Cognitive Processing

, Volume 16, Supplement 1, pp 437–441 | Cite as

Configurational salience of landmarks: an analysis of sketch maps using Space Syntax

Short Report

Abstract

We conducted a visibility graph analysis (a Space Syntax method) of a virtual environment to examine how the configurational salience of global and local landmarks (i.e., their relative positions in the environment) as compared to their visual salience affects the probability of their depiction on sketch maps. Participants of two experimental conditions produced sketch maps from memory after exploration with a layout map or without a map, respectively. Participants of a third condition produced sketch maps in parallel to exploration. More detailed sketch maps were produced in the third condition, but landmarks with higher configurational salience were depicted more frequently across all experimental conditions. Whereas the inclusion of global landmarks onto sketch maps was best predicted by their size, both visual salience and isovist size (i.e., the area a landmark was visible from) predicted the frequency of depiction for local landmarks. Our findings imply that people determine the relevance of landmarks not only by their visual, but even more by their configurational salience.

Keywords

Landmark Landmark salience Sketch map Space Syntax 

References

  1. Conroy-Dalton R (2001) Spatial navigation in immersive virtual environments. University of London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Haq S, Girotto S (2003) Ability and intelligibility: wayfinding and environmental cognition in the designed. In: Presented at the 4th international space syntax symposium, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Hillier B (2008) The social logic of space (Reprint). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Ishikawa T, Montello D (2006) Spatial knowledge acquisition from direct experience in the environment: individual differences in the development of metric knowledge and the integration of separately learned places. Cogn Psychol 52(2):93–129. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.08.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Krukar J, Dalton RC (2013) Spatial predictors of eye movement in a gallery setting. In: Kiefer P, Giannopoulos I, Raubal M, Hegarty M (eds) Eye tracking for spatial research, Proceedings of the 1st international workshop (in conjunction with COSIT 2013), pp 14–19 Google Scholar
  6. Michon P-E, Denis M (2001) When and why are visual landmarks used in giving directions? In: Montello D (ed) Spatial information theory. Springer, Berlin, pp 292–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Rafailaki E (2006) The implications of the “palimpsest” of the grids of the main city of Piraeus on creation, transmission and application of cognitive knowledge. UCL (University College London), LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Raubal M, Winter S (2002) Enriching wayfinding instructions with local landmarks. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on geographic information science. Springer, London, pp 243–259Google Scholar
  9. Röser F, Hamburger K, Krumnack A, Knauff M (2012) The structural salience of landmarks: results from an on-line study and a virtual environment experiment. J Spat Sci 57(1):37–50. doi:10.1080/14498596.2012.686362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shelton AL, McNamara TP (2004) Orientation and perspective dependence in route and survey learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 30(1):158–170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Varoudis T (2012) DepthmapX multi-platform spatial network analysis software (version 0.30). http://varoudis.github.io/depthmapX/
  12. Von Stülpnagel R, Steffens MC (2012) Can active navigation be as good as driving? A comparison of spatial memory in drivers and backseat drivers. J Exp Psychol Appl 18(2):162–177. doi:10.1037/a0027133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Von Stülpnagel R, Kuliga S, Büchner SJ, Hölscher C (2014) Supra-individual consistencies in navigator-driven landmark placement for spatial learning. In: Bello P, Guarini M, McShane M, Scassellati B (eds) Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the cognitive science society. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, pp 1706–1711Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Cognitive ScienceUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Lehrstuhl für BildungspsychologieUniversität MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations