A Location and Action-Based Model for Route Descriptions

  • David Brosset
  • Christophe Claramunt
  • Eric Saux
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4853)


Representing human spatial knowledge has long been a challenging research area. The objective of this paper is to model a route description of human navigation where verbal descriptions constitute the inputs of the modeling approach. We introduce a structural and logical model that applies graph principles to the representation of verbal route descriptions. The main assumption of this approach is that a route can be modeled as a path made of locations and actions, both being labeled by landmarks and spatial entities. This assumption is supported by previous studies and an experimentation made in natural environment that confirm the role of actions, landmarks and spatial entities in route descriptions. The modeling approach derives a logical and formal representation of a route description that facilitates the comprehension and analysis of its structural properties. It is supported by a graphic language, and illustrated by a preliminary prototype implementation applied to natural environments.


Verbal Description Oriented Graph Control Place Graphic Language Spatial Entity 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kuipers, B. (ed.): Modeling human knowledge of routes: Partial knowledge and individual variation, pp. 216–219. AAAI, Stanford, California, USA (1983)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Montello, D.R., Frank, A.U.: Modeling directional knowledge and reasoning in environmental space: testing qualitative metrics, pp. 321–344. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allen, G.: Spatial Abilities, Cognitive Maps, and Wayfinding - Bases for individual Differences in Spatial Cognition and Behavior, pp. 45–80. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuipers, B.: The map in the head metaphor. Environment and Behavior 14(2), 202–220 (1982)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tversky, B.: Cognitive maps, cognitive collages, and spatial mental models. In: Campari, I., Frank, A.U. (eds.) COSIT 1993. LNCS, vol. 716, pp. 14–24. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuipers, B.: Modeling spatial knowledge. Cognitive Science 2, 129–153 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Golledge, R.G.: Path selection and route preference in human navigation: A progress report. In: Kuhn, W., Frank, A.U. (eds.) COSIT 1995. LNCS, vol. 988, pp. 207–222. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Allen, G.L.: From knowledge to words to wayfinding: Issues in the production and comprehension of route directions. In: Hirtle, S.C., Frank, A.U. (eds.) COSIT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1329, pp. 363–372. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Claramunt, C., Parent, C., Thériault, M.: An entity-relationship model for spatio-temporal processes. Data Mining and Reverse Eng., 455–475 (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Couclelis, H.: Verbal directions for Wayfinding: Space, Cognition and Language, pp. 133–153. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fontaine, S., Edwards, G., Tversky, B., Denis, M.: Expert and non-expert knowledge of loosely structured environments. In: Cohn, A.G., Mark, D.M. (eds.) COSIT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3693, pp. 363–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Raubal, M., Worboys, M.: A formal model of the process of wayfinding in built environments. [29] 381–399Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fontaine, S.: Spatial cognition and the processing of verticality in underground environments. [30] 387–399Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Michon, P.E., Denis, M.: When and why are visual landmarks used in giving directions? [30] 292–305Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weissensteiner, E., Winter, S.: Landmarks in the Communication of Route Directions. In: Egenhofer, M.J., Freksa, C., Miller, H.J. (eds.) GIScience 2004. LNCS, vol. 3234, pp. 313–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brosset, D., Claramunt, C., Saux, E.: Wayfinding in natural and urban environments: a comparative study, accepted, Cartographica, Toronto University Press (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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, Hermès, Paris 14(2), 285–302 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tversky, B., Lee, P.U.: Pictorial and verbal tools for conveying routes. [29] 51–64Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Gryl, A.: Analyse et modélisation des processus discursifs mis en oeuvre dans la description d’itinéraires. Unpublished PhD report, Université de Paris XI Orsay, France (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fraczak, L.: Description d’itinéraire: de la référence au texte. Unpublished PhD report, Université de Paris-Sud, France (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Przytula-Machrouh, E.: Information verbale et information graphique pour la description d’itinéraires. Unpublished PhD report, Université René Descartes, France (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yeh, E., Kriegman, D.: Toward selecting and recognizing natural landmarks (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nothegger, C.: Automatic selection of landmarks. Unpublished PhD report, Vienna Technical University, Austria (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sorrows, M.E., Hirtle, S.C.: The nature of landmarks for real and electronic spaces. [29] 37–50Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Raubal, M., Winter, S.: Enriching wayfinding instructions with local landmarks. In: Egenhofer, M.J., Mark, D.M. (eds.) GIScience 2002. LNCS, vol. 2478, pp. 243–259. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Golledge, R.G.: In: Human Wayfinding and Cognitive Maps, pp. 5–45. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Freksa, C., Mark, D.M. (eds.): COSIT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1661. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Montello, D.R. (ed.): COSIT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2205. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Brosset
    • 1
  • Christophe Claramunt
    • 1
  • Eric Saux
    • 1
  1. 1.Naval Academy Research Institute BP 600, 29240, Brest NavalFrance

Personalised recommendations