This is a really important and often overlooked question.
In my view, defining neuroarchitecture strictly as “architecture informed by neuroscience” is too narrow and doesn’t reflect how the field actually operates in practice.
While neuroscience provides valuable insights (e.g., brain responses to space, stress, light, or complexity), much of the actionable knowledge used in design today comes from environmental psychology, perception studies, and behavioral research. These fields translate human experience into principles that architects can realistically apply.
Because of that, I would see neuroarchitecture less as a pure intersection between architecture and neuroscience, and more as a translational field. It sits across multiple layers:
Neuroscience is about understanding underlying brain mechanisms
Environmental & perception psychology is about understanding human experience and behavior
Architecture & design is about applying that knowledge into built form
If we exclude environmental psychology, we risk making neuroarchitecture theoretically rigorous but practically limited. On the other hand, if we include it, the field becomes more applicable, even if it is less “pure” from a disciplinary standpoint.
So to answer your question directly:
I would consider environmental psychology and human-environment research not just complementary, but essential components of neuroarchitecture as it is practiced today.
In short, neuroarchitecture is not only about “what the brain does,” but also about how people perceive, feel, and behave in space and those insights don’t come from neuroscience alone.
