Cognitive Cartography: Using Architectural Theory and Anthropology to Map the Brain’s Spatial Logic
Siri Kolliputi
Abstract
This review explores how architectural theory, anthropology, and neuroscience can be intersected to enhance research understanding of the brain’s spatial logic. This paper also proposes that the way humans experience and represent space in their mind is not just a biological function but a culturally and architecturally based cognitive process. Drawing on research in spatial memory, embodied cognition, and anthropological studies of navigation and place-making, we argue that the brain constructs mental “architectures” influenced by both our physical surroundings and cultural spatial metaphors. By understanding these structures, it can be revealed how the brain encodes memory, meaning, and identity through space.
Introduction
The human brain is very much a spatial organ by how it maps environments, navigates complex layouts, and encodes memory in relation to place. However, spatial cognition is very rarely explored through the lens of how we build, inhabit, and culturally interpret space. This paper brings together architectural theory, cognitive neuroscience, and anthropology to suggest a novel interdisciplinary framework for studying the brain’s spatial logic. We argue that the structures we inhabit and the cultural meanings we bestow on them not only control how we move through space, but think, remember, and construct identity.
Architecture as a Cognitive Metaphor
Architectural theory has described buildings as more than functional spaces for a long while; it presents that they act as extensions of human psyche. In The Poetics of Space, Gaston Bachelard (1958/1994) proposed that homes and rooms shape the imagination, serving as metaphors for memory and emotion. Similarly, architect Le Corbusier has described buildings as "machines for living in," to suggest that architecture can condition experience and thought.
In neuroscience, it has been defined that the hippocampus, which is a region involved in spatial memory and navigation, is essential for mapping space. But recent studies have suggested that the hippocampus also helps to organize episodic memory, since it uses spatial and temporal cues so that it can structure experiences (Ekstrom & Ranganath, 2018). This dual function implies that spatial architecture may be able to act as a natural metaphor for cognitive architecture.
Mental Maps and Spatial Memory
Edward Tolman introduced the concept of cognitive maps in 1948. Cognitive maps are internal representations of the external environment that allow for flexibility in navigation. Neuroscientists later identified place cells, grid cells, and head direction cells in the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex, which form the neural basis of these internal maps (O’Keefe & Nadel, 1978; Hafting et al., 2005).
Yet, these maps are not objective, as they are affected mostly by personal experiences, cultural norms, and emotional sentiments. Studies have shown that people are more likely to remember emotionally significant locations more vividly and distort spatial relationships based on their own subjective relevance (Tversky, 2003). The brain’s spatial logic, then, is more like a subjective architecture—as it is shaped by both structure and symbolism.
Anthropology and the Cultural Construction of Space
Anthropology can deeply enrich our understanding of spatial cognition if we examine how various cultures understand space conceptually and diversely. For example, some Indigenous Australian languages use absolute cardinal directions (north, south, east, west) rather than egocentric terms (left, right) to describe location—which requires for constant awareness of spatial orientation (Levinson, 2003). This linguistic structure can lead to superior navigational skills and it suggests that cultural frameworks can crucially shape the way the brain encodes and accesses spatial information.
Moreover, architecture is saturated with spiritual and ancestral significance throughout many cultures. The layouts of temples, homes, and burial sites often reflect cosmological beliefs, social hierarchies, or mythic narratives (Tuan, 1977). For instance, the Navajo hogan is built with its door facing east to honor the rising sun that symbolizes rebirth. Other examples include: how pyramids in Egypt represented cosmological thinking about the afterlife and the divine ascension of the pharaoh, and how Balinese houses used to mirror their sacred mountain-sea axis, which shows how they integrated cosmology into daily living. These symbolic spatial systems can influence memory and identity, as they embed meaning directly into our physical surroundings. Anthropologist Tim Ingold (2000) described dwelling as a process of wayfinding—not just moving through space, but experiencing and interpreting it as a narrative.
Embodied Cognition and Spatial Logic
Cognitive science increasingly supports the idea of embodied cognition—that the brain’s operations are grounded in bodily experience. Spatial understanding is not abstract; it is learned through movement, interaction, and touch. Neuroscientific research shows that navigating space activates sensorimotor regions as well as memory circuits (Gallese & Lakoff, 2005). This suggests that the brain doesn’t just store maps; it constructs them through embodied interaction with the environment.
Architectural design thus plays a developmental role in shaping said interactions. Narrow passageways, open courtyards, or high ceilings elicit emotional and physiological responses—managing stress, memory consolidation, and even focus. In a study, people were more apt to remember paintings that were displayed in a curved rather than a rectangular room, showing spatial configuration directly affects cognitive processing (Vartanian et al., 2015).
