What part of the brain is involved in graphic design thinking in landscape architecture?

Graphic design thinking is a key skill for landscape architects, but little is known about the links between the design process and brain activity. Based on Goel's frontal lobe lateralization hypothesis (FLLH), we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to scan the brain activity of 24 designers engaging in four design processes-viewing, copy drawing, preliminary ideas, and refinement-during graphic design thinking. The captured scans produced evidence of dramatic differences between brain activity when copying an existing graphic and when engaging in graphic design thinking. The results confirm that designs involving more graphic design thinking exhibit significantly more activity in the left prefrontal cortex. These findings illuminate the design process and suggest the possibility of developing specific activities or exercises to promote graphic design thinking in landscape architecture.

Introduction

Design thinking is a highly cognitive activity that is widely used in design-related fields to solve the problem in the man-made environment. “Design methodology,” as described by Cross [1], is the design process on work and thinking developed by designers through techniques or methods that reflect the knowledge to solve a problem. “Design as a discipline” involves different perceptions in the sciences, humanities, and design thinking, knowing, and practical methods [2, 3]. Hence, we could infer that design thinking involves a series of reasoning mechanisms to select, identify, and then solve the problem [2, 4, 5]. This design process is called “real-world problem solving” with the “select-and-combine model” [6], which relates to the mechanism of conceptual sketches of cognition [7] that might support the frontal lobe lateralization hypothesis (FLLH) in brain activations [4]. Gero and Milovanovic [5] considered that design thinking involves cognition, and researchers have tried to explore the design process through “protocol analysis,” “Black Box experiment,” and “survey” during design. Goel [4] demonstrated architectural designs that included initial sketching with ambiguous lines, conceptual transformation, analysis, and adjustment of the spatial form, gradually converging the style and precision of its spatial structure to solve current problems. By contrast, Gillieson and Garneau [8] highlighted that graphic design thinking as a design process uses visual communication, such as organization and logic, to define deductive and inductive thinking in space, which also involves personal experiences to recall, reframe, and solve the design problem. Their study addressed the design process by drawing a series of graphics to identify the space in the landscape. Therefore, in this study, we used the term “graphic design thinking” to explore the “Black Box” in landscape architecture design.

Laseau [9] described a thinking process assisted by sketching, while Geol [7] identified four characteristics in design, including problem structuring, preliminary design, refinement, and detail, which use sketching to refine ambiguous ideas in the related arts (e.g., architectural design). This suggests that designers think through sketching to visualize and spatialize a concept map within incomplete ideas and refine those thoughts through abductive thinking [10]. Landscape architecture design consists of a set of design processes, including the scope of the problem, the purpose, and the goal, which interprets “what” and “how” through the selection of material, landscape elements, colors, etc. in the design process to meet needs and create values [11]. The abductive thinking helps designers to develop ideas and connect elements for thought completion [10]. Moreover, the voices of potential users and related stakeholders are important [11]. After the development of the selected solution, the specific idea for actualizing the detailed design will be considered complete. Based on the concept of sketching-assisted thinking proposed by Laseau [9], Geol [7], and Kolko [10], we might infer that, for landscape architects, the landscape architecture design process is associated with the conceptual stages of a project, as landscape architects use sketching to nurture creative ideas, and graphic design thinking refines the ideas to develop and connect landscape elements for completion.

A study proposed a framework of using electroencephalography (EEG), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to measure brain activation, which could offer a glimpse of the design process, such as design creativity, design reasoning, and problem-solving, during different design tasks [5]. fMRI may allow a better understanding of design cognition, such as visual and spatial reasoning, in design thinking and creativity [12]. Goel [4] proposed the FLLH, in which the left and right prefrontal cortices (PFC) are responsible for different functions in real-world problem-solving. The hypothesis links the design cognitive process to brain activity in architectural design and planning [13]. The right PFC is involved in planning, visual processing, or reasoning out of the initial concept and preliminary ideas. The right PFC contributes to the abstract, vague, and conceptual aspects of performance. By contrast, after selecting a specific solution and proceeding to further refinement, the left PFC assists in processing specific, clear, and practical information (Fig 1) [4].

Fig 1

The design process and corresponding brain reactions (modified from Goel, 2014).

