Abstract
Landmarks constitute an essential basis for a structural understanding of the spatial environment. Therefore, they are crucial factors in external spatial representations such as maps and verbal route descriptions, which are used to support wayfinding. However, selecting landmarks for these representations is a difficult task, for which an understanding of how people perceive and remember landmarks in the environment is needed. We investigated the ways in which people perceive and remember landmarks in nature using the thinking aloud and sketch map methods during both the summer and the winter seasons. We examined the differences between methods to identify those landmarks that should be selected for external spatial representations, such as maps or route descriptions, in varying conditions. We found differences in the use of landmarks both in terms of the methods and also between the different seasons. In particular, the participants used passage and tree-related landmarks at significantly different frequencies with the thinking aloud and sketch map methods. The results are likely to reflect the different roles of the landmark groups when using the two methods, but also the differences in counting landmarks when using both methods. Seasonal differences in the use of landmarks occurred only with the thinking aloud method. Sketch maps were drawn similarly in summertime and wintertime; the participants remembered and selected landmarks similarly independent of the differences in their perceptions of the environment due to the season. The achieved results may guide the planning of external spatial representations within the context of wayfinding as well as when planning further experimental studies.
References
Blades M (1990) The reliability of data collected from sketch maps. J Environ Psychol 10:327–339. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80032-5
Brosset D, Claramunt C, Saux E (2008) Wayfinding in natural and urban environments: A comparative study. Cartographica 43:21–30. doi:10.3138/carto.43.1.21
Chi MT (1997) Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. J Learn Sci 6:271–315. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1
Denis M (1997) The description of routes: a cognitive approach to the production of spatial discourse. Curr Psychol Cogn 16:409–458
Elias B, Paelke V, Chaouali M (2009) Evaluation of user variables in topographic feature recall for the informed selection of personalized landmarks. In: Gartner G, Rehrl K (eds) Location based services and telecartography II. From sensor fusion to context models, LNGC, Springer, Berlin, pp 121–136. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-87393-8_8
van Elzakker C, Delikostidis I, van Oosterom P (2008) Field-based usability evaluation methodology for mobile geo-applications. Cartogr J 45:139–149. doi:10.1179/174327708X305139
Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1998) How to study thinking in everyday life: contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind Cult Act 5:178–186. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca0503_3
van den Haak MJ, De Jong MDT, Schellens PJ (2003) Retrospective versus concurrent think-aloud protocols: testing the usability of an online library catalogue. Behav Inf Technol 22:339–351. doi:10.1080/0044929031000
Hirtle S, Timpf S, Tenbrink T (2011) The effect of activity on relevance and granularity for navigation. In: Egenhofer M, Giudice N, Moratz R, Worboys M (eds) COSIT 2011, LNCS vol 6899, Springer, Berlin, pp 73–89. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23196-4_5
Janzen G, van Turennout M (2004) Selective neural representation of objects relevant for navigation. Nat Neurosci 7:673–677. doi:10.1038/nn1257
Janzen G, Weststeijn CG (2007) Neural representation of object location and route direction: an event-related fMRI study. Brain Res 1165:116–125. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.05.074
Kaakinen JK, Hyönä J (2005) Perspective effects on expository text comprehension: evidence from think-aloud protocols, eyetracking, and recall. Discourse Process 40:239–257. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp4003_4
Kettunen P, Sarjakoski LT (2011) A context-sensitive wayfinding ontology for hiking based on an empirical study. In: Moratz R, Giudice N (eds) Extended abstracts from the poster session of the conference on spatial information theory: COSIT 2011, Belfast, Maine
Lohmann K (2011) The use of sketch maps as a basis for measures of spatial knowledge. In: Wang J, Broelemann K, Chipofya M, Schwering A, Wallgrün JO (eds) Understanding and Processing Sketch Maps. In: Proceedings of the COSIT 2011 workshop. AKA Verlag, Heidelberg
Lovelace K, Hegarty M, Montello D (1999) Elements of good route directions in familiar and unfamiliar environments. In: Freksa C, Mark D (eds) Spatial information theory. Cognitive and computational foundations of geographic information science, LNCS vol 1661, Springer, Berlin, pp 65–82. doi:10.1007/3-540-48384-5_5
Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. The MIT Press, Cambridge
McNamara TP, Rump B, Werner S (2003) Egocentric and geocentric frames of reference in memory of large-scale space. Psychon B Rev 10:589–595. doi:10.3758/BF03196519
Manning CD, Schütze H (1999) Foundations of statistical natural language processing. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Marchette SA, Shelton AL (2010) Object properties and frame of reference in spatial memory representations. Spatial Cogn Comput 10:1–27. doi:10.1080/13875860903509406
Marchette SA, Yerramsetti A, Burns TJ, Shelton AL (2011) Spatial memory in the real world: long-term representations of everyday environments. Mem Cogn 39:1401–1408. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0108-x
May AJ, Ross T, Bayer SH, Tarkiainen MJ (2003) Pedestrian navigation aids: information requirements and design implications. Pers Ubiquit Comput 7:331–338. doi:10.1007/s00779-003-0248-5
Mellet E, Bricogne S, Tzourio-Mazoyer N, Ghaëm O, Petit L, Zago L, Etard O, Berthoz A, Mazoyer B, Denis M (2000) Neural correlates of topographic mental exploration: the impact of route versus survey perspective learning. NeuroImage 12:588–600. doi:10.1006/nimg.2000.0648
Michon P-E, Denis M (2001) When and why are visual landmarks used in giving directions? In: Montello DR (ed) Spatial information theory, LNCS vol 2205, Springer, Berlin, pp 292–305. doi:10.1007/3-540-45424-1_20
Newcombe N (1985) Methods for the study of spatial cognition. In: Cohen R (ed) Development of spatial cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Hillsdale, pp 277–300
Niem Tu H, Doherty ST (2007) Digital sketch-map drawing as an instrument to collect data about spatial cognition. Cartographica 42:285–296. doi:10.3138/carto.42.4.285
Presson CC, Montello DR (1988) Points of reference in spatial cognition: stalking the elusive landmark. Br J Dev Psychol 6:378–381
Rehrl K, Leitinger S (2008) The SemWay skitouring experiment—how skitourers find their way. In: Gartner G, Leitinger S, Rehrl K (eds) In: Electronic proceedings of the 5th symposium on location based services, Salzburg, pp 64–68
Ross T, May A, Thompson S (2004) The Use of Landmarks in Pedestrian Navigation Instructions and the Effects of Context. In: Brewster S and Dunlop M (eds) Mobile human-computer interaction—MobileHCI 2004, LNCS vol 3160, Springer, Berlin, pp 300–304. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-28637-0_26
Sarjakoski LT (2007) Conceptual models of generalisation and multiple representation. In: Mackaness WA, Ruas A, Sarjakoski LT (eds) Generalisation of geographic information: cartographic modelling and applications, Series of International Cartographic Association, Elsevier, Burlington, pp 11–36
Sarjakoski LT, Kettunen P, Flink HM, Laakso M, Rönneberg M, Sarjakoski T (2011) Analysis of verbal route descriptions and landmarks for hiking. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16:1001–1011. doi:10.1007/s00779-011-0460-7
Sarjakoski LT, Kettunen P, Flink HM, Laakso M, Rönneberg M, Stigmar H, Sarjakoski T (2012) Landmark descriptions to support wayfinding in a national park during different seasons. In: Raubal M, Frank AU, Mark DM (eds) Cognitive and Linguistic Aspects of Geographic Space, LNCS, Springer, Berlin, (in print). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34359-9_6
Snowdon C, Kray C (2009) Exploring the use of landmarks for mobile navigation support in natural environments. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, ACM, New York
Sorrows ME, Hirtle SC (1999) The nature of landmarks for real and electronic spaces. In: Freksa C, Mark D (eds) Spatial information theory. Cognitive and computational foundations of geographic information science, LNCS vol 1661, Springer, Berlin, pp 37–50. doi:10.1007/3-540-48384-5_3
Tversky B (2002) What do sketches say about thinking. In: 2002 AAAI Spring Symposium, Sketch Understanding Workshop, Stanford University, AAAI Technical Report SS-02-08
Tversky B, Lee P (1999) Pictorial and verbal tools for conveying routes. In: Freksa C, Mark D (eds) Spatial information theory. Cognitive and computational foundations of geographic information science, LNCS vol 1661, Springer, Berlin, pp 752–752. doi:10.1007/3-540-48384-5_4
Valiquette CM, McNamara TP, Labrecque JS (2007) Biased representations of the spatial structure of navigable environments. Psychol Res 71:288–297. doi:10.1007/s00426-006-0084-0
Wegman J, Janzen G (2011) Neural encoding of objects relevant for navigation and resting state correlations with navigational ability. J Cogn Neurosci 23:3841–3854. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00081
Acknowledgments
This survey is part of an ongoing research project: “Ubiquitous Spatial Communication” (UbiMap). The UbiMap project is funded by the Academy of Finland, Motive programme and is being carried out in co-operation with the Finnish Geodetic Institute (FGI), Department of Geoinformatics and Cartography, and the University of Helsinki, Cognitive Science. The authors want to thank the colleagues at the FGI who participated in organising the experiments: Hanna-Marika Halkosaari, Mari Laakso and Mikko Rönneberg.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kettunen, P., Irvankoski, K., Krause, C.M. et al. Landmarks in nature to support wayfinding: the effects of seasons and experimental methods. Cogn Process 14, 245–253 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0538-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0538-4