Affective and restorative valences for three environmental categories.

The present study evaluated images of environments in three categories with different affective and restorative valences through two computerized assessments. A non-verbal computerized response scale and the Mexican Scale of Environmental Restoration Perception were employed. 104 students assessed the affective qualities of 117 images (47 natural, 37 urban with nature, and 33 built-up without nature) according to pleasure and activation dimensions. Then 96 students assessed 54 images with high and low valence for their restorative quality. Natural images were found to generate positive affective reactions of liking and activation and high restorative quality. Affective responses to urban with nature environments tended to be positive with moderate restorative quality. Built-up without nature environments were perceived as less pleasant and had low restorative quality. However, among built-up without nature environments, some settings with striking architectural qualities evoked positive affective valences.

Observation of environments with different restorative potential results in differences in eye patron movements and pupillary size.

The Environmental Psychological Restoration (EPR) is the result of the recovery of an antecedent deficit (e.g. stress or attentional fatigue) culminating in a restorative environment exposure. Recent findings suggest that visual contact with nature is important in triggering restorative responses. We measure the behavioral evidence of visual exposure to restorative environments in an eye-tracking study. Eye movement patterns (fixations and pupil dilatation) were evaluated while a sample of participants (n = 27; 15 females and 12 males) viewed photographs with High Restorative Potential (HRP) or Low Restorative Potential (LRP). The eye patterns during the observation of LRP were distinct to those of the HRP environments. Eye movements related to LRP photographs were characterized by a greater number of fixations compared to those related to HRP. Fixation times predicted an inverse relation, with LRP settings having a significantly shorter time per fixation than HRP pictures. Differences on pupil diameter were found. A higher pupil size was found during the view of HRP vs. LRP environments. Our eye tracking study suggest that restorative environment observation is associated with reduced eye movement activity relative to low restorative potential environment perception, which may reflect a lower cognitive effort in processing natural scenes. Likewise, pupillary dilatation variations suggest a possible link between the affective valences of the settings and its restorative quality. Data results are confronted according to attention restoration theory on restorative environments.