The involvement of the PFC in cognitive mechanisms has been proven in neuropsychology [14]. Related research on architecture and interior studies in design results linked with brain activation. The specific design tasks replete with sketching the frame and design items in space in various forms prompted our research design. In their study, Goel and Grafman [13] demonstrated that a patient with frontal lobe lesions who was an architect was unable to perform a preliminary design in sketching the ideas. However, normal subjects could perform the preliminary design, refinement, and detail through the design process in the open-end design. The finding highlights the role of the right PFC in design thinking tasks, consistent with other findings on interior design [12, 15, 16]. Alexiou et al. [12, 15] showed that when subjects in their study used a trackball mouse to move objects during interior design tasks (with no restriction), certain brain areas (e.g., dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), middle frontal gyrus, and middle temporal gyrus) were more active than during problem-solving tasks (with the conditions). These results were consistent with those of Gilbert et al. [16], who found that the right DLPFC and left frontal lobe were more active, stimulating potential solutions within visual imagery in design tasks. Further, these studies indicated that during design tasks, the activation of ACC could relate to cognitive and emotional functions [12, 15]. The DLPFC and ACC are not only involved in executive functions, such as visual imagery and semantic processing, but also work together to construct new ideas that respond to problem solving in design tasks [12, 15].

During design, designers use sketching to draw preliminary ideas and refine them. Landscape architecture design deals with landscape elements, such as water, plants, and pavements, to integrate elements into a whole that form the compatibility in the space. Architectural design involves structures and coordination in buildings. The design process might be similar. A landscape architecture design involves problem structuring, preliminary design, refinement, and detail, which, as proposed by Geol [7], could represent the graphic design thinking process of design with different elements in the landscape. Using fMRI could shed light on the “Black Box” in the brain activation of landscape architects during the design process. To test the association between the different design processes and brain lateralization, this study explored the neural mechanisms associated with the graphic design thinking process by using a fMRI scan to identify parts of the brain that predominate during this phase of landscape architecture design. According to Goel [4], the preliminary solution (or idea generation) phase activates the right PFC, whereas the refinement and detailing (or idea production) phase activates the left PFC. Thus, we hypothesized that the PFC would be activated during the landscape architecture design process as a key brain region that controls the design process.

Materials and methods

Participants

The participants (N = 24; 10 males; mean age = 34.50 years; SD = 2.03 years) all had at least three years of training in landscape architecture design. All were right-handed, with normal vision and hearing; none had a history of neurological disorders or cardiovascular disease, and all were screened for MRI compatibility. Each participant gave their written informed consent to the protocol #201411HM024 “Neural Correlates of Landscape Design Creativity: An fMRI study” as approved by the Research Ethics Committee, Division of Research Ethics, Office of Research and Development, National Taiwan University.

Apparatus

To test brain activity during landscape graphic design thinking, respondents were placed in an fMRI machine and asked to draw. However, as it is difficult to draw while lying in the fMRI machine, most researchers in previous studies asked participants to verbally describe, silently imagine their ideas, or click and remove the design items during the experiment, later drawing or writing down their ideas from memory outside the machine [12, 15–17]. In the present study, as the time difference between brain activity and reporting was problematic, we created a tilting acrylic table in the fMRI machine using a shoulder fixation cushion to help participants draw their designs while their brains were being scanned. The table was positioned over the participant’s waist (Fig 2). The experimental tasks on the table were printed and bound on paper and were easily visible with a double mirror on an overhead coil. Participants turned the page to the next task after hearing a beep in their headphones. While performing the tasks, the participants were asked to move only their lower arm to reduce movement and unnecessary scanning noise.

Fig 2

The scanning environment.

Stimuli

The tasks involved two kinds of stimuli. The first task was to complete landscape plans from the book From Concept to Form in Landscape Design [18]. The second task involved illustrations containing five geometric shapes (Fig 3) to form a landscape, which included in holistic work of visual imagery, abstract reasoning, or refinement in the graphic design thinking procedure and complete in the design task. A total of four “viewing landscapes” and four “landscape architecture designs with geometric shapes” were arranged differently for the subjects in the research design.

Fig 3

Examples of geometric cues as experimental stimuli.

Procedure

The experiment was designed to understand brain activity during the landscape architecture design process. The landscape graphic design process includes preliminary ideas, in which the participants think of initial solutions to the refinement problem-solving step. In the refinement phase, the subjects drew and refined their ideas during graphic design thinking, which we assumed activated the left PFC. Two types of tasks were provided in the experiments. The first task involved drawing without graphic design thinking (Task A-control), while the second task involved design cued by simple geometric forms for designing a landscape (Task B-design). To manage the effects of motion, each stimulus was presented twice, yielding four experimental conditions: “viewing” a complete landscape plan (A-1); “copying” this landscape plan on tracing paper (A-2); “preliminary ideas,” using geometric illustrations to envision a landscape architecture design (idea generation) (B-1); and “refinement” of the ideas, which uses designing skill to produce the preliminary ideas, reasoning, and drawing of landscape elements (idea production), consistent with the description of graphic design thinking assisted by sketching (B-2). The participants were requested to draw by their hands only during the experiment in the “copy drawing” and “refinement” conditions.

The research design followed the characteristic of design [7]. In the “viewing” condition, participants were asked to imagine that they were in the environment that the plan presented. In the “copy drawing” condition, participants were asked to trace the landscape plan on a tracing paper without any design. In the “preliminary ideas” condition, participants were asked to use several geometric illustrations to envision a landscape architecture design in their mind. In the “refinement” condition, participants were asked to draw the design they thought of in the preliminary ideas session. Based on the different stimuli, participants first copied the landscape plans and then used the geometric forms to develop a plan, section, or perspective drawing of their design according to their own preference. Each condition allowed 60 seconds for completion. During fMRI scanning, the participants completed two runs, which meant that each functional scan included four sessions and lasted for 558 seconds. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the counterbalancing task sequences, ABAB BABA or BABA ABAB (Fig 4).

Fig 4

The fMRI experimental process.

Evaluation of the “refinement” stage in graphic design thinking scores

To validate the results of the brain activation experiment, behavioral performance was measured to verify the level of “refinement” in graphic design thinking. Since graphic design thinking assisted by sketching to form design ideas, which might relate to developing creative design ideas, we used the concept of creativity to evaluate it. Previous research has indicated that qualitative research on creativity should be conducted in domain-specific ways [19]. Because there is no standard method for evaluating creative landscape architecture design, we used the indicators in the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA) as our evaluation instrument. The ATTA is a validated creativity assessment instrument that asks subjects about the suitability of writing or drawing in a test of graphic design thinking. The content and volume of ideas in the drawings are used as objective indicators of a designer’s creativity. According to Guilford’s concept of creative thinking, four indicators—fluency, originality, elaboration, and flexibility—were used to rate the volume of ideas, novelty of concepts, level of detail, and diversity of ideas.

To evaluate the level of refinement in participants’ graphic design creative thinking, we invited 10 senior landscape experts to assess the drawings on a 10-point Likert scale. Based on Guilford’s concept of creative thinking and the Torrance test, creativity levels were assessed in terms of three components: fluency, originality, and elaboration [20]. Fluency refers to the quantity of ideas produced; creative people are able to produce more ideas. Originality refers to ideas that are unusual, novel, unique, and different from others. Elaboration refers to the details considered and depicted over and above the core concept. Flexibility, the fourth component of creativity in the Torrance test, which tests the diversity of ideas, was not included in this study, as the experimental tasks provided geometric forms that limited the respondent’s flexibility. The score of each participant’s “refinement” level in the graphic design thinking was based on the average of the ten experts’ scores on the three relevant components.

fMRI data acquisition

Images were acquired by a 3T SIEMENS MAGNETOM Prisma MRI with a 20-channel head coil. For each participant, a T2-weighted anatomical was obtained (TR = 9530 ms, TE = 103 ms, flip angle = 150°, field of view = 192×192 mm2, x-y voxel size = 0.66×0.5 mm2, 3mm thick). Two-dimensional echo-planar images (EPI) were acquired with a GRAPPA acceleration factor of two at repetition time TR = 3000 ms, echo time TE = 30 ms, flip angle = 90°, field of view = 192×192 mm2, matrix size = 64×64×45, and an effective resolution of 3×3×3 mm3. In total, 45 EPI slices were sampled in a bottom-up, interleaved order.

fMRI data analysis

FMRI images were preprocessed and analyzed using SPM8 software in MATLAB. The data for each participant were preprocessed as follows. First, slice timing was used to correct the timing of the functional series by using the middle slice as the reference point. Second, images were realigned to the first scan to correct translational and rotational motion within the subject throughout the time series. Third, using coregistration algorithms, the anatomical image (higher resolution image) was coregistered to functional images, providing better normalization to the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) template. As the next step in normalization of the functional image, the segment procedure divided the anatomical image into gray matter, white matter, and cerebrospinal fluid. Next, the normalization step transformed the realigned functional image data from each individual subject to fit a standardized space, enabling the comparison of brains of varying shapes and sizes. Lastly, the smoothing procedure compensated for the remaining difference between subjects by applying an 8×8×8 mm3 Gaussian smoothing kernel filter.

