Abstract
Neuroarchitecture has developed rapidly at the intersection of architecture, environmental cognition, neuroscience, and immersive technologies, yet the field remains methodologically heterogeneous and its progression from measurement toward design application is insufficiently structured. This study addresses this gap through a PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic mapping review of neuroarchitecture and closely related architectural and spatial-cognition research published between 2015 and 2025. Expanded searches across Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection identified 510 records. After removal of 206 duplicates, 304 unique records were screened; 125 records entered the final eligibility and data-extraction audit, and four additional boundary or temporal exclusions resulted in a final corpus of 121 studies. The corpus comprised 61 human empirical studies, one non-human empirical study, 58 review or conceptual synthesis records, and one methodological/protocol record. Publication activity increased markedly in the later review period, with 81 studies (66.9%) published between 2023 and 2025. Among the 61 human empirical studies, questionnaire/self-report measures were used in 39 studies (63.9%), behavioral task/performance measures in 32 (52.5%), EEG in 32 (52.5%), eye tracking in 15 (24.6%), EDA/GSR in 14 (23.0%), HRV in six (9.8%), fMRI in three (4.9%), and fNIRS in one (1.6%). To organize this heterogeneous evidence base, the study develops an Immersive Spatial Cognition Framework (ISCF) linking spatial stimuli, environmental exposure, neurophysiological measurement, cognitive–emotional processing, evidence interpretation, design translation, and adaptive design, together with an Evidence-Based Neuroarchitecture Maturity Model (EBN-MM). EBN-MM classification indicated that 30.6% of the corpus remained at Stage I (Conceptual Interpretation), 35.5% reached Stage II (Experimental Validation), 33.1% reached Stage III (Evidence Integration), and only 0.8% reached Stage IV (Adaptive Design Operationalization). These findings indicate that neuroarchitecture is progressing beyond isolated experimental validation toward evidence integration, while translation into adaptive and operational design remains exceptional. The proposed frameworks provide a structured basis for comparing heterogeneous evidence and identifying methodological priorities for future evidence-based neuroarchitecture research.