1. Introduction
The manipulation of input stimuli to influence cognitive states is a known method of cognitive experience design. In conventional approaches in the practice of architecture, video design, and exhibition space design, perceived time has been controlled through narrative structures and video editing (Reference GenetteGenette, 1980; Reference Kovarski, Dos Reis, Chevais, Hamel, Makowski and SperdutiKovarski et al., 2022), and attention and immersion have been modulated through environmental elements such as light, shadow, and sound (Reference Mohammad-Moradi, Abbas Yazdanfar and KhanmohammadiMohammad-Moradi et al., 2025; Reference PallasmaaPallasmaa, 2012; Reference Privitera, Fontana and GeronazzoPrivitera et al., 2024). Furthermore, recent preliminary studies and the advancement of VR technology have revealed that the spatiotemporal manipulation of sensory inputs—including visual, auditory, and tactile inputs—can induce changes in cognitive states to lengthen or shorten the perceived passage of time, to increase or decrease the sense of body ownership and sense of agency, and to improve memory (Reference Aoyagi, Wen, An, Hamasaki, Yamakawa, Tamura, Yamashita and AsamaAoyagi et al., 2021; Reference Bogon, Högerl, Kocur, Wolff, Henze and RiemerBogon et al., 2024; Reference Moinnereau, Oliveira and FalkMoinnereau et al., 2023; Reference Mottelson, Muresan, Hornbæk and MakranskyMottelson et al., 2023; Reference Szczepocka, Mokros, Kaźmierski, Nowakowska, Łucka, Antoszczyk, Oltra-Cucarella, Werzowa, Hellevik, Skouras and BaggerSzczepocka et al., 2024). However, critics of cognitive design methods for experience design note that it still depends on the designer’s experience and intuition (Reference SchindlerSchindler, 2015) and, while experience and intuition contribute to judgments during the design process as tacit knowledge, they are limited in terms of ensuring objectivity and reproducibility (Reference Wong and RadcliffeWong & Radcliffe, 2000). Therefore, systematically verifying the relationship between cognitive states and experience, as well as the impact of specific stimuli on a user’s cognitive state, is a useful addition to the practice of experience design.
This study explores the relationship between impressive experiences and cognitive states from the perspective of cognitive experience design. Impressive experiences are often accompanied by unexpected emotions or sensations such as surprise or astonishment (Reference Rudd, Vohs and AakerRudd et al., 2012; Reference Ludden, Schifferstein and HekkertS. Ludden et al., 2012). Such sensations provide more than aesthetic pleasure and are closely related to higher cognitive processes such as attention, memory, and learning (Reference Foster and KeaneFoster & Keane, 2019; Reference HorstmannHorstmann, 2015). They have been cognitively constructed in architecture and art. Lighting with a strong luminance contrast is often intentionally introduced into dimly lit interior spaces to evoke feelings of solemnity and awe in visitors the moment they enter the space (Reference Mandala, Koerniawan, Indraprastha, Mangkuto and WonorahardjoMandala et al., 2025; Reference PallasmaaPallasmaa, 2012). This design technique suggests that luminance contrast within a space provides more than just visual information, and is in fact an experience design element mediated through a person’s cognitive state.
For cognitive states related to such impressive sensations as astonishment, this study focuses on perceived time. Perceived time refers to the subjective sense of temporal duration, which is independent of physical time and known to fluctuate with psychological states (Reference Droit-Volet and GilDroit-Volet & Gil, 2009). Moreover, the control of perceived time can be applied to enhance engagement in games or VR content, or to alleviate pain and stress, making it a potentially important index for cognitive experience design (Reference RappRapp, 2021; Reference Maia, Silva, de Paula Oliveira, da Silva Oliveira, Dale, Baptista and CaetanoS. Z. Maia et al., 2023). However, because perceived time is affected by various factors such as body temperature and arousal level (Reference Liu, Yang, Yuan, Bi, Chen and HuangLiu et al., 2015; Reference Wearden and Penton-VoakWearden & Penton-Voak, 1995), most previous experimental studies have targeted simple visual or auditory stimuli on a screen, and research investigating stimuli applicable to experience design or their relevance to impressive experiences has been insufficient.