Whole-brain analyses were estimated voxel by voxel according to a general linear model. Individual statistical maps modeled the time series using regressors and covariates. The covariates were yield movement parameters during the realigning process to control variance due to head movement. The regressors of interest included viewing (A1), copy drawing (A2), preliminary ideas (B1), and refinement (B2) sessions for each participant. In a second-level analysis, the group random effect was assessed for each contrast between participants. Significant regions of brain activation were evaluated by a one-sample t-test to determine whether the mean activation value across participants differed significantly from zero.

According to the assumption of pure insertion, neural structures underlay a single process. First, we compared the difference between “preliminary ideas (B1)” and “viewing (A1)” to understand the design brain of provide preliminary ideas. Both of these two conditions involve the cognitive brain, which includes visual imagery to transport oneself into the landscape, but the “preliminary ideas” condition also engages the brain in generating ideas. Second, the brain region associated with the difference between “”refinement” (B2)” and “copy drawing (A2)” was identified to isolate the graphic design thinking activity. Both of these two conditions engage the brain in drawing a landscape, but the “graphic design thinking” condition also involves the brain in the refinement of the design.

Results

Sanity check

To ensure a confident answer to the question of which brain area performs graphic design thinking, we first conducted a sanity check. First, we checked each subject’s translational and rotational motion during the functional scans. Both translational and rotational motion not exceed 5mm and 5 degrees was acceptable. The overall motion in each run showed in Table 1. Second, as the experiments included two distinct conditions (with and without hand movements), we analyzed the differences between them to assess whether the primary motor cortex was activated [21].

Table 1

Average framewise displacement during the functional scans.

	Translation (mm)			Rotation (degres)
	x	y	z	pitch	roll	yaw
Run1	0.10±0.14	0.15±0.17	0.35±0.27	0.01±0.01	0.00±0.00	0.00±0.00
Run2	0.06±0.03	0.11±0.13	0.27±0.25	0.00±0.00	0.00±0.00	0.00±0.00

Copy drawing (A2) versus viewing (A1)

We observed “copy drawing (A2)” versus “viewing (A1)” at a threshold of p < 0.05 FEW-corrected, extent threshold k > 20 voxels (see Table 2 and Fig 5). This result indicates that the main area of brain activity was the left precentral gyrus (Fig 6), which controls primary motion. Additionally, left-brain activation responded to right-hand movement.

Table 2

Brain activation for copy drawing (A2) versus viewing (A1).

Brain region		MNI-coordinates			t	PFWE	Number of voxels
		x	y	z
(L)	Precentral gyrus	-32	-18	50	15.40	0.000	5100
(R)	Cerebellum anterior lobe	14	-52	-16	14.72	0.000	2393
(L)	Inferior frontal gyrus	-56	8	24	12.10	0.000	463
(R)	Inferior frontal gyrus	56	8	26	10.63	0.000	306
(R)	Superior parietal lobule (BA7)	18	-56	60	10.29	0.000	1430
(R)	Frontal lobe sub-gyrus	24	-2	54	9.64	0.000	238
(L)	Precentral gyrus (BA6)	-48	-4	6	7.38	0.003	25
(L)	Inferior temporal gyrus (BA37)	-48	-68	-2	7.13	0.006	98
(R)	Middle temporal gyrus (BA37)	52	-58	-6	6.80	0.010	50

Fig 5

Brain activation for copy drawing (A2) versus viewing (A1) (coronal section).

Fig 6

Brain activation for copy drawing (A2) versus viewing (A1).

Refinement (B2) versus preliminary ideas (B1)

The result of “refinement (B2)” versus “preliminary ideas (B1)” at a threshold of p < 0.05 FEW-corrected and extent threshold of k > 20 voxels (Table 3 and Fig 7) showed the left precentral gyrus as the main area of brain activation. This area controls primary motion and is consistent with the expected results for right-hand movement (Fig 8).

Table 3

Brain activation for refinement (B2) versus preliminary ideas (B1).

