Skip to main content

Understanding Cognitive Saliency by Using an Online Game

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Spatial Cognition XII (Spatial Cognition 2020)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 12162))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

One of the most common definitions of saliency suggests that there are three categories for landmark saliency, these being visual, structural and cognitive [1]. A large number of studies have focused on the afore-mentioned categories; however, there appear to be fewer studies on cognitive saliency than on the other two types of landmark saliency. Hence, in this study, our goal is to better understand the cognitive saliency of potential landmarks. For this purpose, we used an online virtual game, Sea Hero Quest (SHQ), and asked people to watch videos of the game. In the videos, a boat navigates through a waterway/river environment and finds goal locations one by one. People then were asked to answer questions, which aimed to measure their cognitive saliency. Our results suggest that cognitive saliency is closely related to visual and structural saliency in unfamiliar environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    By conditions, we refer 1. weather (clear/foggy weather), 2. map (clear/obscured), 3. environment (5 different environments) conditions, and landmarks (visibility and saliency of landmarks vary).

References

  1. Sorrows, M.E., Hirtle, S.C.: The nature of landmarks for real and electronic spaces. In: Freksa, C., Mark, D.M. (eds.) COSIT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1661, pp. 37–50. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48384-5_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Burnett, G., Smith, D., May, A.: Supporting the navigation task: characteristics of “good” landmarks. Contemp. Ergon. 1, 441–446 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Evans, G.W., Smith, C., Pezdek, K.: Cognitive maps and urban form. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 48, 232–244 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368208976543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lynch, K.: The Image of the City. MIT Press, Cambridge (1960)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lovelace, K.L., Hegarty, M., Montello, D.R.: Elements of good route directions in familiar and unfamiliar environments. In: Freksa, C., Mark, D.M. (eds.) COSIT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1661, pp. 65–82. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48384-5_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Miller, J., Carlson, L.: Selecting landmarks in novel environments. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 18, 184–191 (2011). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0038-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaplan, S.: Adaptation, structure and knowledge. In: Moore, G.T., Golledge, R.G. (eds.) Environmental Knowing: Theories, Research and Methods, pp. 32–45. Downden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Evans, G.W., Skorpanich, M.A., Bryant, K.J., Bresolin, B.: The effects of pathway configuration, landmarks and stress on environmental cognition. J. Environ. Psychol. 4, 323–335 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(84)80003-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ruddle, R.A., Volkova, E., Mohler, B., Bülthoff, H.H.: The effect of landmark and body-based sensory information on route knowledge. Mem. Cognit. 39, 686–699 (2011). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0054-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lin, C.-T., et al.: Gender differences in wayfinding in virtual environments with global or local landmarks. J. Environ. Psychol. 32, 89–96 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2011.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Castelli, L., Latini Corazzini, L., Geminiani, G.C.: Spatial navigation in large-scale virtual environments: gender differences in survey tasks. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24, 1643–1667 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Steck, S.D., Mallot, H.A.: The role of global and local landmarks in virtual environment navigation. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 9, 69–83 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1162/105474600566628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39923-0_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Caduff, D., Timpf, S.: On the assessment of landmark salience for human navigation. Cogn. Process. 9, 249–267 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-007-0199-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Albrecht, R., von Stuelpnagel, R.: Memory for salient landmarks: empirical findings and a cognitive model. In: Creem-Regehr, S., Schöning, J., Klippel, A. (eds.) Spatial Cognition 2018. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 11034, pp. 311–325. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96385-3_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Nothegger, C., Winter, S., Raubal, M.: Computation of the salience of features. Spat. Cogn. Comput. 4, 113–136 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427633scc0402_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nothegger, C., Winter, S., Raubal, M.: Selection of salient features for route directions. Spat. Cogn. Comput. 4, 113–136 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427633scc0402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nuhn, E., Timpf, S.: Personal dimensions of landmarks. In: Bregt, A., Sarjakoski, T., van Lammeren, R., Rip, F. (eds.) GIScience 2017. LNGC, pp. 129–143. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56759-4_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45799-2_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Quesnot, T., Roche, S.: Measure of landmark semantic salience through geosocial data streams. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 4, 1–31 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi4010001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jackson, P.G.: In search of better route guidance instructions. Ergonomics 41, 1000–1013 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1080/001401398186559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Duckham, M., Winter, S., Robinson, M.: Including landmarks in routing instructions. J. Locat. Based Serv. 4, 28–52 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/17489721003785602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Elias, B.: Extracting landmarks with data mining methods. In: Kuhn, W., Worboys, M.F., Timpf, S. (eds.) COSIT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2825, pp. 375–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39923-0_25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Daniel, M.-P., Denis, M.: The production of route directions: investigating conditions that favour conciseness in spatial discourse. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 18, 57–75 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chown, E., Kaplan, S., Kortenkamp, D.: Prototypes, location, and associative networks (PLAN): towards a unified theory of cognitive mapping. Cogn. Sci. 19, 1–51 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(95)90003-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  27. Denis, M., Pazzaglia, F., Cornoldi, C., Bertolo, L.: Spatial discourse and navigation: an analysis of route directions in the city of Venice. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 13, 145–174 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199904)13:2%3c145:AID-ACP550%3e3.0.CO;2-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Krukar, J.: The influence of an art gallery’s spatial layout on human attention to and memory of art exhibits (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zetzsche, C., Schill, K., Deubel, H., Krieger, G., Umkehrer, E., Beinlich, S.: Investigation of a sensorimotor system for saccadic scene analysis: an integrated approach. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior on from Animals to Animats, vol. 5, pp. 120–126. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Itti, L.: Quantifying the contribution of low-level saliency to human eye movements in dynamic scenes. Vis. Cogn. 12, 1093–1123 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280444000661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tenbrink, T., Dalton, R.C., Williams, A.J.: The language of architectural diagrams. In: Timpf, S., Schlieder, C., Kattenbeck, M., Ludwig, B., Stewart, K. (eds.) 14th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2019), pp. 17:1–17:14. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl (2019). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.COSIT.2019.17

  32. Tenbrink, T.: Cognitive discourse analysis: accessing cognitive representations and processes through language data. Lang. Cogn. 7, 98–137 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Quesnot, T., Roche, S.: Quantifying the significance of semantic landmarks in familiar and unfamiliar environments. In: Fabrikant, S.I., Raubal, M., Bertolotto, M., Davies, C., Freundschuh, S., Bell, S. (eds.) COSIT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9368, pp. 468–489. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23374-1_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Yesiltepe, D., et al.: Usage of landmarks in virtual environments for wayfinding: research on the influence of global landmarks. In: 12th International Space Syntax Symposium, Beijing, pp. 220–310 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Demet Yesiltepe .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Yesiltepe, D., Dalton, R.C., Torun, A.O., Hornberger, M., Spiers, H. (2020). Understanding Cognitive Saliency by Using an Online Game. In: Šķilters, J., Newcombe, N., Uttal, D. (eds) Spatial Cognition XII. Spatial Cognition 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12162. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57983-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57983-8_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-57982-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-57983-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics