=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1241/paper11
|storemode=property
|title=The Use of Eye Tracking in Search of Indoor Landmarks
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1241/paper11.pdf
|volume=Vol-1241
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/giscience/ViaeneOVLM14
}}
==The Use of Eye Tracking in Search of Indoor Landmarks==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1241/paper11.pdf
ET4S 2014
The Use of Eye Tracking in Search of Indoor Landmarks
P. Viaene1, K. Ooms1, P. Vansteenkiste², M. Lenoir², P. De Maeyer1
1
Ghent University, Geography Department
Krijgslaan 281 (S8), 9000 Ghent, Belgium
²Ghent University, Department of Movement and Sport Sciences
Watersportlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
{Pepijn.Viaene; Kristien.Ooms; Pieter.Vansteenkiste;
Matthieu.Lenoir Philippe.DeMaeyer}@UGent.be
Abstract. The detection of indoor landmarks remains a troublesome endeavour.
The rise of more performant and user-friendly mobile eye tracking devices
might offer a solution. A small-scale study was conducted in which a test popu-
lation was given a navigational task and whereby eye movement measures and
think aloud protocols were compared. The first results indicate that eye tracking
has high potential for the specific task of identifying indoor landmarks, while
thinking aloud offers minor additions to the information provided by eye track-
ing with respect to landmark identification.
Keywords: Think Aloud · Cognitive Processes · Wayfinding
1 Introduction
In line with the growing interest in indoor navigation and its challenges, indoor land-
marks call for attention. These prominent elements in an environment enable an ob-
server to locate himself and to set objectives like reaching a destination or selecting
an optimal route [1]. Hence, indoor landmarks can serve as powerful wayfinding
tools. Specifically, as part of view-action-pairs, they specify the location where a
wayfinding action, which is needed to reach a certain destination, should take place
[2]. In addition to this, landmarks are key elements in the construction of a spatial
representation, which is central in our ability to navigate, as they anchor zones and
form a hierarchical structure [3].
However, both in- and outdoors, it is not clear how landmarks should be detected
and identified by researchers so that these objects can be studied and implemented in
route instructions, maps and other wayfinding tools. A broad range of methods have
been applied in the past with their specific (dis)advantages [4]. Some (e.g. [5, 6, 7])
tried to define landmarks by quantifying the features that contribute to the overall
saliency of a landmark. However, these features and the way of quantifying the land-
mark’s saliency vary. Moreover, the datasets on which these methods are based are in
general not available for indoor environments.
ET4S 2014, September 23, 2014, Vienna, Austria
Copyright © 2014 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and
academic purposes. This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
52
ET4S 2014
With the development of more accurate and mobile eye trackers, measuring eye
movements might be an adequate solution to identify indoor landmarks. First, the eye-
mind hypothesis states that certain aspects of the gaze during a task may be analysed
in order to examine cognitive processes [8]. While navigating, these processes are
associated with the cognitive model of the environment, which is based on landmarks.
The aspects that can be examined include the locus of the eye fixation and its dura-
tion. The locus indicates the element that is being processed internally even if subjects
are not consciously aware of this and the duration is related, but not necessarily iden-
tical, to the time needed to encode and to operate on that element [8]. Second, land-
marks are eye catching as they are highly distinguishable in their environment and
differ from other objects based on visual, semantic and structural features [1].
2 Study Design
In order to assess the validity of the eye tracking method to detect indoor landmarks,
the results of the eye movement analysis will be compared with the think aloud meth-
od, which is more commonly used to study cognitive processes related to (indoor)
wayfinding (e.g. [9]) and therefore considered to be a valid representation of the cog-
nitive processes related to the use of landmarks. A similar comparison was conducted
by Spiers and Maguire [10]. However, they assessed to what extent the eye loci cor-
roborated with the verbalizations in order to validate the verbal protocols. In this
study, we wish to provide arguments for the validity of eye tracking itself.
Concurrent think aloud (CTA) is based on the analysis of verbal protocols formed
by participants voicing their thoughts that come to mind while executing a problem-
solving task [11]. In order to detect possible reactivity due to the extra workload of
verbalizing, cued retrospective think aloud (CRTA) will also be part of this study.
This method allows participants to execute the task silently – in this way not inducing
an additional workload – and to verbalize their thoughts afterwards while watching a
video recording of their performance on which their eye movements at the time are
also displayed. These should cue the participants in revealing more about their
thoughts at the time verbally [12]. However, as CRTA requires participants to re-
member information, it is possible that they forget important information [11, 12].