A Neuroarchitectural Model of the Mind
The emerging field of neuroarchitecture explores how built environments affect brain function, from stress responses to creativity. But this paper proposes going deeper: by using architectural principles as models for understanding mental structure itself. It examines whether memory could be organized like a house—with corridors, hidden chambers, and symbolic thresholds—and whether cultural variations in spatial logic might help explain differences in thought patterns or emotional regulation.
This metaphorical approach has scientific grounding. Neuroscientists use the phrase “neural architecture” in order to describe the connectivity of the brain, while AI researchers describe brain models with "layers" and "networks" modeled after physical design. Architecture, anthropology, and neuroscience converge at this point, and this suggests that the brain is not a blank slate but a constructed space, shaped by both biology and culture.
Implications for Mental Health and Design
Understanding the brain’s spatial logic has practical implications. In Alzheimer’s disease, one of the earliest symptoms is disorientation in space—a breakdown of cognitive maps in the hippocampus. This paper questions if architectural interventions, like memory palaces or culturally familiar layouts, could help preserve function. Similarly, trauma can often distort spatial memory, which creates fragmentation in the brain’s internal map of the world. Culturally sensitive design and spatial therapy could help crucially reconnect narrative and identity through place.
Educational spaces, hospitals, and cities could also be designed with neuroscience and anthropology in mind, promoting navigation, memory, and well-being. Architecture would not just house the mind—it would collaborate with it.
Conclusion
By integrating architectural theories, cognitive neuroscience, and anthropology, this paper proposes a new framework and method for understanding the brain’s spatial logic. It can be seen that the brain is not simply a navigator of space—but it is a builder of it, using culture, embodiment, and environment to construct meaning and memory. Just as we design buildings, the brain designs its own architecture of thought. Studying these intersections helps us not only understand cognition but also reshape the environments that shape us.
About the Author
Siri Kolliputi (‘26) is a student at Middleton High School.
References
This review explores how architectural theory, anthropology, and neuroscience can be intersected to enhance research understanding of the brain’s spatial logic. This paper also proposes that the way humans experience and represent space in their mind is not just a biological function but a culturally and architecturally based cognitive process. Drawing on research in spatial memory, embodied cognition, and anthropological studies of navigation and place-making, we argue that the brain constructs mental “architectures” influenced by both our physical surroundings and cultural spatial metaphors. By understanding these structures, it can be revealed how the brain encodes memory, meaning, and identity through space.
Introduction
The human brain is very much a spatial organ by how it maps environments, navigates complex layouts, and encodes memory in relation to place. However, spatial cognition is very rarely explored through the lens of how we build, inhabit, and culturally interpret space. This paper brings together architectural theory, cognitive neuroscience, and anthropology to suggest a novel interdisciplinary framework for studying the brain’s spatial logic. We argue that the structures we inhabit and the cultural meanings we bestow on them not only control how we move through space, but think, remember, and construct identity.
Architecture as a Cognitive Metaphor
Architectural theory has described buildings as more than functional spaces for a long while; it presents that they act as extensions of human psyche. In The Poetics of Space, Gaston Bachelard (1958/1994) proposed that homes and rooms shape the imagination, serving as metaphors for memory and emotion. Similarly, architect Le Corbusier has described buildings as "machines for living in," to suggest that architecture can condition experience and thought.
In neuroscience, it has been defined that the hippocampus, which is a region involved in spatial memory and navigation, is essential for mapping space. But recent studies have suggested that the hippocampus also helps to organize episodic memory, since it uses spatial and temporal cues so that it can structure experiences (Ekstrom & Ranganath, 2018). This dual function implies that spatial architecture may be able to act as a natural metaphor for cognitive architecture.
Mental Maps and Spatial Memory
Edward Tolman introduced the concept of cognitive maps in 1948. Cognitive maps are internal representations of the external environment that allow for flexibility in navigation. Neuroscientists later identified place cells, grid cells, and head direction cells in the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex, which form the neural basis of these internal maps (O’Keefe & Nadel, 1978; Hafting et al., 2005).
Yet, these maps are not objective, as they are affected mostly by personal experiences, cultural norms, and emotional sentiments. Studies have shown that people are more likely to remember emotionally significant locations more vividly and distort spatial relationships based on their own subjective relevance (Tversky, 2003). The brain’s spatial logic, then, is more like a subjective architecture—as it is shaped by both structure and symbolism.