Can luminance contrast serve as a cognitive experience design tool? This study aims to understand the relationship between impressive experiences and cognitive states, and to examine the potential of perceived time as an indicator of cognitive states. Specifically, by manipulating luminance contrast to induce or reduce astonishment, changes in perceived time are quantitatively measured using the tapping rate method. Additionally, other psychological states that define experiences, namely focus and comfort, are measured to assess whether perceived time can function as an evaluative indicator of cognitive states that influence experiences.
1.1. Luminance contrast and evaluation methods for cognitive experience design
Luminance contrast has been used in architectural and spatial design as a visual stimulus that determines visual hierarchy, depth perception, and emotional mood (Reference PallasmaaPallasmaa, 2012; Reference Tai and InaniciTai & Inanici, 2010). Previous studies have also shown that the light and shadow created by such contrasts influence the complexity and comfort of spatial perception (Reference Lindh and BillgerLindh & Billger, 2021).
However, most research regarding the effects of luminance contrast on cognitive experience design has relied on subjective questionnaires or verbal impression evaluations. Although these approaches are effective in capturing aesthetic aspects and the intended impressions of design, they have limitations when it comes to capturing unconscious cognitive state fluctuations.
To advance the understanding of cognitive experience design based on luminance contrast and achieve empirically supported findings, it is essential to explore quantitative indicators to adopt a mixed-method approach to examine how luminance contrast as a visual stimulus influences cognitive states.
1.2. Perceived time research and application to cognitive experience design
In the field of perceived time research, the focus has been on clarifying the mechanisms of temporal perception by minimizing external variables (Reference Liu, Yang, Yuan, Bi, Chen and HuangLiu et al., 2015; Reference Wearden and Penton-VoakWearden & Penton-Voak, 1995). Consequently, most prior studies have used simple visual or auditory stimuli, examining how basic parameters such as stimulus intensity or duration affect perceived time.
Methods used to measure perceived time have included estimation methods (in which elapsed time is estimated in time units), production methods (in which a verbally instructed duration is recognized by pressing a button or similar action), reproduction methods (in which a presented duration is reproduced), and comparison methods (in which two durations are compared) (Reference Cropper, Little, Xu, Bruno and JohnstonCropper et al., 2024). The tapping method has particularly been widely adopted as a nonverbal, real-time technique that captures an observer’s internal temporal fluctuations (Reference O’Regan, Spapé and SerrienO’Regan et al., 2017). The personally preferred tempo used in the tapping method is called the “spontaneous motor tempo,” and its stability has been demonstrated (Reference Hammerschmidt, Frieler and WöllnerHammerschmidt et al., 2021). By using one’s spontaneous motor tempo as a baseline, changes in the tapping rate enable the momentary detection of a lengthened or shortened perception of time (Reference Denner, Wapner, McFarland and WernerDenner et al., 1963). However, findings limited to simple stimuli cannot sufficiently explain how stimulus manipulation in experience design influences the cognitive states of participants. Therefore, perceived time research needs to be extended to stimuli applicable to cognitive experience design.
2. Research method
This study adopted a mixed-method approach, collecting both quantitative and qualitative data through objective and subjective measures under a controlled experimental protocol and standardized environment. The luminance contrast of a central light was manipulated under two conditions: a high contrast condition and a low contrast condition (Figure 1). The effects on perceived time and psychological states were examined in a controlled experiment. For statistical analysis, paired two-tailed t-tests (α = .05) were used to compare conditions, and correlation analyses were conducted to explore the relationships between perceived time and psychological states, as well as the interrelations among psychological indicators.
