Abstract
Creativity, far from being limited to artistic endeavors, is a fundamental cognitive-emotional process that shapes daily life, the economy, and innovation. Its development depends on both individual factors (motivation, skills, emotional states) and contextual ones, among which the built environment plays a decisive role. This article examines the creative process through a cognitive-emotional lens, integrating neuroscientific insights (the dynamics of the DMN, ECN, and salience network) and methodological tools (the Sapiens methodology). Building on this framework, it presents a case study: the design of a 65 m² space conceived as a creativity room. The project organizes the space into four areas corresponding to Wallas’ phases (preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification) and translates scientific evidence into design strategies (lighting, acoustic control, biophilia, multisensory input, and spatial flexibility). The paper argues that conceiving workplaces as cognitive-emotional ecosystems enables the modulation of neural and emotional states associated with creativity, and that validating such proposals with physiological and cognitive metrics constitutes a fertile avenue for future research.
Keywords: creativity, cognitive neuroscience, workplace design, neuroarchitecture, environmental psychology, Sapiens methodology, evidence-based design.
Introduction
Although creativity is often assumed to belong exclusively to the arts, it is in fact a complex and essential human process that permeates all dimensions of life. In any context of change and transformation, creativity becomes indispensable – even for reimagining the environments we inhabit – by “allowing us to envision new opportunities to create the world we want, one that is more equitable and inclusive, leaving no one behind and no one outside”1. It is, therefore, a fundamental quality of our species.
Its transformative potential has also established creativity as a driving force of the global economy. Yet fostering creativity is not simple: while innovation can be recognized in tangible products or services, creativity corresponds to the internal, intricate processes that generate novel ideas. It is necessary, then, to highlight the influence of both personal factors (motivation, skills, emotional state) and contextual ones (social dynamics, the built environment, available resources). Within these, the built environment has the capacity to promote productivity, well-being, and creativity2.
Nevertheless, most current workplaces tend toward two dominant layouts: open-plan offices – once praised for enabling collaboration, yet often resulting in fewer interpersonal interactions3, distractions, and noise – or partitioned layouts, which enhance focus but foster isolation. In both cases, opportunities for social interaction, creative exchange, or restoration are frequently overlooked. Workplaces, therefore, should not be understood as a one-size-fits-all model, but rather as cognitive-emotional ecosystems synchronized with sociopsychological and neurophysiological processes capable of modulating and enhancing human abilities4.
With this in mind, the article presents a real case in which the design of a creativity room was approached through evidence-based strategies. Within this room, creative methodologies such as the Sapiens methodology are to be applied. This case serves as an example to reconceptualize workplaces as creativity rooms.
The article aims to examine the phases of the creative process, integrate neuroscientific and methodological contributions and apply cognitive-emotional parameters to the design of a real workplace intended to foster creativity.
The Creative Process and Its Phases
Although several theories and definitions exist, in the early twentieth century Graham Wallas proposed a four-stage model of the creative process that remains a useful pedagogical framework: preparation (research), incubation (divergence or relaxation), illumination (discovery), and verification (evaluation or testing)5. Additionally, scientific literature distinguishes between convergent thinking (solving problems with a single correct answer) and divergent thinking (generating multiple solutions), where the latter is central to the creative process6.
Csikszentmihalyi, for his part, introduced the concept of flow as an optimal state of positive experience in which people feel deeply engaged and experience high levels of enjoyment, a condition that can significantly enhance creativity7. This perspective reinforces the cognitive-emotional symbiosis underlying the creative process.
Neuroscientific Contributions
Research in cognitive neuroscience has shown that creativity is not localized in a single brain region, nor restricted to one mode of thought, but rather emerges from the flexible interaction between distinct neural networks. In particular, the default mode network (DMN) is involved in imagination, mental simulation, and remote association, while the executive control network (ECN) regulates attention, working memory, and analytical verification. The salience network acts as a switch, facilitating the transition between associative and executive modes8. Both modes are necessary to move through Wallas’ stages: preparation tends toward executive processes, incubation toward associative processes, illumination may involve either, and verification relies on executive control. Creativity thus depends on the dynamic cooperation between the DMN and ECN, a phenomenon rare in other cognitive functions. This flexibility explains why creative processes are highly sensitive to emotional states, stress levels, and environmental features. Consequently, the physical environment can modulate the transition between networks by facilitating states of rest or activation.
Creative Methodological Contribution: Sapiens
There are multiple methodologies to foster creativity, one of which is the Sapiens methodology. Developed in the field of gastronomy by Ferran Adrià, Sapiens is articulated as a transversal, systemic, and complex research process with creative and innovative aims. It is structured around five methods9 and is transferable to any field in which creative contributions are sought. When considered alongside Wallas’ stages, the Sapiens methods strengthen the preparation phase and provide tangible support for verification, while simultaneously promoting transversal associations that enrich incubation and illumination. Thus, there is a strong compatibility between the identification of creative stages and this methodology. Regardless of whether Sapiens or another methodology is used in the workplace, it is evident that workplace design can and should begin from its conceptualization as creativity rooms, challenging the dominant approaches.
Application of Cognitive-Emotional Parameters in Designing a Creativity Room
The case studycommission involved transforming a 65 m² space initially conceived as a bunker-like room into a creativity room with flexible-use furniture. After reviewing applicable scientific evidence, design strategies were proposed to support the optimal cognitive-emotional development of the creative process and its stages. The layout was based on Wallas’ creative process stages5, interconnected and flexible in response to the iterative and dynamic nature of creativity, while also enabling the application of methodologies such as Sapiens.
