=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=The Impact of Environmental Qualities and Individual Differences on Spatial Orientation in a Mobile Context
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-780/paper2.pdf
|volume=Vol-780
}}
==The Impact of Environmental Qualities and Individual Differences on Spatial Orientation in a Mobile Context==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-780/paper2.pdf
The Impact of Environmental Qualities and Individual
Differences on Spatial Orientation in a Mobile Context
Rui Li1, Alexander Klippel1, Lynn S. Liben2, and Adam E. Christensen2
1
Department of Geography and GeoVISTA Center
2
Department of Psychology
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
{rui.li; klippel; liben; aec187}@psu.edu
Abstract. To contribute to cognitive engineering for mobile users, we propose
that mobility itself, the environment, and individual differences all have to be
incorporated into a unified framework. To make this argument, we present both
a position statement and results from a behavioral study. Forty participants were
taken individually to 12 locations on different floors in a library where they
estimated their location and orientation on a map. Participants were randomly
assigned to perform these tasks under one of two mobility conditions—either
being required to stand in a single location (static) or being permitted to move
before responding (active). Locations in the library were characterized using
space syntax measures and individual differences were assessed using a battery
of established tasks. Results show that mobility, environmental qualities, and
individual differences all affect performance but that overall active exploration
results in better performance. Through establishing this unified framework our
research addresses fundamental questions of what it means—from a cognitive
perspective—to be mobile.
Keywords: mobility; indoor environment, spatial skills, spatial orientation
1 Introduction
The use of mobile devices has created a new context for wayfinding, which is
different from wayfinding experiences that are associated with you-are-here (YAH)
maps. Instead of consulting pre-installed navigational services such as a YAH map
posted at a particular spot to learn where one is located, individuals using mobile
devices can receive on-the-go information of their current location while moving in
the environment. Studies have shown, however, that using mobile devices—in
comparison to using traditional maps or direct exploration—results in longer traveled
distances, longer travel times, and reduced accuracy in estimating directions [1].
Acquisition of spatial knowledge and wayfinding are complex tasks. In this article we
focus on three factors that potentially influence wayfinding success in a mobile
context: mobility, environmental qualities, and individual differences.
First, mobile devices obviously allow users to be mobile and receive on-the-go
information. The acquisition of spatial knowledge is thus not restricted to the user’s
2 Rui Li, Alexander Klippel, Lynn S. Liben, and Adam E. Christensen
current location. In the present article we operationalize a narrow meaning of being
mobile and contrast two conditions: static indicates situations in which individuals are
required to stay at their current location once they have been asked to locate
themselves and indicate their orientation on a map. In contrast, active indicates
situations in which individuals are permitted to move around before they have to do
the same tasks.
Second, qualities of environments are potentially correlated with wayfinding
performance. Space syntax research has developed methods to quantitatively
characterize environments. Methods such as visibility graph analysis (VGA) [2], axial
map [3], and inter connection density (ICD) [4] have been used in studies relating
environmental qualities to wayfinding performance (see examples [5-7]; a fuller
review and introduction to these methods can be found in [8]). Complementing these
earlier studies, we introduce global and local measures of environmental qualities to
incorporate the critical concepts of spatial homogeneity and spatial heterogeneity into
our framework. Details on both global and local measures are introduced in the
methods section.
Third, individual differences also influence wayfinding performance. Individuals
vary markedly in their measured spatial skills [9-11]. Studies have demonstrated an
association between individual differences and performance of spatial orientation (see
[12-14]). Here we adopted similar methods used by Liben and collaborators [12-14]
to differentiate individuals regarding their spatial skills.
We chose an indoor environment in the present study given the rising interest in
indoor navigation. To name just a few illustrative studies, Worboys and collaborators
[15, 16] used bigraphs to model both outdoor and indoor environments; Giudice and
collaborators [17] adopted an ontological perspective to address data models and
functional models of both outdoor and indoor spaces; Richter and collaborators [18]
address the hierarchical representation of indoor spaces.
In sum, the goal of the current study was to understand how spatial orientation is
affected by different conditions of mobility; by different environmental qualities as
measured by space syntax methods; and by individual differences as assessed by
paper-and-pencil spatial tasks.
2 Methods
2.1 Participants
Forty college students recruited through a psychology subject pool were randomly
assigned to one of two conditions, specifically either static (11 males and 9 females,
M = 18.8 years, SD = 0.83) or active (5 males and 15 females, M =18.8 years, SD =
0.81). Participants received extra course credit for participation.
2.2 Environment
We selected two floors in the Central Stacks and Paterno Library within the main
library on our campus (see Figure 1) because they differ with respect to their
Spatial Orientation in a Mobile Context 3
environmental qualities. The library has been anecdotally referred to as one of the
most difficult buildings on campus in which to find one’s way. We used VGA [2],
axial map [3], and ICD [4] to characterize visibility, connectivity, and layout
complexity of this environment, respectively. A global measure was calculated across
each entire floor using each method. For the 12 locations (6 in the Central Stacks, 6 in
the Paterno Library) that we selected for orientation tasks, we also calculated local
measures, making sure to include an even combination of low and high values (see
Figure 2). As the global ICD is negatively correlated with global VGA and global
connectivity, the term “high global” as used in this article actually indicates low
global values for ICD. More specifically, the 12 locations were divided into four
different categories depending on their global and local values: low global/low local
(locations 1, 2, 3), low global/high local (locations 4, 5, 6), high global/low local
(locations 8, 10, 11), and high global/high local (locations 7, 9, 12). For example,
location 1, 2, and 3, located in Central Stacks, had relatively higher values of local
visibility and connectivity but low global visibility and connectivity.
Fig.1. Transverse view of the main library (Courtesy of the Pattee and Paterno Libraries). Areas
outlined in bold rectangles show the two floors in this study and the star indicates the starting
location of the experiment.
2.3 Procedures
Participants were taken to one of the two floors in counterbalanced order. Within a
given floor, they were taken to the six locations in an individually randomized order.
The experimenter led participants to the floors using staircases. While participants
were standing at each target location facing a designated direction, the experimenter
asked participants to draw a dot or “x” on the map to indicate their location and then
to draw an arrow on the map to show their orientation. The map was a simple floor
plan showing the locations of book shelves and the basic geometry of the
environment. This floor plan was simplified based on map schematization described
by Meilinger and collaborators [19]. Participants in the static condition were asked to
stand in place as they completed all tasks; participants in the active condition were
free to move around before they provided their answers. Location responses were
scored as correct if the mark was within the correct book shelf aisle and within a 10
mm radius scoring circle on the map. Orientation responses were scored as correct if
4 Rui Li, Alexander Klippel, Lynn S. Liben, and Adam E. Christensen
the arrow was facing the correct direction within a 22.5° margin of error on either
side.
Fig.2. The 12 test locations, their global values (left) and local values in space syntax (right).
Pencil-and-paper spatial tests were given after all environmental tasks were
completed. Tasks included an untimed water level test (WLT), a 3 min mental
rotation test (MRT), and a 3 min paper folding test (PFT) which, respectively,
assessed spatial perception, mental rotation, and spatial visualization [9]. The scores
of MRT were chosen as a differentiating factor of spatial skills because mental
rotation has been shown to correlate with orientation performance in some earlier
studies [20, 21] and because it is a component of spatial skills that is virtually always
identified in factor analyses [9, 22]. All three tests are considered in our continuing
work on prediction models, which are not reported in this paper.
3 Results
Performance at the 12 locations in 4 categories (low global/low local, low global/high
local, high global/low local, and high global/high local) was analyzed with two
separate repeated measures analyses of variance: one with the number of correct
location responses (maximum = 3 in each category) and one with the number of
correct orientation responses (maximum = 3 in each category) as the dependent
measures. In both analyses, between-subjects variables were mobility condition (static
Spatial Orientation in a Mobile Context 5
vs. active) and spatial skill (low vs. high). The latter division was based on a median
split using participants’ mental rotation scores. The two within-subjects factors were
high or low global and local space syntax values.
3.1.1 Location estimations
The analysis of location estimates revealed a three-way interaction among global
value, mobility, and spatial skill. As shown in Figure 3, participants in the static
condition performed significantly worse on low than high global locations (M =1.08,
SD = 1.70 vs. M =.75, SD = 1.11, respectively, maximum = 6.0), but these patterns
did not differ in relation to participants' spatial skills. In contrast, in the active
condition, performance varied with both environmental qualities and individual
differences: at low global locations, performance by low spatial participants was
significantly worse than by high spatial participants (M =.71, SD = 1.73 vs. M =1.69,
SD = 1.27, respectively, maximum = 6.0) whereas at high global locations,
performance did not differ in relation to participants' spatial skills (M =1.36, SD =
1.57 vs. M =1.54, SD = 1.16, respectively, maximum = 6.0). Subsumed by this
interaction was a main effect of global value, F(1, 36) = 5.81, p< .05, with fewer
correct responses at locations with low than with high global values (M = .84, SD =
.78 vs. M =1.18, SD = .71, respectively, maximum = 6.0). The main effect of local
values was only marginal, F(1, 36) = 3.26, p = .083.
Low spatial High spatial
2
Locatoin estimation (count)
1.5
1
0.5
0
Low global High global Low global High global
Static Active
Fig. 3. Interaction effect of mobility, spatial skill, and global values on location errors
Also evident was a significant effect of mobility, F(1, 36) = 12.08, p< .01.
Participants in the active condition had significantly more correct estimates than those
in the static condition, (M =5.65, SD =2.48 vs. M =2.65, SD =2.03, respectively,
maximum = 12.0). There was also a marginal effect of spatial skills on performance,
F(1, 36) = 3.68, p= .06.
3.1.2 Orientation estimations
The analysis of orientation estimates revealed a two-way interaction between global
and local values. When locations had low global values, orientation performance did
6 Rui Li, Alexander Klippel, Lynn S. Liben, and Adam E. Christensen
not differ between low and high local values (M =2.14, SD =1.00 vs. M =2.10, SD
=.95, respectively, maximum = 3.0). In contrast, when locations had high global
values, orientation accuracy was significantly worse at locations with low than with
high local values (M =1.40, SD =.97 vs. M =2.66, SD =.72, respectively, maximum =
3.0). Subsumed by the interaction was a significant main effect of local value, F(1,
36) = 29.13, p< .01. Orientation accuracy was lower at locations with low than with
high local values (M =1.78, SD = .71 vs. M =2.38, SD = .72, respectively, maximum =
6.0).
Also evident was the effect of mobility, F(1, 36) = 12.49, p< .01. Participants in
the active condition provided more correct responses than in the static condition (M
=9.75, SD =1.55 vs. M =7.15, SD =2.87, respectively, maximum = 12.0).
4 Discussion
The mobility of a person is vital to the accuracy of locating and orientating oneself in
buildings. Earlier studies have suggested that active exploration results in
significantly better development of spatial knowledge [23] [24]. Similarly, our results
show that being mobile facilitates adults’ accuracy on both location and orientation
performance. This is an important insight potentially relevant to the design of
navigational services on mobile devices.
Adults have difficulty locating or orientating themselves in indoor environments, a
finding that is similar to ones reported in wayfinding research in outdoor
environments [12, 14]. Environmental qualities and individual differences each affect
locating and orientating oneself in buildings, although their effects are intricate. The
environmental qualities obtained from space syntax that differentiate locations based
on their global and local values, are associated with performance. In the location task,
adults show less accurate performance in buildings with low global values than in
buildings with high global values. Additionally, performance is worse among adults
with poorer spatial skills. Relating the factor of mobility to the environment and
individual differences, our results show that adults with higher spatial skills benefit
more from being mobile than those with poorer spatial skills. In the orientation task,
adults have difficulty estimating orientation in a complex building. The local qualities
of locations such as their visibility do not seem to be the factor that has a major
impact. That is, when global values are low at locations, local values do not matter
further. When global values are high, however, local values significantly modify
performance.
5 Conclusion
Our study has addressed a core question relevant to an aspect of using mobile devices:
mobility itself. We strive for a holistic perspective on people’s performance in spatial
environments by establishing a framework which incorporates not only mobility, but
also environmental qualities and individual differences. In addition to supporting
Spatial Orientation in a Mobile Context 7
findings from earlier studies that related characteristics of the environment to
individual wayfinding behaviors [5, 7], we demonstrated the influence of mobility,
environmental qualities, and individual differences on location and orientation
performance. Furthermore, we advanced the understanding of environmental qualities
and individual differences by using theories from spatial information science as well
as from classic cognitive psychology. In addition to the suggestion of Gunzelmann
and Anderson [25] that features of location impact spatial orientation, we further
explored locations with respect to their global and local characteristics, a theoretical
construct well known in spatial analysis but not yet integrated into a science of
mobility for which it seems to be particularly relevant.
Acknowledgement
Research for this paper is based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation under Grant No. 0948601. The views, opinions, and conclusions
contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as
necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or
implied, of the National Science Foundation, or the U.S. Government.