Twelve participants completed a route in a complex building 1 twice. The first time
they had to follow the experimenter. The second time, they were asked to complete
the same route independently. The experimenter only intervened if the participant was
lost or asked for help. All participants wore the eye tracker during both completions
of the route. Due to technical problems with the head mounted eye tracking device
(iViewX HED by SMI), the recordings of three participants were excluded from the
analysis. The remaining test population consisted of four subjects applying CTA dur-
ing both traversals of the route and five applying CRTA based on the recording of the
second traversal. The route itself had a total length of 440 meters and covered four
floor levels. The participants, who had never been in the building, were made ac-
1
University building: S8, Krijgslaan 281, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
53
ET4S 2014
quainted with thinking aloud before the experiment. Furthermore, they were told to
verbalise everything, ranging from visual stimuli to feelings related to the navigation-
al task and the building itself. Finally, the participants were aware that the goal of the
study was related to indoor navigation and the use of landmarks.
The transcriptions of the verbal protocols were analysed with the aid of Elan
EUDICO Linguistic Annotator (version 4.6.2). The protocols were split into verbali-
sation segments (e.g. one landmark referral, one explanation, one silence) and each
segment was attributed with a time interval. The eye tracking data was analysed by
using BeGaze 3.4. All fixations were transferred to a reference image that displayed
25 landmark categories (attributed with areas of interest) by using the semantic gaze
mapping tool offered by SMI. Finally, verbalisations were compared with the eye
movements (i.e. fixation locus and duration) around the same point in time.
3 Results
In total, 59 % (58 % (CTA), 61 % (CRTA)) of the verbalisation segments did not
refer to a structural or object landmark. This accounted for 68 % (68 % (CTA), 69 %
(CRTA)) of the observation time. A fourth of this 59 % consisted of segments con-
taining additional information (e.g. explanations). This quarter was equal to 288 ver-
bal utterances from which 118 were considered to be completely irrelevant for this
study. This means that the information content of 170 relevant verbalisation segments,
which represented 16 % of all segments, was not part of the eye tracking data. Fol-
lowing, the remaining three quarters of the 59 % represented silences and correspond-
ed to 57 % (66 % (CTA), 56 % (CRTA)) of the total observation time.
With respect to the 41 % of segments that did refer to a potential landmark, the fol-
lowing can be said. On average, 69 % (71 % (CTA), 66 % (CRTA)) of the mentioned
potential structural and object landmarks were clearly fixated on. On the other hand,
13 % (12 % (CTA), 14 % (CRTA)) of the described landmarks were not visible at the
moment they were verbalised. The remaining 18 % (16 % (CTA), 20 % (CRTA))
represented the number of indoor landmarks that could not be unambiguously identi-
fied solely based on the eye tracking data and therefore verbalisations were needed for
a true determination.
We now turn to the locations were landmarks were most needed, namely locations
were a change of direction took place and where multiple directional possibilities
were present. The most fixated on landmark categories at these decision points are
shown in Table 1. Often a single object caused the rise in fixations for a specific cate-
gory. These object landmarks, defined as elements that are independent of the build-
ing’s structure [3], are listed in Table 1 as well. As it is not clear how people visually
perceive structural elements (i.e. staircases and corridors), these elements were ex-
cluded from the eye tracking analysis. The fixated on objects at the seventeen deci-
sion points were compared with the objects mentioned at these locations in the thir-
teen verbal protocols. In 59 cases there was a match, while other objects were men-
tioned 73 times. Often, these other objects were staircases (34 times). Finally, 89
times there were no referrals to objects.
54
ET4S 2014
Table 1. The most fixated on landmark categories and related object landmarks based on the
maximum average fixation count, maximum average fixation time and fixation time maximum.
DP landmark category object landmark
1 door (route) grey double door
2 other / route indicator exhibition display
3 route indicator sign (“Geography”)
4 door (route) brown double door
5 window window and view
6 door (route) / other pair of sticks / car batteries
7 door (route) brown doors with windows
8 ornament big plant
9 elevator red elevator
10 poster wooden information board
11 door (other) grey double door
12 door (other) glass main entrance
13 route indicator / other sign (“Paleontology”)
14 door (other) brown double door
15 window / route indicator window and view
16 door (route) brown double door
17 door (route) / poster single door
4 Discussion and Conclusion
The general comparison between eye recordings and verbal protocols leads to two
findings. First, a considerable share of the information originating from the think
aloud method is not deductible by tracking eye movements, namely a quarter of all
verbalisations: 13 % non-visible landmarks and 16 % relevant verbalisations without
referral to landmarks. However, the latter is not considered to be a loss of information
since these do not contain references to potential indoor landmarks, given that the
goal of this study is to determine if eye tracking could be used specifically to identify
indoor landmarks. Second, although all participants stated that they did not experience
difficulties with respect to voicing their thoughts, the think aloud method did not sup-
ply information during more than half of the observation time. Pointing out that the
quality of verbal protocols depends on the skills of the respondent. Respondents
sometimes only verbalize part of their thoughts or have difficulties translating their
thoughts into words [11]. Moreover, subjects can only provide data on processes that
they are aware of [10]. In contrast, eye tracking provided data continuously.
With respect to the most fixated on objects, there is a poor resemblance. However,
when neglecting referrals to staircases, as fixations on staircases were not seen relia-
ble, one can conclude that there were only 39 mismatches. Consequently, there were
no referrals to objects in 123 of the cases, which is in line with the observation that
thinking aloud does not supply information in more than half of the observations.
Furthermore, the fact that staircases were often mentioned does not automatically
55
ET4S 2014
mean that these structural elements were remembered as wayfinding aids. An expla-
nation might be found in the physically perceivable interaction with these elements
[3]. Finally, there were no indications that CTA caused reactivity that had significant
effects on task performance or concentration.
In conclusion, the results indicate that eye tracking can provide qualitative and
complete data which can be used to identify indoor landmarks. Although eye tracking
captures most information relevant for the identification of landmarks, it is advisable
to record verbal protocols which can be consulted to clarify specific fixations in order
to obtain a more complete outline of potential landmarks. However, having the time-
consuming analysis of verbal protocols in mind, these should not be the subject of a
separate secondary analysis since the added value is limited.
References
1. Sorrows, M., Hirtle, S.: The nature of landmarks for real and electronic spaces. In: Freska,
C. and Mark, D.M. (eds.) Spatial information theory. Cognitive and Computional
Foundations of GIS. pp. 37–50. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany (1999).
2. Lovelace, K.L., Hegarty, M., Montello, D.R.: Elements of Good Route Directions in
Familiar and Unfamiliar Environments. Spatial information theory. Cognitive and
Computional Foundations of GIS. pp. 65–82. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany (1999).
3. Stankiewicz, B.J., Kalia, A.A.: Acquisition of structural versus object landmark knowledge.
J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 33, 378–390 (2007).
4. Sefelin, R., Bechinie, M., Müller, R., Seibert-Giller, V., Messner, P., Tscheligi, M.:
Landmarks: yes; but which?: five methods to select optimal landmarks for a landmark-and
speech-based guiding system. 7th international conference on Human computer interaction
with mobile devices and services. pp. 287–290. ACM Press, Salzburg, Austria (2005).
5. Raubal, M., Winter, S.: Enriching Wayfinding Instructions with Local Landmarks. In:
Egenhofer, M.J. and Mark, D.M. (eds.) Geographic Information Science. GIScience 2002.
pp. 243–259. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany (2002).
6. Fang, Z., Li, Q., Zhang, X., Shaw, S.: A GIS data model for landmark-based pedestrian
navigation. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 26, 1–22 (2011).
7. Elias, B.: Determination of Landmarks and Reliability Criteria for Landmarks. Fifth
workshop on progress in Automated Map Generalization Paris. pp. 1–12. , Paris (2003).
8. Just, M.A., Carpenter, P.A.: Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cogn. Psychol. 8, 441–
480 (1976).
9. Hölscher, C., Meilinger, T., Vrachliotis, G., Brösamle, M., Knauff, M.: Up the down
staircase: Wayfinding strategies in multi-level buildings. J. Environ. Psychol. 26, 284–299
(2006).
10. Spiers, H.J., Maguire, E. a: The dynamic nature of cognition during wayfinding. J. Environ.
Psychol. 28, 232–249 (2008).
11. Van Elzakker, C.P.J.M.: The Use Of Maps In The Exploration Of Geographic Data.
Koninklijk Nederlands aardrijkskundig genootschap, Faculteit geowetenschappen,
Universiteit Utrecht / Internationaal Instituut voor Geo-Information Science and Earth
observation, Utrecht/Enschede (2004).
12. Van Gog, T., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Witte, P.: Uncovering the problem-solving
process: cued retrospective reporting versus concurrent and retrospective reporting. J. Exp.
Psychol. Appl. 11, 237–244 (2005)
56