Specific strategies were defined for each zone, for example:
Preparation zone: Linked to the prefrontal cortex and executive functions, this area is designed to enhance concentration, focused attention, working memory, analysis, and decision-making10. It evokes a sense of relative isolation and sobriety to sustain attention without distractions11, combined with directed lighting2 and acoustic control3.
Incubation zone: Conceived to activate the DMN10, stimulate free imagination, and generate remote associations. Incubation requires a restorative process that may be promoted by heterogeneous distractions5. Calm, aesthetically pleasant experiences, or bodily movement can also facilitate incubation. This zone evokes serenity through balanced compositions11, wood finishes to mitigate stress2, natural elements to encourage attentional restoration12, and features that enable heterogeneous distractions.
Illumination zone: In this phase, increased – yet controlled – activation is desirable. This may be achieved through strategic contrast11 in lighting, natural textures, or biophilic patterns. Suggestive imagery invites mental wandering and idea generation, while movement-promoting elements and warm, intense colors increase activation2.
Verification zone: Focused on the socio-emotional system and motivation, acknowledging that emotions drive behavior10. Designed for small-group work, this area fosters exchange and co-creation. Flexible furniture and spatial layouts facilitate dialogue and joint idea construction. Grouping strategies11 were implemented to support interaction in sociopetal arrangements, particularly circular geometries.
The distribution of the zones, along with some design strategies to be applied, is shown in the following image.
Figure 1. Distribution of zones based on the phases of the creative process, with some design strategies to be applied. Source: Author’s elaboration.
The Sapiens methodology was used transversally to align this spatial distribution with the creative process stages. In preparation, the classification method materialized in a sober, focused area that supports information organization and executive attention. In incubation, the domain-connection strategy was translated into a biophilic, restorative space that stimulates remote associations. Illumination corresponded with the exploratory method, expressed through a contrasting and dynamic setting that encourages discovery. Finally, in verification, synthesis and evaluation were embodied in a sociopetal space with flexible furniture that fosters exchange and co-creation. In this way, Sapiens functions not only as a conceptual resource but as an operational framework that guides evidence-based design decisions consistent with the cognitive-emotional dynamics of creativity.
Discussion
This study shows that creativity cannot be understood as an isolated faculty, but as a phenomenon emerging from the dynamic cooperation of brain networks, emotional states, and features of the built environment. The application of cognitive-emotional design in the analyzed creativity room demonstrates how translating neuroscientific evidence into spatial parameters supports the various stages of the creative process. In contrast to open-plan or compartmentalized offices -which tend to either limit interaction or reduce concentration – this proposal emphasizes smooth transitions between zones with differentiated cognitive demands.
The findings are consistent with recent research in environmental psychology and neuroarchitecture, which highlight the role of the physical environment as an active modulator of cognitive and emotional processes. In this sense, workplaces designed as cognitive-emotional ecosystems gain relevance by enabling richer interactions, differentiated attentional states, and improved well-being. However, consolidating this approach requires a paradigm shift regarding workplace possibilities as facilitators of creativity and well-being.
Creativity thus requires both optimal physical environments, leadership and methodologies that encourage and legitimize it as an ideal process for productive settings. Integrating these elements remains a challenge for industry, architecture, environmental psychology, and organizational management.
Conclusions
Creativity is sustained by the flexible interaction between the DMN, ECN, and salience network, modulated by affective and contextual factors. Workplaces can be conceived as cognitive-emotional systems designed to facilitate specific neural and emotional states.
Evidence-based design decisions can enhance creativity and well-being. The integration of inclusive organizational practices and creative methodologies should incorporate the role of the built environment.
Future research should validate these proposals through physiological, cognitive, and emotional metrics, consolidating cognitive-emotional design as a field of study and practice within architecture.
References
1. UNESCO. Creativity as a driver for sustainable development. Published September 27, 2021. Accessed August 1, 2025. https://www.unesco.org/es/days/world-creativity-and-innovation-day
2. Higuera-Trujillo JL, Llinares C, Macagno E. The cognitive-emotional design and study of architectural space: a scoping review of neuroarchitecture and its precursor approaches. Sensors (Basel). 2021;21(4):1-49. doi:10.3390/s21041424
3. Bernstein ES, Turban S. The impact of the “open” workspace on human collaboration. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018;373(1753):20170239. doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0239
4. Velásquez Burgos BM, Remolina de Cleves N, Calle Márquez MG. Creativity as a practice for the development of the whole brain. Tabula Rasa. 2010;(13):321-338.
5. Wallas G. The Art of Thought. London: Butler & Tanner; 1926.
6. Kaufman JC, Sternberg RJ, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
7. Csikszentmihalyi M. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Perennial; 1998.
8. Beaty RE, Benedek M, Silvia PJ, Schacter DL. Creative cognition and brain network dynamics. Trends Cogn Sci. 2016;20(2):87-95. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.004
9. elBullifoundation. Sapiens Methodology. https://metodologiasapiens.com/. Accessed August 1, 2025.
10. Dierssen S. The Artist’s Brain: Creativity from a Neuroscientific Perspective. Barcelona: Shackleton Books; 2019.
11. Ramachandran VS. The Tell-Tale Brain. Barcelona: La Liebre de Marzo; 2008.
12. Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol. 1995;15(3):169-182. doi:10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