Brain region		MNI-coordinates			t	PFWE	Number of voxels
		x	y	z
(R)	Cerebellum anterior lobe	6	-66	-16	15.65	0.000	4443
(L)	Precentral gyrus	-30	-24	58	15.54	0.000	8190
(R)	Inferior frontal gyrus	56	8	26	14.69	0.000	653
(R)	Precuneus	16	-56	58	12.57	0.000	1723
(R)	Middle occipital gyrus (BA19)	50	-58	-8	9.46	0.000	682
(L)	Middle occipital gyrus (BA37)	-44	-70	0	8.76	0.000	245
(L)	Inferior occipital gyrus	-38	-86	-6	8.47	0.001	70
(L)	Thalamus	-12	-18	8	6.69	0.013	22

Fig 7

Brain activation for refinement (B2) versus preliminary ideas (B1) (coronal section).

Fig 8

Brain activation for refinement (B2) versus preliminary ideas (B1).

The sanity check showed that when participants saw the same stimulus with and without hand movement, there was a difference in the activation of the primary motor cortex. As this confirms that the participants followed the instructions, the collected data could be utilized for the indicated purposes.

Hypothesis testing of the design process

The study hypothesis was designed to test the relationship between design activity and the prefrontal cortex. While the preliminary ideas (idea generation) phase activated the right PFC, the refinement (idea production) phase activated the left PFC.

Preliminary ideas (B1) versus viewing (A1)

We did not find differences in BOLD signals between the “design without drawing (B1)” and “viewing (A1)” conditions at the threshold p < 0.05 FEW-corrected and extent threshold k > 20 voxels.

Refinement (B2) versus copy drawing (A2)

For “refinement” versus “copy drawing,” activation was observed in the left middle frontal gyrus (peak x, y, z = -52, 20, 30; t = 8.28), which formed part of the DPFC functional region (Table 4 and Fig 9). As this brain region is in charge of cognitive processes, including working memory, cognitive flexibility, and planning [22], there is support for the hypothesis that the left PFC is responsible for refinement (idea production).

Table 4

Activation peaks for refinement (B2) versus copy drawing (A2).

Brain region		MNI-coordinates			t	PFWE	Number of voxels
		x	y	z
(L)	Middle Frontal Gyrus	-52	20	30	8.28	0.001	100

Fig 9

Brain activation for refinement (B2) versus copy drawing (A2).

The relationship between brain activation parameters and refinement in graphic design thinking scores

Refinement in graphic design thinking evaluation

Inter-judge reliability was quite consistent among the 10 senior experts from the Council of Landscape Architecture Association. They awarded a mean score of 4.60 (SD = 0.75) for refinement in graphic design thinking (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.895).

Correlation of the level of brain activation parameters and refinement in graphic design thinking scores

We compared the designers’ work, specifically at the level of refinement in graphic design thinking, with the brain activity results. The scores correlated significantly with the Beta value (BOLD-magnitude of brain activation) of “refinement versus copy drawing” in the left middle frontal gyrus (r = 0.473, p < 0.05) (Fig 10).

Fig 10

Correlation of brain activation parameters and refinement in graphic design thinking scores.

Discussion and conclusions

Based on these findings, the left middle frontal gyrus, which forms part of the PFC, contributed to graphic design thinking in the refinement steps of landscape architecture design (idea production). During the landscape architecture design process, the designers drew and thought simultaneously. The use of paper and pen, as in the real world, helped designers engage in graphic design thinking, which may explain the confirmation of the hypothesis that the PFC was active during idea production.

Our results failed to confirm that right PFC activity is associated with the preliminary ideas (idea generation) phase. Having controlled for the imaginary landscape by analyzing “preliminary ideas versus viewing” (both of which are needed to imagine environmental space but differ in relation to graphic design thinking), there was no brain region activity shown for this phase in this study. It is possible that the imaginary landscape could not evoke sufficient graphic design thinking that can be captured in the brain result.

The left and right PFCs play different roles in the design process. Goel [4] proposed the FLLH to explain the relationship between the design process and brain activity. We found support for the hypothesis that the left PFC is involved in the refinement phases. Furthermore, the correlation analysis of refinement in graphic design thinking scores and the contrast between “refinement in graphic design thinking versus copy drawing” demonstrated a positive association with activation of the left middle frontal gyrus, which is part of the left PFC. Higher scores were related to higher activation in the left PFC. Several studies have used methods such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to improve creative performance [23], suggesting a new direction for further study involving stimulation of the left middle prefrontal brain area to improve design skills.

The present results confirm that the left middle frontal gyrus is involved in graphic design thinking in landscape architecture design and can be linked to the idea production phase of creativity [4, 12, 13, 15, 16]. Besides graphic design thinking, these findings also relate to other elements, such as emotions and personal experiences [7, 8, 12, 15]. The landscape architecture design process, as it unfolds in the designer’s brain, warrants further experiment-based research to address a number of questions. First, how does emotion impact the designer while engaged in landscape architecture design, and how is the brain activated during different phases of the design experience? Second, what do differences between experts and non-experts reveal about the characteristics of the designer’s brain? There is also more to be learned about the mechanisms of creativity and methods for training our brains to be more innovative. Further research could consider other experimental tasks or repeat more tasks to maximize evoked changes in brain activation. Moreover, limited to the experimental tasks printed and bound on paper, the task sequence in this study has only two counterbalancing versions. It is better to randomize the experimental tasks to avoid ordering effect. These preliminary pilot experiment results will be further analyzed, developed, and replicated in pursuing this psychological line of investigation into the links between the process of landscape architecture design and human brain activity.

27 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-09407

What part of the brain is involved in graphic thinking for landscape design?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please pay particular attention to addressing Reviewer 1's concerns regarding the definition of key terms and explanation of the methodology. Providing these clarifications will be essential for a more thorough examination of the results and their interpretation.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 10 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jamie Males

Senior Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that Figure 3 in your submission contains copyrighted images.

All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish this figure specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish this figure under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

3. Thank you for including your ethics statement:

"Each participant gave their written informed consent as approved by the Research Ethics Committee, National Taiwan University [approval number 201411HM024]."

a) Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study.

b) Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript describes an fMRI study of 24 designers engaging in various aspects of the landscape design task. It is concluded that "designs involving more graphic thinking exhibit significantly more activity in left prefrontal cortex."

This is a potentially interesting manuscript but is not currently ready for publication.

Issues that need to be addressed:

The introduction is overly broad and uninformative. The authors start by asking "what is creativity?" But do not provide an answer. They cannot provide an answer because there are no good answers to the question. So why ask the question?

2. They introduce the notions of "thoughtful creativity" and "spontaneous creativity" without explaining them. I do not know what these terms refer to. They then refer to some findings regarding creativity, but it is not clear what type of creativity they are referring to.

3. More generally, the manuscript is about "graphic thinking"… So why start talking about creativity? The discussion is essentially vacuous and unnecessary.

4. Their references regarding problem-solving are dated.

5. I do not understand what they did with the Torrance test.

These issues can be easily dealt with by simply rewriting the introduction and reducing the scope of the manuscript. However, there are some methodological shortcomings that do not have an easy solution.

In particular, what is graphic thinking? What cognitive activities are actually being measured?

On the one hand the authors are talking about problem solving in terms of problems scoping, preliminary solutions, refinement, and detailing (figure 1). On the other hand, their task involves viewing, copying drawing, brainstorming, graphic thinking (figure 4). How does the one vocabulary map onto the other? Even more importantly, what is happening during the 60 seconds allowed for each phase? What are the participants doing? What cognitive processes are being engaged? What behavioural data can the authors provide to support their conjecture? There is no way of knowing based on the information provided. If we cannot answer these questions, we cannot even begin to interpret the results.

There are several other methodological shortcomings I could point out. However, I will stop here because this is a deal breaker. If the authors cannot address this crucial issue, there are no sound results to publish.

Reviewer #2: This paper addressed a very important question about the brain's underpinning of human behavior, specifically creativity and graphical design. The methodology and results are convincing, and the discussion is to the point. As far as this Reviewer is concerned this version can be published as is.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10 Dec 2020

Thank you for inviting us to submit a revised version of the manuscript entitled, “What part of the brain is involved in graphic thinking for landscape design? [PONE-D-20-09407]” to PLOS ONE. We really appreciate the time and effort you and each of the reviewers have dedicated to providing insightful feedback on ways to strengthen our paper.

It is with great pleasure that we resubmit our article for further consideration. We have included a point-by-point response to the questions and comments delivered in your letter dated October 27, 2020. The revised words and sentences are highlighted in gray.

