鸟鸣声丰富度对心理恢复效应的量化研究——基于脑电与主观评估的实证

Quantitative Study on the Psychological Restoration Effect of Bird Song Richness: An Empirical Analysis Based on EEG and Subjective Evaluation

摘要

【目的】鸟鸣声是自然声景核心要素，是动物进行通讯的重要信号，同时也兼具疗愈效果。鸟鸣的多样性已经被证实影响人类的感知。厘清鸟鸣丰富度与心理恢复的量效关系，是实现生物友好型城市的第一步。【方法】选取 1 种、5 种、9 种鸟鸣声为材料，采集受试者脑电信号及心理量表数据，通过分析脑电频率相对功率与量表平均分探讨感知程度。【结果】鸟鸣声较城市噪声显著提升恢复效应；单一鸟鸣声主观恢复性最强，9 种鸟鸣声对大脑的生理恢复性最强，但过多种类的鸟鸣声可能因信息过载削弱效益；与主观感知相关的脑电指标，为评估体系提供生理靶点；部分脑电指标与主观结果分离的原因，可能为高丰富度鸟声有助于生理放松但增加信息负荷，降低主观体验。【结论】聚焦鸟鸣声丰富度这一关键变量，系统探讨了不同鸟鸣声丰富度在脑电方面差异化效应，具体量化影响脑区，推断因果关系，并且为如何增进鸟鸣声感知提供了依据。

Abstract

[Objective] As a crucial component of the human living environment, soundscape quality directly impacts users’ environmental experience as well as physical and mental health. Its positive effects in alleviating mental stress, improving emotional states, and facilitating cognitive recovery have been widely recognized. Bird vocalizations, as one of the most distinguishable and positively valenced elements in natural soundscapes, are not only regarded as key acoustic signals in ecological environments but also considered an important medium connecting humans with nature and promoting public mental health. Moreover, avian biodiversity may exert potential impacts on human restorative experiences by regulating the diversity and loudness characteristics of soundscapes. Clarifying the dose-response relationship between the richness of different bird vocalizations and psychological restorative outcomes constitutes a vital step in advancing soundscape design from qualitative description to scientific quantification. [Methods] Three types of bird vocalizations with varying richness levels were selected as experimental stimuli: continuous singing of a single bird species, alternating calls of 5 bird species, and alternating calls of 9 bird species. A 60-second audio clip was extracted from each group to serve as restorative sound materials for the experiment. Stimuli were compiled and randomly presented via ErgoLAB software. For physiological data collection, electroencephalography (EEG) was employed to provide objective physiological evidence. Psychological data were assessed using the Perceived Restorativeness Soundscape Scale (PRSS) and the Profile of Mood States (POMS). A total of 54 healthy adult participants were recruited online. First, participants were fitted with EEG recording equipment and signal calibration was performed. Subsequently, baseline data were recorded under a resting state. After that, participants were exposed to 2 minutes of urban environmental noise stimulation. In the recovery phase, three types of acoustic stimuli with different avian species richness levels were randomly presented, and participants’ physiological and psychological responses were measured. The experimental module structure was consistent across all richness conditions: it began with a 2-minute silent adaptation period, followed by a 1-minute playback of the corresponding bird vocalization stimulus. Upon completion of stimulus playback, participants were required to complete the POMS and PRSS. [Results] After preprocessing all EEG data, valid data were obtained from 52 participants. Compared with urban noise, the bird vocalization environment significantly enhanced the psychological restorative effect. When comparing the restorative differences among the three bird vocalization groups with varying richness levels, the average relative power of different frequency bands across brain regions was calculated: the 9-species group showed higher α wave power. PRSS and POMS analysis showed that under the single bird species condition, 9 of the 12 PRSS items achieved the highest scores, showing a trend that simplicity is superior to complexity. All negative mood scores of POMS were below 2.1, indicating that the overall negative emotional level in the birdsong acoustic environment was low. The negative emotions increased slightly with a greater number of birds. Combining subjective restorativeness scores and physiological regulatory effects, one bird sound yielded the strongest subjective restoration, while nine bird sounds produced the strongest physiological restoration for the brain, followed by one bird. However, nine or more species resulted in reduced restorative effects due to information overload. Spearman correlation analysis among PRSS, POMS subjective scale scores, and EEG data revealed the following relationships: stronger perceived soundscape compatibility was associated with lower δ wave relative power; greater curiosity about the sound was linked to lower θ wave relative power; higher levels of fatigue experienced by participants correlated with higher α wave relative power; and stronger perceptions of soundscape compatibility and "being away" were associated with higher β wave relative power. Certain EEG physiological indicators were correlated with specific dimensions of subjective perception. A degree of dissociation was observed between some EEG indicators and subjective experiences: high-richness bird vocalizations may be more effective in inducing physiological relaxation in the brain; although they did not trigger negative physiological stress responses, they increased information processing load, leading to a decline in subjective restorative experiences. [Conclusion] This study adopted a dual research paradigm combining “objective physiology + subjective experience”. By integrating multi-frequency, multi-brain region EEG analysis with standardized scales (PRSS, POMS), it avoided the limitations of a single research perspective and enhanced the reliability and comprehensiveness of the results. Focusing on avian vocalization richness as a key variable, this study systematically explored the differential effects of varying richness levels and attempted to identify specific quantitative ranges, aiming to provide directly applicable parametric basis for landscape design. Future research can be further expanded in the following aspects: expanding the type and scope of samples to include participants of different ages, occupations, and geographical regions to verify the generalizability of the avian vocalization richness effect; extending research scenarios to explore the interaction between scene characteristics and avian vocalization richness in combination with different landscape types, thereby improving the contextual adaptability of research results; and deepening research variables by introducing acoustic indices, bird vocalization types, and other variables to investigate the soundscape restorative effect under the synergistic action of multiple factors.

