[22] Gottfried, J. A., & Dolan, R. J. (2003). The nose smells what the eye sees: Crossmodal visual facilitation of human olfactory perception. Neuron, 39(2), 375–386.

[23] Largey, G. P., & Watson, D. R. (1972). The sociology of odors. American Journal of Sociology, (77), 1021–1034.

[24] Schebella, M. F., Weber, D., Schultz, L., & Weinstein, P. (2020). The nature of reality: Human stress recovery during exposure to biodiverse, multisensory virtual environments. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1), 56.

[25] Michael, G. A., Jacquot, L., Millot, J.-L., & Brand, G. (2003). Ambient odors modulate visual attentional capture. Neuroscience Letters, 352(3), 221–225.

[26] Seo, H.-S., Roidl, E., Müller, F., & Negoias, S. (2010). Odors enhance visual attention to congruent objects. Appetite, 54(3), 544–549.

[27] Sabiniewicz, A., Schaefer, E., Cagdas, G., Manesse, C., Bensafi, M., Krasteva, N., Nelles, G., & Hummel, T. (2021). Smells influence perceived pleasantness but not memorization of a visual virtual environment. i-Perception, 12(2), 1–17.

[28] Song, C., Ikei, H., & Miyazaki, Y. (2019). Physiological effects of forest-related visual, olfactory, and combined stimuli on humans: An additive combined effect. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, (44), 126437.

[29] Qi, Y., Chen, Q., Lin, F., Liu, Q., Zhang, X., Guo, J., Qiu, L., & Gao, T. (2022). Comparative study on birdsong and its multi-sensory combinational effects on physio-psychological restoration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, (83), 101879.

[30] Lothian, A. (1999). Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: Is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?. Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(4), 177–198.

[31] Lan, S., Luo, T., Huang, L., & Liu, J. (2019). Comparison of natural landscape preferences and enlightenment under the background of social aging. Landscape Architecture, 26(8), 101–105.

[32] Wilkie, S., & Clouston, L. (2015). Environment preference and environment type congruence: Effects on perceived restoration potential and restoration outcomes. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(2), 368–376.