Anthropology and the Cultural Construction of Space
Anthropology can deeply enrich our understanding of spatial cognition if we examine how various cultures understand space conceptually and diversely. For example, some Indigenous Australian languages use absolute cardinal directions (north, south, east, west) rather than egocentric terms (left, right) to describe location—which requires for constant awareness of spatial orientation (Levinson, 2003). This linguistic structure can lead to superior navigational skills and it suggests that cultural frameworks can crucially shape the way the brain encodes and accesses spatial information.
Moreover, architecture is saturated with spiritual and ancestral significance throughout many cultures. The layouts of temples, homes, and burial sites often reflect cosmological beliefs, social hierarchies, or mythic narratives (Tuan, 1977). For instance, the Navajo hogan is built with its door facing east to honor the rising sun that symbolizes rebirth. Other examples include: how pyramids in Egypt represented cosmological thinking about the afterlife and the divine ascension of the pharaoh, and how Balinese houses used to mirror their sacred mountain-sea axis, which shows how they integrated cosmology into daily living. These symbolic spatial systems can influence memory and identity, as they embed meaning directly into our physical surroundings. Anthropologist Tim Ingold (2000) described dwelling as a process of wayfinding—not just moving through space, but experiencing and interpreting it as a narrative.
Embodied Cognition and Spatial Logic
Cognitive science increasingly supports the idea of embodied cognition—that the brain’s operations are grounded in bodily experience. Spatial understanding is not abstract; it is learned through movement, interaction, and touch. Neuroscientific research shows that navigating space activates sensorimotor regions as well as memory circuits (Gallese & Lakoff, 2005). This suggests that the brain doesn’t just store maps; it constructs them through embodied interaction with the environment.
Architectural design thus plays a developmental role in shaping said interactions. Narrow passageways, open courtyards, or high ceilings elicit emotional and physiological responses—managing stress, memory consolidation, and even focus. In a study, people were more apt to remember paintings that were displayed in a curved rather than a rectangular room, showing spatial configuration directly affects cognitive processing (Vartanian et al., 2015).
A Neuroarchitectural Model of the Mind
The emerging field of neuroarchitecture explores how built environments affect brain function, from stress responses to creativity. But this paper proposes going deeper: by using architectural principles as models for understanding mental structure itself. It examines whether memory could be organized like a house—with corridors, hidden chambers, and symbolic thresholds—and whether cultural variations in spatial logic might help explain differences in thought patterns or emotional regulation.
This metaphorical approach has scientific grounding. Neuroscientists use the phrase “neural architecture” in order to describe the connectivity of the brain, while AI researchers describe brain models with "layers" and "networks" modeled after physical design. Architecture, anthropology, and neuroscience converge at this point, and this suggests that the brain is not a blank slate but a constructed space, shaped by both biology and culture.
Implications for Mental Health and Design
Understanding the brain’s spatial logic has practical implications. In Alzheimer’s disease, one of the earliest symptoms is disorientation in space—a breakdown of cognitive maps in the hippocampus. This paper questions if architectural interventions, like memory palaces or culturally familiar layouts, could help preserve function. Similarly, trauma can often distort spatial memory, which creates fragmentation in the brain’s internal map of the world. Culturally sensitive design and spatial therapy could help crucially reconnect narrative and identity through place.
Educational spaces, hospitals, and cities could also be designed with neuroscience and anthropology in mind, promoting navigation, memory, and well-being. Architecture would not just house the mind—it would collaborate with it.
Conclusion
By integrating architectural theories, cognitive neuroscience, and anthropology, this paper proposes a new framework and method for understanding the brain’s spatial logic. It can be seen that the brain is not simply a navigator of space—but it is a builder of it, using culture, embodiment, and environment to construct meaning and memory. Just as we design buildings, the brain designs its own architecture of thought. Studying these intersections helps us not only understand cognition but also reshape the environments that shape us.
About the Author
Siri Kolliputi (‘26) is a student at Middleton High School.
References
- Bachelard, G. (1994). The Poetics of Space (M. Jolas, Trans.). Beacon Press. (Original work published 1958)
- Ekstrom, A. D., & Ranganath, C. (2018). Space, time, and episodic memory: The hippocampus is all over the cognitive map. Hippocampus, 28(9), 680–687.
- Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3-4), 455–479.
Hafting, T., Fyhn, M., Molden, S., Moser, M. B., & Moser, E. I. (2005). Microstructure of a spatial map in the entorhinal cortex. Nature, 436(7052), 801–806. - Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Routledge.
- Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge University Press.
- O’Keefe, J., & Nadel, L. (1978). The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map. Oxford University Press.
- Tolman, E. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 55(4), 189–208.
- Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. University of Minnesota Press.
- Tversky, B. (2003). Structures of mental spaces: How people think about space. Environment and Behavior, 35(1), 66–80.
- Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., et al. (2015). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement_2), 10446–10453.