Skip to main content

Visual Landmarks are Exaggerated: A Theoretical and Empirical View on the Meaning of Landmarks in Human Wayfinding


Are landmarks exaggerated in human wayfinding? Daniel R. Montello says yes, and I basically agree with his opinion. However, I do agree on a different level. My aim for this discussion article is to point out why landmarks are indeed exaggerated in this research context and I will try to approach this claim from several perspectives. First, the research focus in this field is, unfortunately, mainly on visual landmarks. Second, other modalities than vision—e.g., auditory and/or olfactory senses—can be used for landmark-based wayfinding. Third, we need to clearly differentiate between conscious/effortful and unconscious/automatic processing of spatial information in the context of landmark-based wayfinding. Finally, I will suggest that landmarks, even if exaggerated in the visual domain, are (still) of significant importance in human wayfinding and spatial cognition.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    Montello DR (2017) Landmarks are exaggerated. KI Künstliche Intelligenz 31(2):193–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Richter K-F, Winter S (2014) Landmarks—GIScience for intelligent services. Springer, Heidelberg/New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    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 Spatial Sci 57(1):37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Quesnot T, Roche S (2015) Measure of landmark semantic salience through geosocial data streams. ISPRS Int J Geo Inf 4:1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Nuhn E, Timpf S (2017) A multidimensional model for selecting personalised landmarks. J Loc Based Serv 11(3–4):153–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Klippel A, Winter S (2005) Structural salience of landmarks for route discrimination. In: Cohn AG, Mark D (eds) Spatial information theory. International Conference COSIT. Springer, Berlin, pp 347–362

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Kattenbeck M (2017) How subdimensions of salience influence each other. Comparing models based on empirical data. Leibniz Int Proc Inf LIPIcs 86(10):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Röser F (2015) The cognitive observer-based landmark-preference model—what ist he ideal landmark position at an intersection? Dissertation Justus Liebig University Giessen. urn:nbn:de-opus-116408

  10. 10.

    Hamburger K, Röser F (2011) The meaning of Gestalt for human wayfinding—how much does it cost to switch modalities? Gestalt Theory 33(3/4):363–382

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Hamburger K, Röser F (2014) The role of landmark modality and familiarity in human wayfinding. Swiss J Psychol 73(4):205–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Karimpur H, Hamburger K (2016) Multimodal integration of spatial information: the influence of object-related factors and self-reported strategies. Front Psychol 7:1443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Caduff D, Timpf S (2008) On the assessment of landmark salience for human navigation. Cogn Process 9:249–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hamburger K, Karimpur H (2017) A psychological approach to olfactory information as cues in our environment. J Biourban 6(1&2):59–73

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Hamburger K, Knauff M (2019) Odors can serve as landmarks in human wayfinding. Cognit Sci 43:e12798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Varga AL, Hamburger K (2014) Beyond type 1 vs type 2 processing: the tri-dimensional way. Front Psychol 5:993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hamburger K, Trillmich CM, Baier F, Wolf C, Röser F (2014) How global visual landmarks influence the recognition of a city. Cogn Process 15(Suppl):S42–S44

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Balaban CZ, Karimpur H, Röser F, Hamburger K (2017) Turn left where you felt unhappy: how affect influences landmark-based wayfinding. Cogn Process 18(2):135–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Piccardi L, Guariglia P, Nori R, Palmiero M (2020) The role of emotional landmarks in embodied and not-embodied tasks. Brain Sci 10(2):E58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Gillett AJ, Heersmink R (2019) How navigation systems transform epistemic virtues: knowledge, issues and solutions. Cognit Syst Res 56:36–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Pazzaglia F, Moè A (2013) Cognitive styles and mental rotation ability in map learning. Cogn Process 14:391–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Denis M (1997) The description of routes: a cognitive approach to the production of spatial discourse. Curr Psychol Cognit 16:409–458

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Denis M (2018) Space and spatial cognition. Routeledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Michon P-E, Denis M (2001) When and why are visual landmarks used in giving directions? In: Montello DR (ed) COSIT 2001, LNCS 2205. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 292–305

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Spitzer M (2014) Digitale Demenz—Wie wir uns und unsere Kinder um den Verstand bringen. Droemer Verlag, München

    Google Scholar 

Download references


I thank the reviewers for their critical comments on the manuscript.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Hamburger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hamburger, K. Visual Landmarks are Exaggerated: A Theoretical and Empirical View on the Meaning of Landmarks in Human Wayfinding. Künstl Intell 34, 557–562 (2020).

Download citation


  • Landmarks
  • Wayfinding
  • Spatial cognition
  • Modality
  • Visual
  • Auditory
  • Olfactory
  • Multimodal integration
  • System 1 and system 2 thinking