Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 223, Issue 2, pp 207–217

Exploring small city maps

  • Peka Christova
  • Martin Scoppa
  • John Peponis
  • Apostolos P. Georgopoulos
Research Article


The exploration of city maps has exploded recently due to the wide availability, increasing use of, and reliance on small positioning and navigational devices for personal use. In this study, subjects explored small, 3-mile diameter circular maps exemplifying five different types of street networks common in the United States, in order to locate a hypothetical city hall. Chosen locations indicated that subjects are able to identify more accessible sites. Monitoring eye position revealed that women explored maps faster, using more widely dispersed but more narrowly focused gaze clusters than men. The type of street network influenced the time spent by the eyes in a locale and differentially affected the size of gaze clusters between women and men, underscoring the complex interactions of gender-specific strategies with street network types.


Spatial cognition Map reading Eye movements 


  1. American Planning Association (2006) Planning and urban design standards. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailenson JN, Shum MS, Uttal DH (1998) Road climbing: principles governing asymmetric route choices on maps. J Environ Psychol 18:251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailenson JN, Shum MS, Uttal DH (2000) The initial segment strategy: a heuristic for route selection. Mem Cognit 28:306–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baran PK, Rodriguez DA, Khattak AJ (2008) Space syntax and walking in a new urbanist and suburban neighborhoods. Urban Des 13:5–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandner C (2007) Strategy selection during exploratory behavior: sex differences. Judgm Decis Mak 2:326–332Google Scholar
  6. Brunye TT, Taylor HA (2009) When goal constrain: eye movements and memory for goal-oriented map study. Appl Cognit Psychol 23:772–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brunye TT, Rapp DN, Taylor HA (2008) Representational flexibility and specificity following spatial descriptions of real-world environments. Cognition 108:418–443Google Scholar
  8. Burman DD, Segraves MA (1994) Primate frontal eye field activity during natural scanning eye movements. J Neurophysiol 71:1266–1271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cervero R, Kockelman K (1997) Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transp Res D-TR E 2:199–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi J, Silverman I (1996) Sexual dimorphism in spatial behaviors: applications to route learning. Evol Cognit 2:165–171Google Scholar
  11. Coltekin A, Heil B, Garlandini S, Fabrikant SI (2009) Evaluating the effectiveness of interactive map interface designs: a case study integrating usability metrics with eye-movement analysis. Cartogr Geogr Inform Sci 36:5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coltekin A, Fabrikant SI, Lacayo M (2010) Exploring the efficiency of users’ visual analytics strategies based on sequence analysis of eye movement recordings. Int J Geogr Inform Sci 24:1559–1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conroy Dalton R (2003) The secret is to follow your nose. Environ Behav 35:107–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crowe DA, Averbeck BB, Chafee MV, Anderson JH, Georgopoulos AP (2000) Mental maze solving. J Cogn Neurosci 12:813–827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dabbs JM, Chang EL, Strong RA, Milun R (1998) Spatial ability, navigation strategy, and geographic knowledge among men and women. Evol Hum Behav 19:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ewing R, Cervero R (2001) Travel and the built environment: a synthesis. Transp Res Rec 1780:87–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fabrikant SI, Rebich-Hespanha S, Andrienko N, Andrienko G, Montello DR (2008) Novel method to measure inference affordance in static small-multiple map displays representing dynamic processes. Cartogr J 45:201–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frank LD, Schmid TL, Sallis JF, Chapman J, Saelens BE (2005) Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form. Am J Prev Med 28:117–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galea LAM, Kimura D (1993) Sex differences in route-learning. Pers Individ Diff 14:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Handy S (1996) Urban form and pedestrian choices: study of Austin neighborhoods. Transp Res Rec 1552:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Handy S, Paterson RG, Butler K (2003) Planning for street connectivity: getting from here to there. APA, Planning Advisory Service, Report number 515, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  22. Hess P (1997) Measures of connectivity. Places 11:58–65Google Scholar
  23. Hess PM, Moudon AV, Snyder MC, Stanilov K (1999) Site design and transportation travel. Transp Res Rec 1674:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hillier B, Iida S (2005) Network and psychological effects of urban movement. In: Cohn AG, Mark DM (eds) COSIT 2005. Springer, Berlin, pp 475–490Google Scholar
  25. Hillier B, Burdett R, Peponis J, Penn A (1987) Creating life: or does architecture determine anything? Arch Comport Arch Behav 3:233–250Google Scholar
