Architectural Spaces for Workplace Neurosurveillance: A Critical Analysis of Ethical Boundaries and Neurorights

Introduction: This study examines how the integration of neurotechnologies into workplace environments is transforming cognitive and emotional monitoring within organizations. In a context of accelerated digitalization, devices such as mobile EEG, portable BCIs, and neuroergonomic systems enable the recording of attention, stress, and mental workload, redefining the role of intelligent architecture. Elements such as sensor-based lighting and neuroadaptive workstations can enhance performance but also generate tensions related to mental privacy, worker autonomy, and psychological integrity, especially when they influence creativity, decision-making, and emotional self-regulation. Method: An integrative review was conducted using twenty-five Scopus-indexed articles (2012–2025) on neurosurveillance, intelligent architecture, and neurorights. The evidence included studies using mobile EEG in real work environments, research on cognitive surveillance, and theoretical work on mental privacy in organizational contexts. Thematic coding and conceptual triangulation were applied to synthesize interdisciplinary findings. Additionally, a conceptual simulation of sensor-enhanced work scenarios was developed to explore potential effects on stress, creativity, and adaptive behavior. Results: The analysis indicates that neurosurveillance increases stress levels by 28–47 %, raises cognitive load, and promotes self-censorship when neurophysiological indicators are perceived as evaluative mechanisms. The presence of integrated sensors reduces creativity and flexibility by 15–25 %, and heightens physiological fluctuations associated with anxiety by up to 30 %. Between 60–70 % of participants expressed concern about the use of their neurodata. However, moderate improvements (10–18 %) in concentration and well-being were observed when implementation was voluntary and oriented toward personal feedback. Conclusions: Intelligent architectural spaces function as neurotechnological systems that may support cognitive ergonomics but also pose significant risks when used for institutional control. Their implementation requires frameworks grounded in neurorights and strict protections for mental privacy.