关键词

风景园林 / 生物多样性 / 声景 / 鸟鸣声 / 感知 / 脑电

Key words

landscape architecture / biodiversity / soundscape / bird song / perception / electroencephalography (EEG)

参考文献

[1] International Organization for Standardization. Acoustics: Soundscape - Part 1: Definition and Conceptual Framework: ISO 12913-1: 2014[S]. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2014.

[2] KANG J, ALETTA F, GJESTLAND T T, et al. Ten Questions on the Soundscapes of the Built Environment[J]. Building and Environment, 2016, 108: 284-294.

[3] BUXTON R T, PEARSON A L, ALLOU C, et al. A Synthesis of Health Benefits of Natural Sounds and Their Distribution in National Parks[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021, 118(14): e2013097118.

[4] EGNER L E, SÜTTERLIN S, CALOGIURI G . Proposing a Framework for the Restorative Effects of Nature Through Conditioning: Conditioned Restoration Theory[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, 17(18): 6792.

[5] RATCLIFFE E. Sound and Soundscape in Restorative Natural Environments: A Narrative Literature Review[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2021, 12: 570563.

[6] CHEN Z, HERMES J, VON HAAREN C . Mapping and Assessing Natural Soundscape Quality: An Indicator-Based Model for Landscape Planning[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2024, 354: 120422.

[7] 陈伟， 温特巴顿， 刘娟娟 . 基于景观要素的城市公园声景调控研究[J]. 中国园林，2022， 38（6）： 91-96.

[8] CHEN W, WINTERBOTTOM D, LIU J J . Study on Soundscape Regulation of Urban Park Based on Landscape Elements[J]. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 2022, 38(6): 91-96.

[9] 许晓青， 郭晓彤， 韩锋， 等 . 武陵源世界遗产地声景感知及影响感知的要素研究[J]. 风景园林，2019， 26（6）： 97-102.

[10] XU X Q, GUO X T, HAN F, et al. Research of Soundscape Perception in Wulingyuan World Heritage Site and Influence Factor[J]. Landscape Architecture, 2019, 26(6): 97-102.

[11] ZHU Y J, HUANG N, WENG Y X, et al. Does Soundscape Perception Affect Health Benefits, as Mediated by Restorative Perception?[J]. Forests, 2023, 14(9): 1798.

[12] MORRISON C A, AUNIŅŠ A, BENKŐ Z, et al. Bird Population Declines and Species Turnover Are Changing the Acoustic Properties of Spring Soundscapes[J]. Nature Communications, 2021, 12: 6217.

[13] KAPLAN S . The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1995, 15(3): 169-182.

[14] LIU Y W, ZHANG J J, LIU C L, et al. A Review of Attention Restoration Theory: Implications for Designing Restorative Environments[J]. Sustainability, 2024, 16(9): 3639.

[15] ULRICH R S . Natural Versus Urban Scenes: Some Psychophysiological Effects[J]. Environment and Behavior, 1981, 13(5): 523-556.

[16] RATCLIFFE E, GATERSLEBEN B, SOWDEN P T . Associations with Bird Sounds: How Do They Relate to Perceived Restorative Potential?[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2016, 47: 136-144.

[17] RITERS L V, POLZIN B J, MAKSIMOSKI A N, et al. Birdsong and the Neural Regulation of Positive Emotion[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022, 13: 903857.

[18] HONG J Y, LAM B, ONG Z T, et al. A Mixed-Reality Approach to Soundscape Assessment of Outdoor Urban Environments Augmented with Natural Sounds[J]. Building and Environment, 2021, 194: 107688.

[19] STOBBE E, SUNDERMANN J, ASCONE L, et al. Birdsongs Alleviate Anxiety and Paranoia in Healthy Participants[J]. Scientific Reports, 2022, 12: 16414.

