SENSORY NOTATION

multimodal representation of urban space

Dr Ray Lucas
Senior Lecturer in Architecture
Manchester School of Architecture, MMU
Sensory Notation
AHRC/EPSRC Designing for the 21st Century
University of Strathclyde, 2007-2009

Ray Lucas
Ombretta Romice
Gordon Mair
Wolfgang Sonne
Observe the street, from time to time, with some concern for system
perhaps.
Apply Yourself. Take your time.
Note down the place: the terrace of a café near the junction of the Rue de
Bac and the Boulevard Saint-Germain
the time: seven o’clock in the evening
the date: 15 May 1973
the weather: set fair
Note down what you can see. Anything worthy of note going on. Do you
know how to see what’s worthy of note? Is there anything that strikes you?
Nothing strikes you. You don’t know how to see.
You must write about out it more slowly, almost stupidly. Force yourself to
write down what is of no interest, what is most obvious, most common,
most colourless.

Georges Perec, Species of Spaces

Name Mode of Attention Receptive Units Anatomy of the Activity of the Stimuli Available External
Organ Organ Information
Obtained
The basic orienting General Mechano- Vestibular organs Body equilibrium Forces of gravity Direction of
system orientation receptors and accelleration gravity, being
pushed
The auditory Listening Mechano- Cochlear organs Orienting to Vibration in the Nature and
system receptors with middle ear sounds air location of
and auricle vibratory events

The haptic system Touching Mechano- Skin (including Exploring of Deformation of Contact with the
receptors and attachments and many kinds tissues, earth,
possibly thermo- openings), joints configuration of mechanical
receptors (including joints, stretching encounters,
ligaments), of muscle fibres object shapes,
muscles material states,
(including solidity or
tendons) viscosity
The taste-smell Smelling Chemo-receptors Nasal cavity Sniffing Composition of Nature of
system (nose) the medium volatile sources
Tasting Chemo- and Oral cavity Savouring Composition of Nutritive and
mechano- (mouth) ingested objects biochemical
receptors values
The visual system Looking Photo-receptors Ocular Accommodation, The variables of Everything that
mechanism (eyes pupilary structures in can be specified
with intrinsic and adjustment, ambient light by the variables
extrinsic muscles, fixation, of optical
as related to the convergence structre
vestibular organs, exploration (information
the head, and the about objects,
whole body) animals, motions,
events, and
places)

James J Gibson, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems

basis in sensory
notation

‘The channels of sense are not

subject to modification by
learning. The data of sense are
given, by definition. The
perceptual systems, however, are
clearly amenable to learning. It
would be expected that an
individual, after practice, could
orient more exactly, listen more
carefully, touch more acutely,
smell and taste more precisely,
and look more perceptively than
he could before practice.’

James J Gibson (1966:51).

organising perception
• Location: plot the site being recorded,
whether a part of a route or a static
position. Details such as time, date and
weather may also be included.
• Descriptor: use a word from the list given
to characterise each of the six perceptual
systems: visual, aural, olfactory/
gustatory, tactile, thermal, kinaesthetic.
• Priority: draw a line on the chart
corresponding to the priority given to that
perceptual system in this context.
• Corroboration: indicate how the senses
overlap.
• Temporality: indicate the repetition,
singularity, etc. of the observations.
• Narrative: write an account of the
experience with closely cropped
photographs of things described.
Step 1: Location
 Step 2: Descriptor

VISUAL AURAL TACTILE KINETIC THERMAL CHEMICAL

Dark High Pitch Static Strong Hot Weak

Bright Low Pitch Mobile Light Cold Intense

Saturated Quiet Rough Free Dry Stagnant

Neutral Loud Smooth Bound Wet Fresh

Perspectival Clear Light Indirect Natural Musky

Flat Reverberant Heavy Direct Artificial Putrid

Intimate Vocal Porous Level Ambient Floral

Vast Non-Vocal Resistant Graded Source Fruit

Solid Natural Hard Sustained Radiant Spice

Void Artificial Soft Quick Convective Resin

Detailed Attack Warm Crowded Constant Meaty

Blank Decay Cold Empty Responsive Oily

 Step 3: Priority

Sensory Notation Radar Chart

 Step 3: Priority

Visual
4 5

Ta

Ki
ct

ne
il

t
e

ic
1 2 3 4 5 6

al
al

ic
rm

em
e
Th

Ch
6 2
Aural

Standard 1-6 Priority Distribution

 Step 3: Priority

Visual
2 2

Ta

Ki
ct

ne
il

t
e

ic
1 2 3 4 5 6

al
al

ic
rm

em
e
Th

Ch
2 2
Aural

Low Priority: Sensory Deficit

 Step 3: Priority

Visual
5 5

Ta

Ki
ct

ne
il

t
e

ic
1 2 3 4 5 6

al
al

ic
rm

em
e
Th

Ch
5 5
Aural

High Priority: Over-Stimulated

 Step 3: Priority

Visual
3 6

Ta

in K
ct

et
e il

ic
1 2 3 4 5 6

al
al

ic
rm

em
e
Th

Ch
2 3
Aural

Spikes in Priority
 Step 3: Priority

Visual
5 1

Ta

Ki
ct

ne
il

t
e

ic
1 2 3 4 5 6

al
al

ic
rm

em
e
Th

Ch
5 4
Aural

5,3,4

Multiple Priority
Step 4: Corroboration

Corroboration
 Step 5: Temporality

Visual
Ta

K i
ct

ne
ile

tic
1 2 3 4 5 6

al
al

ic
rm

em
e
Th

Ch
Aural

Situated
Singular
Constant
Directional
Repetition
Ambient

Temporality
Step 5: Temporality

Situated
Singular
Constant
Directional
Repetition
Ambient
Localised

Temporality Modifiers
Step 6: Narrative
Step 6: Narrative
 Step 7: Analysis of results

Visual
Ta

Ki
ct

n et
ile

ic
1 2 3 4 5 6

al
al

ic
rm

em
e
Th

Ch
Aural

Route: Visual Priority

 Step 7: Analysis of results

Visual
Ta

Ki
ct

n et
ile

ic
1 2 3 4 5 6

al
al

ic
rm

em
e
Th

Ch
Aural

Route: Deficit
 Step 7: Analysis of results

Visual
Ta

Ki
ct

n et
ile

ic
1 2 3 4 5 6

al
al

ic
rm

em
e
Th

Ch
Aural

Route: Overload
 Step 7: Analysis of results

Visual
Ta

Ki
ct

n et
ile

ic
1 2 3 4 5 6

al
al

ic
rm

em
e
Th

Ch
Aural

Survey: Differing Opinions

 Sensory Notation Key

VISUAL AURAL TACTILE KINETIC THERMAL CHEMICAL

Dark High Pitch Static Strong Hot Weak

Bright Low Pitch Mobile Light Cold Intense

Saturated Quiet Rough Free Dry Stagnant

Neutral Loud Smooth Bound Wet Fresh

Perspectival Clear Light Indirect Natural Musky

Flat Reverberant Heavy Direct Artificial Putrid

Intimate Vocal Porous Level Ambient Floral

Vast Non-Vocal Resistant Graded Source Fruit

Solid Natural Hard Sustained Radiant Spice

Void Artificial Soft Quick Convective Resin

Detailed Attack Warm Crowded Constant Meaty

Blank Decay Cold Empty Responsive Oily

 Lucas, R & Romice, O. 2008. “Representing
Sensory Experience in Urban Design” in Design
Principles and Practices: an International Journal.
Volume 2, Issue 4, pp.83-94. Common Ground
Publishers.
Lucas, R. & Mair, G. (Eds.).  2008.  Sensory
Urbanism Conference Proceedings 2008. 
Edinburgh: Flâneur Press. (lulu.com)
Lucas, R. 2009a. “The Sensory Experience of
Sacred Space: Senso-Ji and Meiji-Jingu, Tokyo” in
MONU: Magazine on Urbanism. Issue 10: Holy
Urbanism, pp.46-55. Rotterdam: Board Publishers.

r.p.lucas@mmu.ac.uk Lucas, R. 2009b. “Designing Ambiances: Vocal

Dr Ray Lucas
Manchester School of Architecture, MMU
Ikebana and Sensory Notation” in Creating an
Atmosphere Proceedings 2008. Grenoble:
CRESSON. http://www.cresson.archi.fr/
AMBIANCE2008-commSESSIONS.htm.
Lucas, R.  2009d.  “Designing a Notation for the
Senses” in Architectural Theory Review Special
Issue: Sensory Urbanism, Spring 2009 Issue. 
Volume 14, Issue 2, p173.
Lucas, R. & Romice, O.  2010.  “Assessing the
Multi-Sensory Qualities of Urban Space” in
Psyecology, Volume 1, Issue 2, p263-276.
Lucas, R; Mair, G & Romice, O.  2009.  “Making
Sense of the City: Representing the Multi-modality
of Urban Space” in Inns, T. (Ed.), Designing for the
21st Century: Interdisciplinary Methods & Findings. 
Ashgate.