References
1 Ishikawa, T., Fujiwara, H., Imai, O., Okabe, A.: Wayfinding with a GPS-based mobile
navigation system: A comparison with maps and direct experience. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 28, 74-82 (2008)
2 Turner, A., Doxa, M., O'Sullivan, D., Penn, A.: From isovists to visibility graph: A
methodology for the analysis of architecture space. Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design 28, 103-121 (2001)
3 Hillier, B., Hanson, J.: The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK (1984)
4 O'Neill, M.J.: Evaluation of a conceptual model of architectual legibility. Environment and
Behavior 23, 259-284 (1991)
5 Hölscher, C., Brösamle, M.: Capturing Indoor Wayfinding Strategies and Differerences in
Spatial Knowledge with Space Syntax. 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul
(2007)
6 Hölscher, C., Brösamle, M., Vrachliotis, G.: Challenges in Multi-level Wayfinding: A Case-
study with Space Syntax Technique. In: Hillier, B., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of Space
Syntax and Spatial Cognition Workshop at Spatial Cognition '06. Universität Bremen,
Breman (2006)
7 Franz, G., Wiener, J.M.: Exploring isovist-based correlates of spatial behavior and
experience. The 5th International Space Syntax Symposium, pp. 503-518. Delft Press,
Delft, The Netherlands (2005)
8 Li, R., Klippel, A.: Using space syntax to understand knowledge acquisition and wayfinding
in indoor environments. In: Sun, F., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International
Conference on Cognitive Informatics 2010 IEEE, Beijing, China (2010)
9 Linn, M.C., Petersen, A.C.: Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial
ability: A meta-analysis. Child development 56, 1479-1498 (1985)
8 Rui Li, Alexander Klippel, Lynn S. Liben, and Adam E. Christensen
10 Hegarty, M., Waller, D., Shah, P., Miyake, A.: Individual differences in spatial abilities.
The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking 121-169 (2005)
11 Allen, G.L.: Spatial abilities, cognitive maps, and wayfinding ： Bases for individual
differences in spatial cognition and behavior. In: Golledge, R.G. (ed.) Wayfinding Behavior:
Cognitive Mapping And Other Spatial Processes, pp. 46-80, Baltimore (1999)
12 Liben, L.S, Myers, L.J., Kastens, K.A.: Locating oneself on a map in relation to person
qualities and map characteristics. In: Frekasa, C. et. al. (ed.) Spatial Cognition VI:
Learning, Reasoning, and Talking about Space, Proceedings of the International
Conference Spatial Cogntion, vol. LNCS 4387, pp. 171-187. Springer, Berlin (2008)
13 Liben, L.S., Kastens, K.A., Christensen, A.E.: Spatial foundations of science education: The
illustrative case of instruction on introductory geological concepts. Cognition and
Instruction 29, 45-87 (2011)
14 Liben, L.S., Myers, L.J., Christensen, A.E.: Identifying locations and directions on field and
representational mapping tasks: predictors of success. Spatial Cognition & Computation 10,
105-134 (2010)
15 Worboys, M.: Spatial bigraphs. International Journal of Geograhpical Information Science
(forcoming)
16 Walton, L., Worboys, M.: An algebraic approach to image schemas for geographic space.
In: Hornsby, K.S., et al (ed.) Spatial Information Theory, 9th International Conference on
Spatial Information Theory 2009, Aber Wrac' h, France, September 21-25, 2009 pp. 357-
370. Springer, Aber Wrac' h, France (2009)
17 Giudice, N.A., Walton, L.A., Worboys, M.: The informatics of indoor and outdoor space: a
research agenda. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on
Indoor Spatial Awareness, pp. 47-53. ACM, San Jose, California (2010)
18 Richter, K.-F., Winter, S., Ruetschi, U.-J.: Constructing Hierarchical Representations of
Indoor Spaces. Proceedings of the 2009 Tenth International Conference on Mobile Data
Management: Systems, Services and Middleware, pp. 686-691. IEEE (2009)
19 Meilinger, T., Hölscher, C., Büchner, S.J., Brösamle, M.: How Much Information Do You
Need? Schematic Maps in Wayfinding and Self Localisation. In: Barkowsky, T., et al. (eds.)
Spatial Cognition V: Reasoning, Action, Interaction, vol. LNAI 4387, pp. 381-400.
Springer, Berling, Heidelberg (2007)
20 De Beni, R., Pazzaglia, F., Gardini, S.: The role of mental rotation and age in spatial
perspective taking tasks: when age does not impair perspective taking performance. Applied
cognitive psychology 20, 807-821 (2006)
21 Kozhevnikov, M., Motes, M.A., Rasch, B., Blajenkova, O.: Perspective taking vs. mental
rotation transformations and how they predict spatial navigation performance. Applied
cognitive psychology 20, 397-417 (2006)
22 Carroll, J.B.: Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge
University Press, New York (1993)
23 Feldman, A., Acredolo, A.P.: The effect of active versus passive exploration on memory for
spatial location in children. Child development 50, 698-704 (1979)
24 Bell, S., Saucier, D.: Relationship among environmental pointing accuracy, mental rotation,
sex, and hormones. Environment and Behavior 36, 251-265 (2004)
25 Gunzelmann, G., Anderson, J.R.: Location matters: Why target location impacts
performance in orientation tasks. Memory & cognition 34, 41 (2006)