4.3 Article

Impact of Viewing vs. Not Viewing a Real Forest on Physiological and Psychological Responses in the Same Setting

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph111010883

Keywords

blood pressure; cerebral oxygenation; mood states; visual stimulation; environmental planning

Funding

  1. Yamanashi Institute of Environmental Sciences
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [26400268]
  3. Yamaguchi Educational and Scholarship Foundation
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26400268] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigated the impact of viewing versus not viewing a real forest on human subjects' physiological and psychological responses in the same setting. Fifteen healthy volunteers (11 males, four females, mean age 36 years) participated. Each participant was asked to view a forest while seated in a comfortable chair for 15 min (Forest condition) vs. sitting the same length of time with a curtain obscuring the forest view (Enclosed condition). Both conditions significantly decreased blood pressure (BP) variables, i.e., systolic BP, diastolic BP, and mean arterial pressure between pre and post experimental stimuli, but these reductions showed no difference between conditions. Interestingly, the Forest viewing reduced cerebral oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO(2)) assessed by near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) and improved the subjects' Profile of Mood States (POMS) scores, whereas the Enclosed condition increased the HbO(2) and did not affect the POMS scores. There were no significant differences in saliva amylase or heart rate variability (HRV) between the two conditions. Collectively, these results suggest that viewing a real forest may have a positive effect on cerebral activity and psychological responses. However, both viewing and not viewing the forest had similar effects on cardiovascular responses such as BP variables and HRV.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available