Global Landmarks in a Complex Indoor Environment

Wayfinding in complex indoor environments can be a difficult and disorienting activity. Many factors contribute to this difficulty, including the variable number of floors and half-floors paired with many different and often unpredictable ways to get from one floor to another. In order to explore how the spatial information of floor to floor transitions is represented cognitively, a user study was conducted at the Carnegie Museums of Art and Natural History that drew on experienced participants from the Visitor Services Department. The participants were asked to give wayfinding descriptions to and from several landmarks in the museums with the majority of the routes spanning multiple floors. It was found that floor to floor transition points were often represented as landmarks with notable locations in the Museums being represented with both functional and referential aspects. A functional aspect of a floor to floor transition points meant that its purpose in the wayfinding description was to provide a means to get from one floor to another. A referential quality meant that a floor to floor transition points was simply an indemnity and did not serve as a way to move vertically through the environment. This finding informs the discussion on global landmarks and their representation and salience in large complex indoor environments.

[1]  Angela Schwering,et al.  Transitional Spaces: Between Indoor and Outdoor Spaces , 2013, COSIT.

[2]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Getting Lost in Buildings , 2010 .

[3]  Markus Knauff,et al.  Up the down staircase : Wayfinding strategies in multi-level buildings , 2006 .

[4]  Christoph Hölscher,et al.  Path choice heuristics for navigation related to mental representations of a building , 2007 .

[5]  Wai-Tat Fu,et al.  Navigating Indoor with Maps: Representations and Processes , 2014, CogSci.

[6]  Michael J. Rovine,et al.  Sketch-map variables as predictors of way-finding performance , 1989 .

[7]  Anthony E. Richardson,et al.  Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability. , 2002 .

[8]  Stephen C. Hirtle,et al.  The Nature of Landmarks for Real and Electronic Spaces , 1999, COSIT.

[9]  Stephen C. Hirtle,et al.  Is spatial information imprecise or just coarsely coded , 1993 .

[10]  Barbara Hayes-Roth,et al.  Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  Stephen C. Hirtle,et al.  Cognition for the navigation of complex Indoor environments , 2015 .

[12]  N. Gale,et al.  Exploring the anchor-point hypothesis of spatial cognition , 1987 .

[13]  Michel Denis,et al.  When and Why Are Visual Landmarks Used in Giving Directions? , 2001, COSIT.

[14]  Clark C. Presson,et al.  Points of reference in spatial cognition: Stalking the elusive landmark* , 1988 .

[15]  Hanspeter A. Mallot,et al.  The Role of Global and Local Landmarks in Virtual Environment Navigation , 2000, Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ..

[16]  D. Appleyard Styles and Methods of Structuring a City , 1970 .

[17]  Kris Lohmann The Use of Sketch Maps as a Basis for Measures of Spatial Knowledge , 2011, Understanding and Processing Sketch Maps @ COSIT.

[18]  Nicholas A. Giudice,et al.  The informatics of indoor and outdoor space: a research agenda , 2010, ISA '10.

[19]  Christoph Hölscher,et al.  The language of landmarks: the role of background knowledge in indoor wayfinding , 2012, Cognitive Processing.

[20]  B. Landau,et al.  Whence and whither in spatial language and spatial cognition , 1993 .

[21]  M. Denis The description of routes : A cognitive approach to the production of spatial discourse , 1997 .

[22]  Alexander Klippel,et al.  Wayfinding in Libraries: Can Problems Be Predicted? , 2012 .