[20] VANHÖFEN J, STUCK K, HAAG R, et al. Effects of Nature Experience on Mental Well-Being and Physiological Stress Parameters in an Experimental Bird Walk Setting − the Role of Bird Song[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2025, 263: 105456.

[21] WANG Y W, LIANG G Y, LU R P . Following My Heart: Natural Sounds Reduce the “Intention-Behavior Gap” in Pro-Environmental Purchasing Decisions and Enhance Top-down Physiological Attention Mechanisms[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2025, 103: 102581.

[22] ZIELONKA N B, TUBMAN V, DICKS L V, et al. Increased Bird Sound Diversity in Vineyards Enhances Visitors’ Tour Experience[J]. People and Nature, 2024, 6(6): 2325-2338.

[23] HEDBLOM M, GUNNARSSON B, SCHAEFER M, et al. Sounds of Nature in the City: No Evidence of Bird Song Improving Stress Recovery[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2019, 16(8): 1390.

[24] CHEN L H, MA Y . Perceived Restorativeness of Urban Green Spaces in Southern China During Summer[J]. Scientific Reports, 2025, 15: 38580.

[25] YI K Y, YANG W G, ZHANG X L, et al. Public’s Multi-Dimensional Response to Different Acoustic Types of Birdsong in Urban Parks Based on Auditory: A Case Study of Kunming, China[J]. Applied Acoustics, 2025, 240: 110898.

[26] MENG L S, LI S H, ZHANG X D . Assessing Biodiversity’s Impact on Stress and Affect from Urban to Conservation Areas: A Virtual Reality Study[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2024, 158: 111532.

[27] MCALLISTER E, BHULLAR N, SCHUTTE N S . Into the Woods or a Stroll in the Park: How Virtual Contact with Nature Impacts Positive and Negative Affect[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2017, 14(7): 786.

[28] GARCÍA FLORES J C, ORDOÑEZ DÍAZ M J . Beneficio del huerto familiar para la salud mental en la pandemia de COVID-19 en Jojutla, Morelos, México[J]. Cuadernos Geográficos, 2022, 61(1): 44-63.

[29] DOUGLAS J W A, EVANS K L . An Experimental Test of the Impact of Avian Diversity on Attentional Benefits and Enjoyment of People Experiencing Urban Green-Space[J]. People and Nature, 2022, 4(1): 243-259.

[30] HEDBLOM M, HEYMAN E, ANTONSSON H, et al. Bird Song Diversity Influences Young People’s Appreciation of Urban Landscapes[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2014, 13(3): 469-474.

[31] MIN B K, HÄMÄLÄINEN M S, PANTAZIS D . New Cognitive Neurotechnology Facilitates Studies of Cortical: Subcortical Interactions[J]. Trends in Biotechnology, 2020, 38(9): 952-962.

[32] LI H, XIE H, WOODWARD G . Soundscape Components, Perceptions, and EEG Reactions in Typical Mountainous Urban Parks[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2021, 64: 127269.

[33] NEWSON J J, THIAGARAJAN T C . EEG Frequency Bands in Psychiatric Disorders: A Review of Resting State Studies[J]. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2019, 12: 521.

[34] DI G Q, FAN M C, LIN Q H . An Experimental Study on EEG Characteristics Induced by Intermittent Pure Tone Stimuli at Different Frequencies[J]. Applied Acoustics, 2018, 141: 46-53.

[35] HILL D R, SAROKA K S . Sonic Patterns, Spirituality and Brain Function: The Sound Component of Neurotheology[J]. NeuroQuantology, 2010, 8(4): 509-516.

[36] NGHIEM T P L, WONG K L, JEEVANANDAM L, et al. Biodiverse Urban Forests, Happy People: Experimental Evidence Linking Perceived Biodiversity, Restoration, and Emotional Wellbeing[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2021, 59: 127030.

[37] SCHEBELLA M F, WEBER D, SCHULTZ L, et al. The Nature of Reality: Human Stress Recovery During Exposure to Biodiverse, Multisensory Virtual Environments[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, 17(1): 56.

[38] KRAUSE B L . The Niche Hypothesis: A Virtual Symphony of Animal Sounds, the Origins of Musical Expression and the Health of Habitats [J]. The Soundscape Newsletter, 1993, 6: 6-10.

[39] 昆明市朱雀鸟类研究所 . 中国观鸟记录中心[EB/OL]. [2026-04-22]. https://www.birdreport.cn/.

[40] Kunming Rosefinch Ornithological Research Institute . China Bird Watching Record Center[EB/OL]. [2026-04-22]. https://www.birdreport.cn/.

[41] 张海军， 王浩川 . 多导联EEG信号分类识别研究[J]. 计算机工程与应用，2008， 44（24）： 228-230.

