Abstract
Landmarks are objects that have salience that is either visual, semantic or structural. Recent researches have pointed out observer characteristics that make a landmark salient. These have been termed cognitive salience. This study investigated the effects of two components of cognitive salience, familiarity and degree of recognition, on route memory. The first experiment examined the effect of familiarity of landmark and ease with which it could be recognized (degree of recognition) on remembering a route, while in the second experiment only degree of recognition was varied while holding familiarity constant. Two types of landmarks (text and image) were shown to participants who had to recollect course taken at decision points during wayfinding tasks. Participants were shown navigation videos generated using Squareland Model. The videos had six decision points each having one landmark, and the participants were required to indicate the direction of the turn when the landmarks were shown again. Results showed that pictorial landmarks (high degree of recognition) were better facilitators of route memory than textual landmarks (low degree of recognition). Results also indicated that familiar buildings served as better landmarks than unfamiliar buildings. In the second experiment another level of degree of recognition (medium) was added and compared with high and low levels. Results confirmed the findings of the first experiment with high degree of recognition being the best facilitator followed by medium and low degree of recognition. Our findings lend empirical support to the concept of cognitive salience proposed by Caduff and Timpf (Cogn Process 9:249–267, 2008) and highlight the importance of observer characteristics in determining what constitutes as good landmark.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ally, B. A., & Budson, A. E. (2007). The worth of pictures: Using high density event related potential to understand the memorial power of pictures and the dynamics of recognition memory. NeuroImage, 35(1), 378–395.
Basiri, A., Amirian, P., & Winstanley, A. (2014). The use of quick response (QR) codes in landmark-based pedestrian navigation. International Journal of Navigation and Observation, 2014, 1–7. doi:10.1155/2014/897103.
Brady, T. F., Konkle, T., Alvarez, G. A., & Oliva, A. (2008). Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. PNAS, 105(38), 14325–14329.
Burnett, G. (2000). Turn right at the traffic lights: The requirement for landmarks in vehicle navigation systems. Journal of Navigation, 53(3), 499–510.
Caduff, D., & Timpf, S. (2008). On the assessment of landmark salience for human navigation. Cognitive Processing, 9(4), 249–267.
Couclelis, H., Golledge, R. G., Gale, N., & Tobler, W. (1987). Exploring the anchor-point hypothesis of spatial cognition. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 7(2), 99–122.
Deakin, A. (1996). Landmarks as navigational aids on street maps. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 23(1), 21–36.
Denis, M., Pazzaglia, F., Cornoldi, C., & Bertolo, L. (1999). Spatial discourse and navigation: An analysis of route directions in the city of Venice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(2), 145–174.
Downs, R. M., & Stea, D. (1977). Maps in minds: Reflections on cognitive mapping. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Fontaine, S., & Denis, M. (1999). The production of route instructions in underground and urban environments. In C. Freksa & D. Mark (Eds.), Spatial information theory. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 1661, pp. 83–94). Berlin: Springer.
Gärling, T., Böök, A., Lindberg, E., & Nilsson, T. (1981). Memory for the spatial layout of the everyday physical environment. Factors affecting rate of acquisition. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1(4), 263–277.
Hamburger, K., & Knauff, M. (2011). SQUARELAND: A virtual environment for investigating cognitive processes in human wayfinding. PsychNology, 9(2), 137–163.
Hamburger, K., & Röser, F. (2014). The role of landmark modality and familiarity in human wayfinding. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 73(4), 205–2013.
Harrell, W. A., Bowlby, J. W., & Hall-Hoffarth, D. (2000). Directing wayfinders with maps: The effects of gender, age, route complexity, and familiarity with the environment. Journal of Social Psychology, 140(2), 169–178.
Kitchin, R., & Blades, M. (2002). The cognition of geographic space. London/New York: I. B. Tauris Publishers.
Klippel, A., & Winter, S. (2005). Structural salience of landmarks for route discrimination. In A. G. Cohn & D. Mark (Eds.), Spatial information theory, International Conference COSIT (pp. 347–362). Berlin: Springer.
Lovelace, K., Hegarty, M., & Montello, D. (1999). Elements of good route directions in familiar and unfamiliar environments. In C. Freksa & D. Mark (Eds.), Spatial information theory. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 1661, pp. 65–82). Berlin: Springer.
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Maaß, W., & Schmauks, D. (1998). MOSES: Ein Beispiel für die Modellierung räumlicher Leistungen durch ein Wegebeschreibungssystem. Zeitschrift für Semiotik, 20(1–2), 105–118.
McBride, D. M., & Dosher, B. A. (2002). A comparison of conscious and automatic memory processes for picture and word stimuli: A process dissociation analysis. Consciousness and Cognition, 11(3), 423–460.
Michon, P. E., & Denis, M. (2001). When and why are visual landmarks used in giving directions? In D. Montello (Ed.), Spatial information theory. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 2205, pp. 292–305). Berlin: Springer.
Nelson, D. L., Reed, U. S., & Walling, J. R. (1976). Pictorial superiority effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 2(5), 523–528.
Peters, D., Wu, Y., & Winter, S. (2010). Testing landmark identification theories in virtual environments. In C. Hölscher, T. F. Shipley, M. O. Belardinelli, J. A. Bateman, & N. S. Newcombe (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Spatial cognition (SC’10) (pp. 54–69). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Richter, K. F., & Winter, S. (2014). Landmarks—GIScience for intelligent services. Berlin: Springer.
Röser, F., Hamburger, K., & Knauff, M. (2011). The Giessen virtual environment laboratory: Human wayfinding and landmark salience. Cognitive Processing, 12(2), 209–214.
Röser, F., Hamburger, K., Krumnack, A., & Knauff, M. (2012). The structural salience of landmarks: Results from an on-line study and a virtual experiment. Journal of Spatial Science, 57(1), 37–50.
Shepard, R. N. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(1), 156–163.
Siegel, A., & White, S. (1975). The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. In H. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 9–55). New York: Academic Press.
Sorrows, M., & Hirtle, S. (1999). The nature of landmarks for real and electronic spaces. In C. Freksa & D. Mark (Eds.), Spatial information theory. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 1661, pp. 37–50). Berlin: Springer.
Tolman, E. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 55(4), 189–208.
Winter, S. (2003). Route adaptive selection of salient features. In W. Kuhn, M. F. Worboys, & S. Timpf (Eds.), COSIT 2003. LNCS (Vol. 2825, pp. 349–361). Heidelberg: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sameer, A., Bhushan, B. Effect of Landmark Type on Route Memory in Unfamiliar Homogenous Environment. Psychol Stud 62, 152–159 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-017-0407-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-017-0407-9