Research method
2.1. Experimental method
Experimental method
Participants tapped continuously for 3 minutes while viewing each condition, and then provided a subjective evaluation. To correct for individual differences, a baseline tapping tempo was measured before the viewing session, and a practice trial (under the same conditions as the second main trial) was included. To account for order effects, participants were divided into two groups with reversed orders of conditions. The participants were 42 healthy Japanese men and women in their twenties.
2.2. Experimental environment
A spotlight (EK PRO E3 spot) illuminated the room from a height of 5 m, and a fog machine (Antari Z-800II) with smoke was used to create the luminance contrast. The spotlight was connected via a PC (GALLERIA RG2060RGF-T) and an interface box (Kuwatec DocterMX), with specialized software used to manipulate its brightness and color. The high contrast condition was set to “Dimmer 100”, and the low contrast condition was set to “Dimmer 20”, both with a white light of “White 100”. To standardize luminance within the illuminated area, the spotlight parameters were set to “Shutter 19” and “Focus 52”, adjusted to the experimental space. To eliminate reflected light and any surrounding visual information, the floor and surroundings were covered with black curtains so that only the central light was presented.
Experimental environment: experimental layout (left); experimental scene (right)
The distance from the spotlight to the center of the chair was 3 m, and the seat height was 42 cm. A cushioned chair with a backrest was used to allow participants to view the central light comfortably across the entire visual field. The tapping pad (MIYOSHI USB Touch Pad TTP-US03/BK) was fixed to a 60 cm-high table, allowing participants to tap with slightly bent elbows. Each participant’s behavior during the viewing was recorded by two video cameras placed diagonally in front of and behind the participant. Fog was emitted for 1 minute, 20 minutes prior to each session, and air conditioning and door movements were restricted to ensure uniform diffusion. When participants entered the room, the spotlight was turned off, and a visual barrier was installed to block the line of sight (Figure 3).
2.2.1. Experimental procedure
After being seated, participants were equipped with a wearable eye tracker (Tobii Pro Glasses 2). Those who usually wore glasses or contact lenses were instructed to remove them, and prescription lenses were adjusted using the provided attachments. The eye tracker was connected to a PC (HP ProBook 430 G3) and calibrated using dedicated software.
Subsequently, the baseline spontaneous motor tempo was measured under room lighting. The participants were instructed to conduct the tapping task as follows:
-
• Place one hand on the mark indicated on the tapping pad.
-
• Tap using the right index finger, touching lightly with the upper half of the fingertip.
Apply a moderate strength, comparable to piano playing.
-
• Maintain a tapping rate that feels comfortable and sustainable.
Participants performed one practice trial and two main trials (three in total) according to the following sequence:
-
1. Sit and close eyes. Room light off, spotlight on.
-
2. Begin tapping with eyes closed (stabilize tempo for ∼20 seconds).
-
3. Signal to open eyes. Continue tapping while viewing the light for 3 minutes.
-
4. Signal to close eyes and stop tapping.
-
5. Spotlight off. Signal to reopen eyes.
-
6. Conduct oral subjective evaluation.
After the experimental session, participants completed a post-experiment questionnaire.
2.3. Indicators
2.3.1. Perceived time
The average tapping rate measured before the viewing session was defined as the “baseline tapping rate.” The number of taps per second during the viewing period was defined as the “tapping rate per trial.” The tapping rate change was calculated by dividing each trial’s tapping rate by the baseline average, representing the variation in perceived time. To assess temporal changes throughout the entire viewing period and immediately after eye opening, analyses were conducted separately for the full 3 minutes and the 10 seconds after eye-opening segments.
2.3.2. Psychological states
Three subjective evaluation items were set: astonishment, to indicate whether the space was breathtaking; comfort, to indicate the degree of pleasure or displeasure in the viewing experience; and focus, to indicate how much attention was directed toward the viewing. Participants responded using a 5-point scale, where 5 was “felt that way” and 1 was “did not feel that way.” In the post-experiment questionnaire, participants provided freely written responses to “When did you feel astonished during the experiment?” and “How do you define astonished?”
3. Results
3.1. Comparisons by luminance condition
3.1.1. Comparisons of psychological states by luminance condition
Comparisons of psychological states across the luminance contrast conditions are shown below for each subjective evaluation item.
Distribution of subjective evaluation scores by luminance contrast condition: [a] astonishment; [b] focus; [c] comfort
Many participants rated astonishment highly in the high contrast condition, and a significant difference was observed at a 5% significance level using a paired two-tailed t-test (hereafter, the same) (t(41)=1.39×10, p=3.87×10−17, dD =2.15). The mean score for astonishment was 4.10 in the high contrast condition and 1.90 in the low contrast condition. Many participants rated focus highly in the high contrast condition, and a significant difference was observed (t(41)=3.08, p =3.68×10−3, dD=0.52). The mean score for focus was 3.33 in the high contrast condition and 2.48 in the low contrast condition (Figure 4).
3.1.2. Comparisons of perceived time by luminance condition
The distributions of perceived time in changing luminance contrast conditions are shown below, categorized by the tapping rate measurement duration.
Tapping rate by luminance contrast condition: [a] 3 minutes; [b] 10 seconds after eye opening
No significant difference was observed in the distribution of tapping rates (3 minutes) between luminance contrast conditions (t(41)=1.55, p=.129, dD=0.239). The mean tapping rate (3 minutes) was 1.03 in the high contrast condition and 1.00 in the low contrast condition. No significant difference was observed in the distribution of tapping rates 10 seconds after eye opening between the luminance contrast conditions (t(41)=9.12×10−1, p =.367, dD=0.14). The mean tapping rate 10 seconds after eye opening was 1.00 in the high contrast condition and 0.99 in the low contrast condition (Figure 5).
3.2. Correlations between psychological state and perceived time
Correlations between psychological states and perceived time were analyzed separately for each contrast condition and measurement duration.
Astonishment showed weak negative correlations with tapping rate in the low contrast condition, both for the 3-minute measure (r = −0.33, p = .031) and for the 10-second measure (r = −0.32, p = .037), whereas no significant correlations were observed in the high contrast condition (Figure 6).
Correlation between astonishment and tapping rate: [a] high_3 minutes; [b] low_3 minutes; [c] high_10 seconds after eye opening; [d] low_10 seconds after eye opening
Figure 6 Long description
Panel A: A scatter plot titled high_3 minutes shows tapping rate on the vertical axis and astonishment on the horizontal axis. The data points are red and show varying tapping rates for different levels of astonishment. Panel B: A scatter plot titled low_3 minutes shows tapping rate on the vertical axis and astonishment on the horizontal axis. The data points are blue and show varying tapping rates for different levels of astonishment. Panel C: A scatter plot titled high_10 seconds after eye opening shows tapping rate on the vertical axis and astonishment on the horizontal axis. The data points are red and show varying tapping rates for different levels of astonishment. Panel D: A scatter plot titled low_10 seconds after eye opening shows tapping rate on the vertical axis and astonishment on the horizontal axis. The data points are blue and show varying tapping rates for different levels of astonishment.
Focus showed weak positive correlation with tapping rate in the high contrast condition for the 10-second measure (r = 0.32, p = .037), but no other significant correlations were found (Figure 7).
Correlation between focused and tapping rate: [a] high_3 minutes; [b] low_3 minutes; [c] high_10 seconds after eye opening; [d] low_10 seconds after eye opening
Comfort showed weak negative correlations with tapping rate in the high contrast condition for both the 3-minute (r = −0.39, p= .011) and 10-second measures (r = −0.37, p = .017), while no significant correlations were observed in the low contrast condition (Figure 8).
Correlation between comfort and tapping rate: [a] high_3 minutes; [b] low_3 minutes; [c] high_10 seconds after eye opening; [d] low_10 seconds after eye opening
Figure 8 Long description
Panel A: A scatter plot titled high_3 minutes shows the relationship between comfort on the horizontal axis and tapping rate on the vertical axis. The data points are represented by red dots, and the comfort scale ranges from 1 to 5. Panel B: A scatter plot titled low_3 minutes displays the relationship between comfort on the horizontal axis and tapping rate on the vertical axis. The data points are represented by blue dots, and the comfort scale ranges from 1 to 5. Panel C: A scatter plot titled high_10 seconds after eye opening illustrates the relationship between comfort on the horizontal axis and tapping rate on the vertical axis. The data points are represented by red dots, and the comfort scale ranges from 1 to 5. Panel D: A scatter plot titled low_10 seconds after eye opening shows the relationship between comfort on the horizontal axis and tapping rate on the vertical axis. The data points are represented by blue dots, and the comfort scale ranges from 1 to 5.
3.3. Correlations between psychological states
Correlations among the psychological states were examined separately for each contrast condition. Astonishment was positively correlated with focus in both the high (r = 0.43, p = .005) and low contrast conditions (r = 0.35, p = .021). In contrast, astonishment and comfort were not significantly correlated in either condition. Focus and comfort were not correlated in the high contrast condition (r = −0.18, p = .248) but showed a weak positive correlation in the low contrast condition (r = 0.39, p = .010).
4. Discussion
4.1. Eliciting impressive experiences through the luminance contrast
The experimental results showed a significant difference in the astonishment score when comparing the high contrast condition to the low contrast condition (mean scores: high contrast condition 4.10, low contrast condition 1.90). Furthermore, 25% of the participants selected the maximum rating (5) for the astonishment score in the high contrast condition. This result clearly suggests that the manipulation of the central light’s luminance contrast within the space successfully elicited the impressive experience of being astonished.
The analysis of free-text responses from the post-experiment questionnaire further revealed that the state of being astonished was perceived not only as a surprise caused by external change—such as “something unexpected happened” or “being overwhelmed by a change in situation”—but also as a shift in consciousness, described as “a state of realizing something and feeling slight tension” or “feeling surprise, making a discovery.” This indicates that the experience of being astonished is not merely a passive response to a stimulus, but an experience involving cognitive reorganization resulting from the interaction between the active participant and the environment’s luminance contrast (Reference Foster and KeaneFoster & Keane, 2019; Reference HorstmannHorstmann, 2015). Moreover, the frequent mention of visual stimuli in responses, such as “the moment the visual field expands” or “being visually shocked and dazed for a few seconds”, suggests a strong link between visual stimulation and the astonishment experience. As Reference PallasmaaPallasmaa (2012) asserted regarding the manipulation of luminance contrast, this study suggests that the luminance contrast of a central light is an element of cognitive experience design that can elicit an impressive experience.
4.2. Perceived time as an indicator of cognitive state and its relationship with experience
This study quantitatively attempted to capture changes in perceived time as determined by tapping rate to investigate its validity as a cognitive state indicator in cognitive experience design, as well as its relationship with psychological states that define the experience.
A moderate to weak positive correlation was confirmed between the focus score and tapping rate in the high contrast condition. This result corroborates previous studies suggesting that a greater state of concentration increases arousal, thereby lengthening perceived time (Reference Liu, Yang, Yuan, Bi, Chen and HuangLiu et al., 2015). Additionally, a weak negative correlation was observed between the comfort score and tapping rate in the high contrast condition, suggesting that the calmed emotional state led to a decrease in heart rate and shortened perceived time. These findings demonstrate that perceived time as measured by a tapping rate is a valid indicator of cognitive state and can objectively and non-verbally capture concentration and comfort. This discovery complements the conventional subjective and verbal evaluations of experience and can contribute to the construction of objective evaluation methods based on cognitive processes.
On the other hand, although a moderate positive correlation in the high contrast condition and a weak positive correlation in the low contrast condition were observed between astonishment and focus, suggesting the two concepts are closely related, only a weak negative correlation was partially observed between the astonishment score and the tapping rate. As expressed in free-text responses such as “being overwhelmed by a change in situation” and “being visually shocked and dazed for a few seconds,” if the experience of astonishment involves a cognitive freeze following a visual shock, the cognitive processing delay may be reflected in the immediate tapping behaviour. These free-text responses also suggest that this experience involves not merely perceptual surprise but higher-order cognitive reorganization emerging from the interaction between the participant and the environment. Further verification is needed regarding the possibility that the short-term experience of astonishment possesses a unique temporal specificity. Furthermore, the possibility that intermittent sympathetic nervous system activation to counteract participant drowsiness may have unpredictably affected the tapping rate (Reference Zhang, Niu, Ma, Wei, Zhang and DuZhang et al., 2025) suggests the necessity of isolating cognitive and physiological factors through analysis using eye video footage and eye movements.
Perceived time measured by tapping rate showed systematic associations with psychological states, supporting its validity as an indicator of ongoing cognitive state. The comparatively weaker correlations with astonishment may reflect the different cognitive levels involved: while focus and comfort relate to more continuous psychological states, astonishment appears to operate at an integrative level of experience. In this sense, the tapping rate may be more sensitive to dynamic cognitive engagement than to interpretive experiential constructs.
4.3. Effects of luminance contrast on perceived time
The mean perceived time (tapping rate), measured both over 3 minutes and during the first 10 seconds after eye opening, was higher in the high-contrast condition than in the low-contrast condition. Although this tendency aligns with prior research suggesting that greater stimulus intensity lengthens subjective duration, the differences did not reach statistical significance (3.1.2).
The absence of significant effects may be attributable to variations in participants’ attentional states during the experiment. Real-time monitoring of magnified eye images and gaze behavior indicated noticeable individual differences in alertness and engagement with the stimulus, with some participants showing signs of daily fatigue or drowsiness. Such fluctuations may have attenuated the impact of luminance contrast. Future analyses should therefore incorporate gaze metrics to account for fatigue-related influences and to more precisely isolate the relationship between luminance contrast and cognitive time perception.
5. Conclusion
5.1. Summary
This study experimentally examined whether luminance contrast can function as a cognitive experience design tool using a mixed-method approach. By manipulating luminance contrast under controlled conditions, changes in perceived time measured by tapping rate and psychological states (astonishment, focus, and comfort) were analyzed.
The results indicate that luminance contrast can elicit astonishment, which appears to involve not only perceptual surprise but also higher-order cognitive reorganization emerging from participant–environment interaction. Perceived time measured by tapping rate showed systematic associations with psychological states, supporting its validity as an indicator of ongoing cognitive state. The comparatively weaker correlations with astonishment may reflect its higher integrative nature, whereas focus and comfort represent more continuous psychological states. Thus, tapping rate may be more sensitive to dynamic cognitive engagement than to higher-order interpretive experiences.
5.2. Limitations and future research
Although subjective self-reports remain indispensable for capturing participants’ interpretations of experience, they may not fully access transient or non-verbal cognitive fluctuations. The integration of objective indicators such as tapping rate, together with forthcoming qualitative analyses of eye-tracking heatmaps to identify participants’ actual cognitive modes, will enable a more comprehensive interpretation of cognitive states beyond what self-report alone can provide. At the same time, the controlled experimental design simplifies the richness and contextual complexity of real-world cognitive experience. While this reduction enables the isolation of luminance contrast as a design parameter, it does not fully reproduce the layered and socially embedded nature of experience as it unfolds in natural environments. Furthermore, the participant sample was limited to young adults from a single cultural context. Although appropriate for an exploratory investigation, caution is required when generalizing these findings to broader populations and diverse design practices.
Future research will therefore extend this work through multimodal analyses, including eye-movement heatmap interpretation and mediation analyses incorporating cognitive state variables. It will contribute to a more systematic and theoretically grounded development of cognitive experience design.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (KAKENHI grant number 22KK0220). The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Prof. Shigekazu Higuchi for his valuable advice in developing this research and students of Matsumae Laboratory at Kyushu University for their support for the experiment.
Open access