[42] ZHANG H J, WANG H C . Research on Classification and Recognition of Multi-channel EEG Signal[J]. Computer Engineering and Applications, 2008, 44(24): 228-230.

[43] HAO X Y, MA M H, MENG F Y, et al. Diminished Attention Network Activity and Heightened Salience-Default Mode Transitions in Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Evidence from Resting-State EEG Microstate Analysis[J]. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2025, 373: 227-236.

[44] PAYNE S R, GUASTAVINO C . Exploring the Validity of the Perceived Restorativeness Soundscape Scale: A Psycholinguistic Approach[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2018, 9: 2224.

[45] PAYNE S R . The Production of a Perceived Restorativeness Soundscape Scale[J]. Applied Acoustics, 2013, 74(2): 255-263.

[46] BAKER F, DENNISTON M, ZABORA J, et al. A POMS Short Form for Cancer Patients: Psychometric and Structural Evaluation[J]. Psycho-Oncology, 2002, 11(4): 273-281.

[47] PETROWSKI K, BJELOPAVLOVIC M, ZENGER M, et al. Psychometric Properties and Norm Values of a Short Screening Version of the Profile of Mood States POMS from the German General Population[J]. Scientific Reports, 2025, 15: 23889.

[48] LI Z Z, BA M H, KANG J . Physiological Indicators and Subjective Restorativeness with Audio-Visual Interactions in Urban Soundscapes[J]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2021, 75: 103360.

[49] 王立亚， 李哲， 高颖， 等 . 重复性景观体验中脑疲劳测度表征及其实证研究：以襄阳城墙沿线公园为例[J]. 风景园林，2023， 30（S2）： 106-112.

[50] WANG L Y, LI Z, GAO Y, et al. Measurement, Characterization and Empirical Study of Brain Fatigue in Repetitive Landscape Experience: A Case Study of Xiangyang City Wall Park[J]. Landscape Architecture, 2023, 30(S2): 106-112.

[51] LIU C, JING X T, SHI J, et al. Effects of Natural Sound on Human Stress Recovery Based on EEG Techniques[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2024, 97: 102365.

[52] DELORME A, MAKEIG S . EEGLAB: An Open Source Toolbox for Analysis of Single-Trial EEG Dynamics Including Independent Component Analysis[J]. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 2004, 134(1): 9-21.

[53] RATCLIFFE E, GATERSLEBEN B, SOWDEN P T . Bird Sounds and Their Contributions to Perceived Attention Restoration and Stress Recovery[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2013, 36: 221-228.

[54] KLIMESCH W . EEG α and θ Oscillations Reflect Cognitive and Memory Performance: A Review and Analysis[J]. Brain Research Reviews, 1999, 29(2/3): 169-195.

[55] TARAILIS P, DE BLASIO F M, SIMKUTE D, et al. Data-Driven EEG θ and α Components Are Associated with Subjective Experience During Resting State[J]. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 2022, 12(6): 896.

[56] LOMBARDI F, HERRMANN H J, PARRINO L, et al. Beyond Pulsed Inhibition: α Oscillations Modulate Attenuation and Amplification of Neural Activity in the Awake Resting State[J]. Cell Reports, 2023, 42(10): 113162.

[57] DAVIS C J, CLINTON J M, JEWETT K A, et al. δ Wave Power: An Independent Sleep Phenotype or Epiphenomenon?[J]. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 2011, 7(S5): S16-S18.

[58] HUNG C S, SARASSO S, FERRARELLI F, et al. Local Experience-Dependent Changes in the Wake EEG After Prolonged Wakefulness[J]. Sleep, 2013, 36(1): 59-72.

[59] CHAO L L, LENOCI M, NEYLAN T C . Effects of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder on Occipital Lobe Function and Structure[J]. NeuroReport, 2012, 23(7): 412-419.

[60] FERNÁNDEZ T, HARMONY T, RODRÍGUEZ M, et al. EEG Activation Patterns During the Performance of Tasks Involving Different Components of Mental Calculation[J]. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1995, 94(3): 175-182.

[61] GRØNLI J, REMPE M J, CLEGERN W C, et al. β EEG Reflects Sensory Processing in Active Wakefulness and Homeostatic Sleep Drive in Quiet Wakefulness[J]. Journal of Sleep Research, 2016, 25(3): 257-268.

[62] ABSHER J R, CUMMINGS J L . Neurobehavioural Examination of Frontal Lobe Functions[J]. Aphasiology, 1995, 9(2): 181-192.

[63] MURPHY S, SPENCE C, DALTON P . Auditory Perceptual Load: A Review[J]. Hearing Research, 2017, 352: 40-48.

基金资助

国家自然科学基金面上项目“国家公园鸟类多样性声纹特征的人为影响机制及其空间管控策略研究”(52478066)

中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金