We hope that the revised manuscript is clearer in definition of key terms of the graphic thinking and design process, and in the more explanation of the methodology. We hope these revisions satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you and the reviewers have noted.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

24 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-09407R1

What part of the brain is involved in graphic thinking for landscape design?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript has been re-evaluated by two reviewers, and their comments are available below. You will see Reviewer 2 has commented in the improvement of the manuscript. However, Reviewer 3 has raised critical concerns and the manuscript will need significant revision before it can be considered for publication – you should anticipate that the reviewers will be re-invited to assess the revised manuscript, so please ensure that your revision is thorough. I have outlined some of the key concerns noted by the reviewers below, but you should respond to all concerns mentioned by the reviewers in your response-to-reviewers document.

The key concern noted by Reviewer 3 relate to the definition of terms, the need for additional supporting references, and clarification regarding the fMRI analysis of the ventricles. These issues impact the interpretation of the results and should be explored.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 09 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Danielle Poole

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed the use of the term creativity, which made the revised paper more scholarly than the original version.

Reviewer #3: This paper analyses the brain areas activated in a design task where designers were asked to perform a landscape design task under the fMRI scanner in two stages: brainstorming without drawing and graphic thinking where they draw and refine the ideas they generated during the brainstorming stage. There were two control conditions were of viewing a plan and imagining being there and another was to copy a plan. I have reservations about the design of the study and the depth of conceptual underpinnings of the study. Most of the terms are loosely defined and leads to confusion. The introduction and discussion are not detailed and severely lack references.

1. The title of the paper, “What part of the brain is involved in graphic thinking for landscape design?” is misleading. This insinuates a specific part of the brain is involved in graphic thinking, specifically for landscape design. This is not true for many reasons, but the most pertinent is that the authors have not checked any other graphic thinking in any other creative fields, like book cover design or jewelry design or product design. Some comments on the commonality and differences between the other kinds of graphic thinking would have put this study in perspective.

2. The first line of the abstract is problematic – “Graphic thinking is a key skill for landscape designers, but little is known about the links between design thinking and brain activity.” How are graphic thinking and design thinking related? There is a large body of work done on design thinking, but none of them are cited (later in the article), nor are the connection between the theories in the design creativity and graphic thinking for landscape design explained.

3. The introduction lacks scholarly depth and references.

4. It is not clear what the authors describe as “graphic thinking.” The definition, without elaboration; “thinking assisted by sketching” is not adequate. It also implies that sketching and thinking are separate, and that sketching can occur without thinking? Although it might be true in common parlance, sketching “without thinking” also is a complex cognitive task. Also, how does graphic thinking differ from visual imagery, visual creativity etc.

5.There are no references provided for the argument that “The landscape design process contains four steps” lines 37-46. This is vital.

6. There are no references for “In real-world problem-solving, the left and right prefrontal cortices (PFC) are responsible for different functions.” Line 49

7. “The landscape designer develops a concept through brainstorming and then processes ideas, using graphic thinking to refine the design” Line 54 – There are too many terms here that are not well defined – brainstorming? What does that mean? How is it different from “processes ideas”?

8. “Although Goel advanced this hypothesis to explain the neural mechanisms underpinning the design process, there was no empirical evidence to validate this assumption.” Line 61. This is not true, Goel has published lesion-studies (including an architect with a lesion) and brain imaging studies to support his theory.

Procedure

9. “brainstorming, using geometric illustrations to envision a landscape design (idea generation) (B-1); and graphic thinking, using drawing to modify the design from the brainstorming session (idea production) (B-2)” line 122 - We have no idea what the participants were doing in the brainstorming session. So, it is wrong to say that the designers are modifying the design from the brainstorming session. They might be producing the ideas and drawings together, as claimed by the definition of graphic thinking “thinking assisted by sketching”

10. “In the “viewing” condition, participants were asked to imagine they were in the

environment that the plan presented.” - Line 126 – This is not a simple viewing condition, but a complex cognitive task of transporting oneself into an imaginary place. This aspect has not been interpreted correctly in the results nor explained in the discussion.

11. “To avoid any ordering effect, the two tasks were run as ABAB BABA or BABA ABAB” - line 137. This kind of design does not remove the ordering effect as A always follows B, only the starting condition has been changed. To truly remove the ordering effect, the presentation must have been randomized.

Results

12. “The results show brain activation at the lateral ventricle, which contains cerebrospinal

fluid that protects the brain from impact injury and assists in nutrient cycling and waste

removal. It is not responsible for specific cognitive function. On that basis, our hypothesis that the preliminary solution (idea generation) phase activates the right PFC was not verified” – 254. I am confused by this result. How can hemodynamic activity be seen in the ventricles? I am not an expert in fMRI analysis, but this is very suspect.

13. “As this brain region is in charge of cognitive processes, including working memory, cognitive flexibility, and planning [10], there is support for the hypothesis that the left PFC is responsible for refining and detailing (idea production)” - This contradicts authors claim in lines 37 to 40. Idea production happens before refining and detailing stage.

Discussion

14. “the only region activated was the lateral ventricle. Further experiments are needed to facilitate interpretation of this finding” 302 – The ventricles cannot show hemodynamic activity.

15. Besides graphic thinking, this also relates to other elements, such as emotions, memories, and

experiences.” Line 315 - please cite references

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

9 Apr 2021

Thank you for inviting us to submit a revised version of our manuscript entitled, “What part of the brain is involved in graphic design thinking in landscape architecture? [PONE-D-20-09407R1]” to PLOS ONE. We really appreciate the time and effort you and each of the reviewers have dedicated to providing insightful feedback on ways to strengthen our paper.

It is with great pleasure that we resubmit our article for further consideration. We have included a point-by-point response to the questions and comments delivered in your letter dated February 24, 2021. The revised words and sentences are highlighted in gray.

We hope that the revised manuscript is clearer in the definition of terms, the need for additional supporting references, and clarification regarding the fMRI analysis of the ventricles. We hope these revisions satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you and the reviewers have noted. Thank you.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

10 Aug 2021

PONE-D-20-09407R2

What part of the brain is involved in graphic design thinking in landscape architecture?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I personally assessed your manuscript. I acknowledge the improvement introduced during the various revisions, and the rather cumbersome revision history. I appreciate also the overall interest of the topic.

At this point, in fairness to authors, I just ask for these minor changes:

Line 217: use proper capitalization, 3 T or 3 tesla (Tesla => tesla)

Line 218 please double check T1 scan parameters, these does not look parameters suitable for T1 weighting. I’ll check the images on the repository (see below)

Line 221 TE= 30 ms (add "s")

Line 222 matrix size=64x64x45, without mm3 unit (these are pure numbers)

Line 226 please delete "According to the preprocessing steps in the SPM8 manual" remark. It sounds naive.

I must highlight that the MRI protocol is remarkably old style. It is very odd, especially considering the high performance scanner that was used. Is there any reason behind this methodological choice? You could add a remark like "no acceleration was used to minimize the scans sensitivity to motion", that on my eyes is still unsatisfactory, but at least hints why a 15 yrs old experimental approach was used

Sanity check section: please add information on the overall motion of the subjects during the functional scans, eg a table with average framewise displacement in each run

Line 350: what is the "preprint booklet"? It is the first time this term appears. Please use the same wording used in methods.

Data availability statement is missing in the manuscript, and the version in front matter is misleading ("All relevant data are within the manuscript.", but no raw data is actually available in the manuscript). MRI scans and scores from each subject must be made available on a public repository before acceptance, and the link must be included in the final manuscript version.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 24 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Federico Giove, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed reviewers' criticisms, comments, and suggestions adequately, and this version of the paper is good now. I recommend acceptance for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

21 Sep 2021

Thank you for inviting us to submit a revised version of our manuscript entitled, “What part of the brain is involved in graphic design thinking in landscape architecture? [PONE-D-20-09407R2]” to PLOS ONE. We really appreciate the time and effort you and each of the reviewers have dedicated to providing insightful feedback on ways to strengthen our paper.

It is with great pleasure that we resubmit our article for further consideration. We have included a point-by-point response to the questions and comments delivered in your letter dated August 10, 2021. The revised words and sentences are highlighted in gray. We revised the manuscript according to your suggestions and upload the raw dataset on a public repository (https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ZHZG5C). We hope these revisions satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you have noted.

Thank you again for your consideration of our revised manuscript.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Sep 2021

What part of the brain is involved in graphic design thinking in landscape architecture?

PONE-D-20-09407R3

Dear Dr. Chang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Federico Giove, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

15 Dec 2021

PONE-D-20-09407R3

What part of the brain is involved in graphic design thinking in landscape architecture?

Dear Dr. Chang:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Federico Giove

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE