Back to News
ResearchAir

Researchers Are Measuring How Indoor Smell Changes the Brain

A controlled laboratory study used subjective reports and physiological signals to examine how indoor odors influence emotional state, pointing toward a more measurable approach to olfactory design.

Written by Compound · Published Aug 6, 2026 · News brief
Originally announced: August 2026

Smell is one of the least measured parts of a building.

Designers routinely calculate light levels, acoustic performance, air exchange, and thermal conditions. Odor is usually addressed only when occupants complain. A new controlled laboratory study published in Building and Environment asks a different question: Can indoor olfactory environments produce measurable differences in occupants' emotions and physiological activity?

What the Researchers Studied

The experiment involved 74 graduate students in a controlled laboratory setting.

Participants experienced odor conditions organized along two common dimensions of emotion: valence, meaning pleasant versus unpleasant, and arousal, meaning stimulating versus calming.

Researchers collected participants' emotional assessments alongside neurophysiological measurements, then examined whether those signals could distinguish between different emotional conditions.

What They Found

Different olfactory environments were associated with distinguishable subjective and physiological responses.

The findings suggest that reactions to indoor smell can be studied using more than questionnaires alone. Researchers may be able to combine reported experience with physiological signals to better understand how an olfactory environment affects occupants.

Earlier office-environment research has also paired brain-activity measurements with participant reports when testing ambient scents. This paper belongs to a growing area of building-science research exploring smell as part of the indoor experience.

Why It Matters for Buildings

Most indoor environmental quality frameworks focus on contaminants, ventilation, temperature, humidity, light, and sound.

Smell usually enters the conversation when something has failed: mold, smoke, chemicals, sewage, cooking odors, or insufficient air exchange.

This research points toward another possibility. Future buildings may evaluate the emotional and physiological character of an olfactory environment, not merely whether the air contains an unpleasant odor.

That could eventually influence hospitality spaces, residential wellness rooms, workplaces, recovery environments, and multisensory rooms. Those applications remain speculative and were not tested in this study.

What the Study Does Not Prove

The necessary distinction is between experience and health.

A smell can be emotionally pleasant while still introducing volatile organic compounds or creating problems for people with asthma, migraines, allergies, or sensory sensitivities. Pleasantness does not establish chemical safety.

The study also does not prove that fragranced products improve cognition, sleep, productivity, or long-term health. Responses to particular odors may be shaped by culture, familiarity, memory, and personal preference. A sample of 74 graduate students also limits how broadly the results can be generalized.

Why we care

Buildings are already evaluated for thermal, visual, acoustic, and air-quality performance. Olfactory performance remains poorly defined and is usually measured only when something has gone wrong.

This study supports a narrower, more useful claim: Emotional responses to indoor smell can be studied with instruments, not only questionnaires.

It does not establish how homes should smell. It does suggest that qualities once treated as subjective atmosphere are increasingly becoming measurable parts of human-centered building design.

Sources

  • Zhang, L., Xu, C.-Y., Zhang, Y.-S., Li, B., Zhang, L.-L., & Meng, Q.-H. (2026). "Exploring Indoor Olfactory Environments Through Multimodal Neurophysiological Responses and Emotion Recognition: A Controlled Laboratory Study." Building and Environment, 115075. doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2026.115075

Related

More news

Explore Compound

Reported from the Building and Environment paper and Crossref record; Compound has not replicated the experiment. No figures from the Elsevier article are reproduced here.