  26. Hillier B, Penn A, Hanson J, Grajewski T, Xu J (1993) Natural movement: or configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environ Plan B 20:29–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacobs A (1993) Great streets. MIT Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  28. Jansen-Osman P, Wiedenbauer G (2004) The influence of turns on distance cognition. Environ Behav 36:70–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kerr J, Frank L, Sallis JF, Chapman J (2007) Urban form correlates of pedestrian travel in youth: differences by gender, race-ethnicity and household attributes. Transp Res D-TR E 12:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim YO, Penn A (2003) Linking the spatial syntax of cognitive maps to the spatial syntax of the environment. Environ Behav 36:483–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kimura D (1999) Sex and cognition. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee G, Moudon AV (2006) The 3Ds + R: quantifying land use and urban form correlates of walking. Transp Res D 11:204–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matley TM, Goldman LM, Fineman B (2000) Pedestrian travel potential in northern New Jersey. Transp Res Rec 1705:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moeser SD (1988) Cognitive mapping in a complex building. Environ Behav 20:21–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Montello DR (1991) Spatial orientation and the angularity of urban routes: a field study. Environ Behav 2:47–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mueller SC, Jackson CPT, Skeleton RW (2008) Sex differences in a virtual water maze: an eye tracking and pupillometry study. Behav Brain Res 193:209–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Neil MJ (1991) The effects of signage and floor plan configuration on way finding accuracy. Environ Behav 24:47–69Google Scholar
  38. Parks JR, Schofer JL (2006) Characterizing neighborhood pedestrian environments with secondary data. Transp Res D-TR E 11:250–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Penn A, Hillier B, Banister D, Xu J (1998) Configurational modeling of urban movement networks. Environ Plan B 25:59–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peponis J, Hadjinikolaou E, Livieratos C, Fatouros DA (1989) The spatial core of urban culture. Ekistic 334(335):43–55Google Scholar
  41. Peponis J, Ross C, Rashid M (1997) The structure of urban space, movement and co-presence: the case of Atlanta. Geoforum 28:341–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peponis J, Allen D, Haynie D, Scoppa M, Zhang Z (2007) Measuring the configuration of street networks: the spatial profiles of 118 urban areas in the 12 most populated metropolitan regions in the US. In: Proceedings of 6 international space syntax symposium, Istanbul, 0002Google Scholar
  43. Peponis J, Bafna S, Zhang Z (2008) The connectivity of streets: reach and directional distance. Environ Plan B 35:881–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Phillips AN, Segraves MA (2010) Predictive activity in macaque frontal eye field neurons during natural scene searching. J Neurophysiol 103:1238–1252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Randall TA, Baetz BW (2001) Evaluating pedestrian connectivity for suburban sustainability. J Urban Plan Dev 127:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sadalla EK, Magel SG (1980) The perception of traversed distance. Environ Behav 12:183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1989) Statistical methods. Iowa State Univ Press, AmesGoogle Scholar
  48. Southworth M, Owens PM (1993) The evolving metropolis: studies of community, neighborhood, and street form at the urban edge. J Am Plan Assoc 59:271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Steinke TR (1987) Eye movement studies in cartography and related fields. Cartographica 24:40–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Taylor HA, Tversky B (1992a) Description and depictions of the environments. Mem Cogn 20:483–496 Google Scholar
  51. Taylor HA, Tversky B (1992b) Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions. J Mem Lang 31:261–292Google Scholar
  52. Taylor HA, Tversky B (1996) Perspective in spatial descriptions. J Mem Lang 35:371–391 Google Scholar
  53. Taylor HA, Naylor SJ, Chechile NA (1999) Goal-specific influences on the representation of spatial perspective. Mem Cogn 27:309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tolman B (1948) Cognitive maps in rats and man. Psychol Rev 55:189–208Google Scholar
  55. Tversky B (1993) Cognitive maps, cognitive collages, and spatial mental models. In: Frank AU, Campari I (eds) Spatial information theory: a theoretical basis for GIS. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  56. Yarbus AL (1967) Eye movements and vision. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag (outside the USA) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peka Christova
    • 1
    • 2
  • Martin Scoppa
    • 3
  • John Peponis
    • 3
  • Apostolos P. Georgopoulos
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Veterans Affairs, Brain Sciences CenterMinneapolis Health Care SystemMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeuroscienceUniversity of Minnesota Medical SchoolMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.School of Architecture, College of ArchitectureGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations