Effects of Geometry, Landmarks and Orientation Strategies in the ‘Drop-Off’ Orientation Task

  • David Peebles
  • Clare Davies
  • Rodrigo Mora
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4736)


Previous work is reviewed and an experiment described to examine the spatial and strategic cognitive factors impacting on human orientation in the ‘drop-off’ static orientation scenario, where a person is matching a scene to a map to establish directional correspondence. The relative roles of salient landmarks and scene content and geometry, including space syntax isovist measures, are explored both in terms of general effects, individual differences between participant strategies, and the apparent cognitive processes involved. In general people tend to be distracted by salient 3D landmarks even when they know these will not be detectable on the map, but benefit from a salient 2D landmark whose geometry is present in both images. However, cluster analysis demonstrated clear variations in strategy and in the relative roles of the geometry and content of the scene. Results are discussed in the context of improving future geographic information content.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Robinson, A., Petchenik, B.: The Nature of Maps: Essays towards understanding maps and mapping. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1976)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Montello, D.R., Freundschuh, S.: Cognition of geographic information. In: McMaster, R.B., Usery, E.L. (eds.) A research agenda for geographic information science, pp. 61–91. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thompson, W.B., Pick, H.L., Bennett, B.H., Heinrichs, M.R., Savitt, S.L., Smith, K.: Map based localization: The ‘drop-off’ problem. In: Proceedings of the DARPA Image Understanding Workshop, pp. 706–719 (1990)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pick, H.L., Heinrichs, M.R., Montello, D.R., Smith, K., Sullivan, C.N.: Topographic map reading. In: Hancock, P.A., Flach, J., Caird, J., Vicente, K. (eds.) Local applications of the ecological approach to human-machine systems, vol. 2, pp. 255–284. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Levine, M.: You-are-here maps: Psychological considerations. Environment and Behavior 14, 221–237 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klippel, A., Freksa, C., Winter, S.: You-are-here maps in emergencies – the danger of getting lost. Journal of Spatial Science 51, 117–131 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Griffin, T.L.C., Lock, B.F.: The perceptual problem of contour interpretation. The Cartographic Journal 16, 61–71 (1979)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eley, M.G.: Determining the shapes of land surfaces from topographical maps. Ergonomics 31, 355–376 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aretz, A.: Spatial cognition and navigation. In: Perspectives: Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA, Human Factors Society, pp. 8–12 (1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harwood, K.: Cognitive perspectives on map displays for helicopter flight. In: Perspectives: Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA, Human Factors Society, pp. 13–17 (1989)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wickens, C.D., Prevett, T.T.: Exploring the dimensions of egocentricity in aircraft navigation displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 1, 110–135 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gunzelmann, G., Anderson, J.R., Douglass, S.: Orientation tasks with multiple views of space: Strategies and performance. Spatial Cognition and Computation 4, 209–256 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Warren, D.H., Rossano, M.J., Wear, T.D.: Perception of map-environment correspondence: The roles of features and alignment. Ecological Psychology 2, 131–150 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blades, M., Spencer, C.: The development of 3- to 6-year-olds’ map using ability: The relative importance of landmarks and map alignment. Journal of Genetic Psychology 151, 181–194 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hagen, M.A., Giorgi, R.: Where’s the camera? Ecological Psychology 5, 65–84 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Presson, C.C.: The development of map-reading skills. Child Development 53, 196–199 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meilinger, T., Hölscher, C., Büchner, S.J., Brösamle, M.: How much information do you need? Schematic maps in wayfinding and self localization. In: Spatial Cognition 2006, Bremen, Germany, Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bryant, K.J.: Geographical spatial orientation ability within real-world and simulated large-scale environments. Multivariate Behavioral Research 26, 109–136 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gunzelmann, G., Anderson, J.R.: Location matters: Why target location impacts performance in orientation tasks. Memory and Cognition 34, 41–59 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davies, C.: When is a map not a map? Task and language in spatial interpretations with digital map displays. Applied Cognitive Psychology 16, 273–285 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hermer, L., Spelke, E.S.: A geometric process for spatial reorientation in young children. Nature 370, 57–59 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lansdale, M.: Modelling memory for absolute location. Psychological Review 105, 351–378 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cheng, K., Newcombe, N.S.: Is there a geometric module for spatial orientation? squaring theory and evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12, 1–23 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Winter, S.: Route adaptive selection of salient features. In: Kuhn, W., Worboys, M.F., Timpf, S. (eds.) COSIT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2825, pp. 349–361. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shepard, R.N., Hurwitz, S.: Upward direction, mental rotation, and discrimination of left and right turns in maps. Cognition 18, 161–193 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Benedikt, M.L.: To take hold of space: Isovist and isovist fields. Environment And Planning B: Planning & Design 6, 47–65 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Conroy-Dalton, R.: Spatial navigation in immersive virtual environments. PhD thesis, University of London, London (2001)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wiener, J.M., Franz, G.: Isovists as means to predict spatial experience and behaviour. In: Spatial Cognition IV: Reasoning, Action, Interaction, pp. 42–57. Springer, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Conroy-Dalton, R., Bafna, S.: The syntactical image of the city: A reciprocal definition of spatial elements and spatial syntaxes. In: 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, London, UK (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hintzman, D.L., O’Dell, C.S., Arndt, D.R.: Orientation in cognitive maps. Cognitive Psychology 13, 149–206 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Davies, C., Mora, R., Peebles, D.: Isovists for orientation: Can space syntax help us predict directional confusion? In: Proceedings of the Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition workshop, Spatial Cognition 2006, Bremen, Germany (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ward, J.H.: Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58, 236–244 (1963)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Duda, R.O., Hart, P.E.: Pattern classification and scene analysis. Wiley, New York (1973)MATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gombrich, E.H.: The image and the eye: Further studies in the psychology of pictorial representation. Phaidon Press, London (1982)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smallman, H.S., John, M.S., Oonk, H.M., Cowen, M.B.: When beauty is only skin deep: 3D realistic icons are harder to identify than conventional 2D military symbols. In: Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 480–483 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Peebles
    • 1
  • Clare Davies
    • 2
  • Rodrigo Mora
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Behavioural Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 3DHUK
  2. 2.Research Labs C530, Ordnance Survey, Romsey Road, Southampton, SO16 4GUUK
  3. 3.Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London, 1–19 Torrington Place, Gower Street, WC1E 6BTUK

Personalised recommendations