Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 215–220 | Cite as

Convex hull and tour crossings in the Euclidean traveling salesperson problem: Implications for human performance studies

  • Iris Van Rooij
  • Ulrike Stege
  • Alissa Schactman
Article

Abstract

Recently there has been growing interest among psychologists in human performance on the Euclidean traveling salesperson problem (E-TSP). A debate has been initiated on what strategy people use in solving visually presented E-TSP instances. The most prominent hypothesis is the convex-hull hypothesis, originally proposed by MacGregor and Ormerod (1996). We argue that, in the literature so far, there is no evidence for this hypothesis. Alternatively we propose and motivate the hypothesis that people aim at avoiding crossings.

Keywords

Convex Hull Boundary Point Interior Point Human Performance Travel Salesman Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Flood, M. M. (1956). The traveling-salesman problem.Operations Research,4, 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Garey, M. R., &Johnson, D. S. (1979).Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  3. Golden, B. L., Bodin, L. D., Doyle, T., &Stewart, W. (1980). Approximate traveling salesman algorithms.Operations Research,28, 694–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Graham, S. M., Joshi, A., &Pizlo, Z. (2000). The traveling salesman problem: A hierarchical model.Memory & Cognition,28, 1191–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lee, M. D., &Vickers, D. (2000). The importance of the convex hull for human performance on the traveling salesman problem: A comment on MacGregor and Ormerod (1996).Perception & Psychophysics,62, 226–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. MacGregor, J. N., &Ormerod, T. C. (1996). Human performance on the traveling salesman problem.Perception & Psychophysics,58, 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. MacGregor, J. N., &Ormerod, T. C. (2000). Evaluating the importance of the convex hull in solving the Euclidean version of the traveling salesperson problem: Reply to Lee and Vickers (2000).Perception & Psychophysics,62, 1501–1503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. MacGregor, J. N., Ormerod, T. C., &Chronicle, E. P. (1999). Spatial and contextual factors in human performance on the traveling salesperson problem.Perception,28, 1417–1427.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. MacGregor, J. N., Ormerod, T. C., &Chronicle, E. P. (2000). A model of human performance on the traveling salesperson problem.Memory & Cognition,28, 1183–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ormerod, T. C., &Chronicle, E. P. (1999). Global perceptual processing in problem solving: The case of the traveling salesperson.Perception & Psychophysics,61, 1227–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Polivanova, N. I. (1974). On some functional and structural features of the visual-intuitive components of a problem-solving process.Voprosy Psychologii [Questions in Psychology],4, 41–51.Google Scholar
  12. Schactman, A. (2002).Childrens performance on the traveling salesperson problem. Unpublished honors thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.Google Scholar
  13. Vickers, D., Butavicius, M., Lee, M. D., &Medvedev, A. (2001). Human performance on visually presented traveling salesman problems.Psychological Research,65, 34–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iris Van Rooij
    • 1
  • Ulrike Stege
    • 1
  • Alissa Schactman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations