Biological anticipation is closely related to the architectural plan and its challenges. At this point, we could return to hippocampal activity and its effect in predicting trajectories of a motion. As researcher E. Charambulous observed, it is much easier for an individual to navigate and create movement paths in urban spaces than interior space because in an urban environment a person finds landmarks on which to rely[1]. In an enclosed space, as in this case of the exhibition, anticipation is an extremely complex process that requires a great deal of imaginative effort on how and where to move to assemble the exhibition fragments into a single image. What anticipatory image is projected by the human is reflected in his/her trajectories of movement. A particular interest is related with those cases where a human makes a mistake, repeating the same paths several times, as this indicates that there is a greater tension between the architectural space and the person in those places. In such places, the individual either lacks landmarks from architecture or receives an excess of them. These places can be called ruptures. In the case of the exhibition, it can be observed that the rupture occurs where the plan of the space (Fig. Factual plan of the space, Fig. Alternative plan of the space) does not correspond to what a person actually experiences (Fig. Biological integration map).

This tension can be attributed to the dominance of the biological anticipatory image when moving through the exhibition halls. By reproducing this image, it is feasible to understand in detail what exactly causes ruptures in space. Thus, having an actual scheme of human experience (Fig.Biological integration map) by reverse engineering reproduces such a space plan (Fig. Alternative plan of the space - see above), which according to the Space Syntax method corresponds to biological experience (Fig. Biological integration map (based on algorithm) - see above) compared to Fig. Biological integration map). This plan is an alternative projection of the space that corresponds to what was kinesthetically experienced by the participants in the experiment. Otherwise, this plan can be treated as an anticipatory image of space in which participants moved. The rupture occurs at the point where Luyen's spatial installation, the tunnel, appears. This architectural object becomes an obstacle to the organic movement, so all the attention and imagination of the participants is focused on it. The data show that people moving around and through the tunnel wrap around it in such a way as to erase it from space as if it was absent. The shortcoming that determines the repetition of trajectories means that the relationship between space and man is not finite, when an individual is in space and accepts it, he constantly finds himself, as K. Sabolius puts it - in a state of semidetermination, which requires creative integration[2]. Participants create trajectories and connections between art objects that the architectural plan does not offer. However, the multiple spatial anticipation, which is expressed through motoric experience, allows these connections to be made.

This anticipatory plan of the architectural environment marks a peculiar relationship between space and human. This image corresponds only to the collective anticipation of this experimental group, time and space. Despite the fact that everyone faced the same spatial ruptures - the tunnel, it is still believed that in the case of each individual and other experimental groups, the anticipatory image could be obtained differently. Sabolius puts forward Simondon’s idea that an individual’s body is ready to change to perceive the environment, and the environment is ready to transform to be perceived[3]. Thus, this plan marks this shift, a reciprocal interaction. Humans do not simply anticipate, but the imagination transforms space so as to create a new relationship with it.

Conclusion

To sum up, the investigation seeks to grasp and materialize Simonod’s idea of the creative power of the imagination in a pre-experiential and experiential moment. It is believed that this philosopher’s theory must work for the process of creating architectural spaces. If discussed the method is applied to the usual practice of an architect, then the architecture of participatory practice would acquire new meanings and potentials. After all, an architect never starts creating from a white sheet - emptiness, but architecture always finds itself in the context of a certain space - nature or the city. When confronted with these contexts, architecture is already intended for certain images, which are perceived here as a creative act, and, in the further process, accordingly scanned, can materialize into a new architecture.