Expert and Non-expert Knowledge of Loosely Structured Environments

  • Sylvie Fontaine
  • Geoffrey Edwards
  • Barbara Tversky
  • Michel Denis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3693)


Three experiments investigated expert and non-expert knowledge of a familiar but loosely structured spatial environment as revealed through the production of sketch maps. In the first experiment, experts and non-experts in geomatics sketched maps of a well-known park. The analysis of the maps revealed that experts and non-experts used different drawing strategies that reflected different mental representations. In the second experiment, new participants identified good and poor examples from the previous maps. Expert and non-expert evaluators agreed, indicating that experts and non-experts alike agree on what constitutes a “good map”. In the third experiment, people familiar and unfamiliar with the park were asked to remove non-essential features from a consolidated map that incorporated all the features drawn by the participants of the first experiment. Those familiar and unfamiliar with the environment retained the same features, notably, the paths in the park. Together, the research shows that experts produce superior maps to non-experts, but that people, irrespective of expertise and familiarity, concur on the features that make a map effective. Even for relatively unstructured environments like a large park, people seek structure in the configuration of paths. These findings have implications for the design of maps.


Spatial cognition maps navigation metacognitive knowledge expertise design parks 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agrawala, M., Stolte, C.: Rendering effective route maps: Improving usability through generalization. In: Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 2001, pp. 241–250 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. Allen, G.L.: Principles and practices for communicating route knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology 14, 333–359 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertin, J.: Sémiologie graphique, Paris: Gauthier-Villars (1967)Google Scholar
  4. Blades, M.: The reliability of data collected from sketch maps. Journal of Environmental Psychology 10, 327–339 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daniel, M.-P., Tom, A., Manghi, E., Denis, M.: Testing the value of route directions through navigational performance. Spatial Cognition and Computation 3, 269–289 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies, C., Pederson, E.: Grid patterns and cultural expectations in urban wayfinding. In: Montello, D.R. (ed.) COSIT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2205, pp. 400–414. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  7. de Groot, A.D.: Perception and memory versus thought: Some old ideas and recent findings. In: Kleinmuntz, B. (ed.) Problem solving, pp. 19–50. Wiley, New York (1966)Google Scholar
  8. Denis, M.: The description of routes: A cognitive approach to the production of spatial discourse. Current Psychology of Cognition 16, 409–458 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. Denis, M., Pazzaglia, F., Cornoldi, C., Bertolo, L.: Spatial discourse and navigation: An analysis of route directions in the city of Venice. Applied Cognitive Psychology 13, 145–174 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fontaine, S.: La cognition spatiale dans des environnements souterrains et urbains: Aides verbales et graphiques à la navigation. In: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université René-Descartes, Boulogne-Billancourt, France (2000)Google Scholar
  11. Fontaine, S., Denis, M.: The production of route instructions in underground and urban environments. In: Freksa, C., Mark, D.M. (eds.) Spatial information theory: Cognitive and computational foundations of geographic information science, pp. 83–94. Springer, Berlin (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Golding, M.J., Graesser, A.C., Hauselt, J.: The process of answering direction-giving questions when someone is lost on an university campus: The role of pragmatics. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10, 23–39 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lynch, K.: The image of the city. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1960)Google Scholar
  14. Michon, P.-E., Denis, M.: When and why are visual landmarks used in giving directions? In: Montello, D.R. (ed.) Spatial information theory: Foundations of geographic information science, pp. 292–305. Springer, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  15. Nothegger, C., Winter, S., Raubal, M.: Computation of the salience of features. Spatial Cognition and Computation 4, 113–136 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Przytula-Machrouh, E., Ligozat, G., Denis, M.: Vers des ontologies transmodales pour la description d’itinéraires: Le concept de “scène élémentaire”. Revue Internationale de Géomatique 14, 285–302 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rinck, M., Denis, M.: The metrics of spatial distance traversed during mental imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30, 1211–1218 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sattath, S., Tversky, A.: Additive similarity trees. Psychometrika 42, 319–345 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schneider, L.F., Taylor, H.A.: How do you get there from here? Mental representations of route descriptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology 13, 415–441 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Siegel, A.W., White, S.H.: The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. In: Reese, H.W. (ed.) Advances in child development and behavior, vol. 10, pp. 9–55. Academic Press, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  21. Taylor, H.A., Tversky, B.: Descriptions and depictions of environments. Memory and Cognition 20, 483–496 (1992a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taylor, H.A., Tversky, B.: Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language 31, 261–282 (1992b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Taylor, H.A., Tversky, B.: Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language 35, 371–391 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tom, A., Denis, M.: Referring to landmark or street information in route directions: What difference does it make? In: Kuhn, W., Worboys, M.F., Timpf, S. (eds.) Spatial information theory: Foundations of geographic information science, pp. 384–397. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  25. Tom, A., Denis, M.: Language and spatial cognition: Comparing the roles of landmarks and street names in route instructions. Applied Cognitive Psychology 18, 1213–1230 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tulving, E.: Subjective organization in free recall of “unrelated” words. Psychological Review 69, 344–354 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tversky, B.: Distortions in memory for maps. Cognitive Psychology 13, 407–433 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tversky, B.: Cognitive maps, cognitive collages, and spatial mental models. In: Frank, A.U., Campari, I. (eds.) Spatial information theory: A theoretical basis for GIS, pp. 14–24. Springer, Berlin (1993)Google Scholar
  29. Tversky, B., Agrawala, M., Heiser, J., Lee, P.U., Hanrahan, P., Stolte, C., Daniel, M.-P.: Cognitive design principles for generating visualizations. In: Allen, G.L. (ed.) Applied spatial cognition: From research to cognitive technology. Erlbaum, Mahwah (in press)Google Scholar
  30. Tversky, B., Lee, P.U.: How space structures language. In: Freksa, C., Habel, C., Wender, K.F. (eds.) Spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary approach to representation and processing of spatial knowledge, pp. 157–175. Springer, Berlin (1998)Google Scholar
  31. Tversky, B., Lee, P.U.: Pictorial and verbal tools for conveying routes. In: Freksa, C., Mark, D.M. (eds.) Spatial information theory: Cognitive and computational foundations of geographic information science, pp. 51–64. Springer, Berlin (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walsh, D.A., Krauss, I.K., Regnier, V.A.: Spatial ability, environmental knowledge, and environmental use: The elderly. In: Liben, L.S., Patterson, A.H., Newcombe, N. (eds.) Spatial representation and behavior across the life span: Theory and application, pp. 321–357. Academic Press, New York (1981)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvie Fontaine
    • 1
    • 2
  • Geoffrey Edwards
    • 1
    • 2
  • Barbara Tversky
    • 2
    • 3
  • Michel Denis
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre de Recherche en GéomatiqueLaval UniversityQuebec CityCanada
  2. 2.The GEOIDE Network 
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyStanford UniversityUSA
  4. 4.Groupe Cognition HumaineLIMSI-CNRSOrsayFrance

Personalised recommendations