Attaianese, Barilà and Perillo critically survey neuroarchitecture as an emerging interdisciplinary field rather than treating it as an already consolidated design science. Their review reconstructs a genealogy from person–environment theories and Lewin’s B = ƒ(P,E) through environmental psychology, embodied architectural experience and contemporary neuroscientific measurement. It then inventories design variables associated with cognitive, emotional and physiological performance, including lighting, spatial configuration, materials, natural elements and technological conditions. Crucially, the authors refuse to convert these associations into mandatory prescriptions: the available criteria remain heterogeneous, frequently vague, culturally contingent and poorly supported by in-situ evidence. This restraint is the paper’s principal methodological contribution. Neuroarchitecture is framed as a formative evidence base whose translation into design requires stronger comparability, larger and more diverse samples, context-sensitive experimentation and interdisciplinary interpretation. Its wider bridge is to evidence-based architecture, but with a necessary epistemic qualification: design guidance becomes legitimate only when the conditions under which evidence was produced remain visible.
