’s process of experimentation combines traditional handmade techniques with cutting-edge technologies to push the boundaries of what is possible. The textures, colours, and forms of GMS designs create immersive sensory experiences that uplift.

GMS work is materials-led, and the choice, combination and orientation of materials imbue spaces, sculptures and surfaces that become conduits for expression. For example, smooth, textured ceramic shapes speaks of warmth and authenticity, while matt metal surfaces evoke notions of modernity and sophistication.

“The careful use of material can evoke tactility as the viewer (or occupant) imagines or mentally simulates what it would feel like to reach out and touch or caress an intriguing surface.” Sigsworth, 2019;  

“Vision reveals what the touch already knows. We could think of the sense of touch as the unconscious of vision. Our eyes stroke distant surfaces, contours and edges, and the unconscious tactile sensation determines the agreeableness or unpleasantness of the experience.” (Pallasmaa, 1996).

Researchers in the realm of environmental psychology have long emphasised the profound impact of sensory features within the built environment. The influential modernist architect Le Corbusier (1948) famously asserted that architectural forms “work physiologically upon our senses.”

Since the late 1990s, there has been a notable surge in publications dedicated to rehabilitating the sensory experience within built environments. Notably, Joy Malnar and Frank Vodvarka’s seminal work “Sensory Design” (2004) and Juhani Pallasmaa’s influential book “The Eyes of the Skin” (2005) have contributed significantly to this discourse. In 2002, Charles Spence conducted research in response to concerns about technology and modernization, culminating in “The ICI Report on the Secret of Our Senses.” Spence highlighted the shift from an outdoor, physically engaging lifestyle to an indoor, sedentary one, underscoring the importance of a balanced sensory diet for overall well-being. Spence went on to write Senses of place: architectural design for the multisensory mind (2020), which provides a summary of the role of the human senses in architectural design practice.

The impact of sensory qualities on health and well-being has been recognised across various environments, from hospitals and homes to offices and gyms (Spence, 2002, 2003, 2021; Spence & Keller, 2019). There is a growing acknowledgment of the significance of non-visual senses in design across disciplines (Haverkamp, 2014; Lupton & Lipps, 2018; Malnar & Vodvarka, 2004). Pallasmaa (2000, p. 78) echoes this sentiment, emphasising that “Every significant experience of architecture is multi-sensory; qualities of matter, space and scale are measured by the eye, ear, nose, skin, tongue, skeleton and muscle.” Pallasmaa also goes on to explain that all the senses are related to each other. By designing to orchestrate the senses, users can experience their spaces, feel represented in them, and gain a sense of intimacy and belonging (2011).

This growing body of research about sensory design emphasis’s the significance of incorporating all senses in architectural and environmental design. By recognising and including the various sensory experiences involved in human perception, we can develop spaces that not only look good but also promote the overall well-being of the people who use them.

The neuroscience of architecture is just beginning to advance knowledge about how and why specific architectural features affect people. Recent years have seen a surge in scientific interest in the neuroscience of architecture (Choo et al., 2017; Coburn et al., 2017; Marchette et al., 2015; Robinson and Pallasmaa, 2015; Vartanian et al., 2013).

The aesthetic triad, consisting of knowledge meaning, sensory-motor experiences, and emotion valuation was developed for neuroaesthetics (Chatterjee and Vartanian 2014, 2016), reformulated for architecture (Coburn et al. 2017). It provides a comprehensive framework for understanding and analysing the aesthetic aspects of design. Each component of the triad plays an important role in shaping how people perceive and interact with design objects, spaces, and experiences. By considering knowledge meaning, sensory-motor experiences, and emotion valuation, designers can create designs that not only engage the intellect but also stimulate the senses and evoke emotional responses, ultimately enriching aesthetic experiences.

The sensory-motor system: The sensory-motor dimension of the aesthetic triad focuses on the multisensory aspects of aesthetic perception and the physical interactions between individuals and designed objects or spaces. This dimension encompasses sensory experiences such as sight, touch, sound, and even movement. Design elements such as form, texture, materiality, lighting, and spatial composition engage the senses and elicit physical responses from users.

The brain’s knowledge-meaning: At the core of the aesthetic triad is knowledge meaning, which encompasses the cognitive and intellectual aspects of aesthetic perception.

The emotion valuation refers to the affective dimension of the aesthetic triad, focusing on the emotional responses and subjective perceptions elicited by a design. This dimension encompasses the range of emotional experiences evoked by design elements, including feelings of pleasure, awe, serenity, excitement, or nostalgia.

Previous research (Coburn et al., 2020; Weinberger et al., 2021) has delineated three dimensions along which people’s psychological and neural responses to the built environment can be understood. These dimensions include coherence, the organization and legibility of a space; fascination, a complexity that invites exploration; and hominess. the sense of comfort and belonging within a space. Incorporating Coburn’s principles of coherence, hominess, and fascination in the design process is paramount for creating spaces that are not only functional but also emotionally engaging.

Prioritising coherence, designers create environments that are harmonious and balanced, creating a sense of order and tranquillity. By embracing hominess, designers cultivate spaces that feel warm and welcoming, creating a sense of comfort and belonging. By infusing spaces with elements of fascination, environments can inspire curiosity, spark imagination, and engage the senses, prompting meaningful interactions and experiences.

Ruth Dalston: We have now established a list of building design features, supported through neuroscience research, that appear to produce strong, positive emotions in people: fascination; coherence; hominess; unusualness; spatial complexity; curvaceous forms; views of nature and spaces for social encounter.

SYMMETRY

The natural environment typically contains abundant forms of symmetry. Symmetry in design can be considered a biophilic element, as it mirrors the balance and order found in natural forms. From the bilateral symmetry of leaves to the radial symmetry of flowers, the prevalence of symmetry in the natural world aligns with the human biophilic response (Kellert, 2008). Integrating symmetrical patterns into design inspired by nature may enhance the biophilic qualities of spaces, promoting a sense of tranquillity, visual coherence, order and overall well-being which may amplify the sense of connection to nature within built environments.

Numerous studies in cognitive psychology have demonstrated that humans possess a natural inclination towards symmetrical patterns, which are processed more efficiently than asymmetrical ones (Machilsen et al., 2009; Tyler et al., 2005). Symmetry facilitates the brain’s ability to organize visual information, leading to quicker recognition and enhanced aesthetic appreciation (Makin et al., 2017).

Symmetry is consistently associated with aesthetic preference across diverse domains, including architecture, art, and product design (Reber et al., 2004; Jacobsen et al., 2006). Aesthetic appeal, in turn, is linked to positive emotional responses. Symmetrical designs are often perceived as harmonious, balanced, and pleasing, evoking feelings of calmness and satisfaction (McManus et al., 2011; Barlow and Reeves, 1979).

Research suggests that the preference for symmetry in design transcends cultural boundaries, indicating a potential universality in its positive effects on human perception (Rhodes, 2006; Jakesch et al., 2011).

Given the positive cognitive and affective responses to symmetrical design, the integration of symmetry in various practical applications, such as architecture, urban planning, and user interface design, holds potential benefits for user experience and satisfaction (Conway and Kriegeskorte, 2010; Todorovic, 2006). Incorporating symmetrical elements may enhance overall aesthetic appeal and contribute to the creation of more engaging and positive environments.

CURVES

The preference for curved forms over rectilinear forms in the built environment has been theorised to stem from their prevalence in nature, contributing to a perception of inherent naturalness (Coburn, 2019; Kellert, 2005; Salingaros, 2015). Recent studies in cognitive neuroscience further support this notion by revealing an innate human preference for visual curvature, both in internal spaces (Vartanian et al., 2013) and the furniture within those spaces (Dazkir & Read, 2012; Lee, 2018; Thömmes & Hübner, 2018).

Angular shapes, even when briefly observed, have been shown to elicit a fear response in the amygdala, a brain region associated with emotions (LeDoux, 2003). In her book “Joyful: The surprising power of ordinary things to create extraordinary happiness,” Ingrid Lee, former design director at IDEO New York, states that, round shapes, such as circular or elliptical furniture, promote a lively atmosphere conducive to conversation and impromptu games (Lee, 2018, p. 142).

The significance of geometric contour, specifically curvature, has garnered attention in aesthetics and architectural research. Preferences for curvilinear objects over rectilinear ones are consistently observed in various contexts (Bar & Neta, 2006; Dazkir & Read, 2012; Leder & Carbon, 2005). Additionally, rectilinear shapes and patterns are more prone to eliciting unfavourable emotions when contrasted with their curvilinear counterparts (Hevner, 1935; Lundholm, 1921; Poffenberger & Barrows, 1924).

FRACTALS

Fractals are geometric patterns characterized by self-similarity, repeating structures at varying scales and so create shapes of rich visual complexity (Mandelbrot, 1982). These patterns are prevalent in natural formations such as coastlines, clouds, and foliage (Mandelbrot, 1983). The intersection of biophilia and fractal patterns manifests in the human response to natural scenes rich in fractal geometry. Studies have shown that exposure to nature scenes with fractal-like structures elicits greater positive affect and attention restoration compared to scenes lacking such patterns (Berman et al., 2008). The perceptual fluency of fractals, characterized by ease of processing, may contribute to their aesthetic appeal and stress-reducing effects (Hagerhall et al., 2004). Neuroscientific investigations have revealed that exposure to fractal patterns activates brain regions associated with pleasure and visual processing (Vessel et al., 2012)

Research suggests that exposure to fractal patterns can evoke aesthetic preferences and positive emotional responses in humans (Taylor et al., 1998). The human visual system appears to be finely tuned to detect and appreciate fractal geometry in the environment (Spehar et al., 2003). Whether natural or created, the perceptual experience of human-made environments can be impacted with inclusion of these natural patterns, fractals represent a profound ingredient of the visual experiences of Millers work.

Several authors have speculated about the potential sensory and emotional benefits of naturalistic patterns in architecture, like curvilinear form and fractal scaling (Joye, 2007, 2016; Salingaros, 2007, 2015; Alexander, 2002). Some research suggests that installations of fractal patterns have the opportunity to decrease eyestrain, headache rates, and stress (O’Hare and Hibbard, 2011; Penacchio and Wilkins, 2015; Le et al., 2017) in a large percentage of viewers (Bies et al., 2016; Street et al., 2016; Pyankova et al., 2019) while potentially increasing the aesthetic experience of the space. These positive impacts of viewing fractals can be considered within the context of biophilia (Wilson, 1984) which recognizes the inherent need of humans to connect to nature.

At GM studio fractal patterns can be produced and installed to maximise aesthetic experiences of different spaces depending on the context and setting. The collaboration of design, maths, materiality the hand-made and technology creates ‘fractal composites’ whereby individual objects merge to form an overall 3-dimentional pattern. Inspiration is taken from nature and natural fractal patterns sought from leaves, fish scales and water. There is great versatility in each fractal pattern design and application to accommodate changing spaces and context requirements. The self-similarity inherent in fractal patterns facilitates scalability, which enables GMS designs to adapt seamlessly to different sizes and resolutions.