Montclair State University Montclair State University
Montclair State University Digital Montclair State University Digital
Commons Commons
Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects
8-2020
The Role of Presentation Type and Spatial Perspective on The Role of Presentation Type and Spatial Perspective on
Way3nding Way3nding
Sejeong Park
Montclair State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd
Part of the Psychology Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Park, Sejeong, "The Role of Presentation Type and Spatial Perspective on Way3nding" (2020).
Theses,
Dissertations and Culminating Projects
. 586.
https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd/586
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Montclair State University Digital Commons. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects by an authorized administrator of
Montclair State University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Running head: WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 1
Abstract
Wayfinding refers to the process people use to find where to go and how to get there. For that,
they need information on the presence and location of landmarks in their environment to be able
to navigate through their surroundings. Furthermore, spatial awareness is also crucial in the
process. The present study aimed to study how modality, spatial perspective, and language
influence (a) wayfinding accuracy, (b) cardinal term, (c) relative term, and (d) landmark usage in
directions. The map and text were presented to native and non-native English speakers. They
provided directions under route and survey perspective. The results indicated the effects of
different modality and spatial perspective and also underscored the differences between natives
versus. non-natives: (1) Wayfinding accuracy and use of relative terms were better under map
than under text, but use of cardinal terms was more predominant under text. (2) Comparing route
and survey perspectives, more cardinal terms were used under the survey perspective than route
perspective. However, under the route perspective within the map, wayfinding accuracy and use
of relative terms was better than the survey perspective. (3) Also, under the route perspective,
more cardinal terms were used with text than with map. (4) Finally, while under the non-native
condition relative terms usage was better under map than under text, under the native condition
more cardinal terms were used with text than with map.
Keywords: wayfinding, spatial cognition, cognitive processing, spatial description
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 2
MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY
The Role of Presentation Type and Spatial Perspective on Wayfinding
by
Sejeong Park
A Masters Thesis Submitted to the Facult of
Montclair State University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of
Master of Arts
August 2020
College of Humanities and Social Sciences Thesis Committee:
Department of Psychology _______
Dr. Jennifer Yingying Yang
Thesis Sponsor
______
Dr. Jennifer Pardo
Committee Member
_
Dr. Michael Bixter
Committee Member
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 3
THE ROLE OF PRESENTATION TYPE AND SPATIAL PERSPECTIVE ON WAYFINDING
A THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of Master of Arts
by
Sejeong Park
Montclair State University
Montclair, NJ
2020
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 4
Copyright c 2020 by Sejeong Park. All rights reserved.
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 5
Acknowledgments
This thesis could not have been possible without the expertise of Dr. Jennifer Yingying
Yang, the thesis adviser. I am grateful for her ideas, insight, and patience. I would also like to
thank Dr. Jennifer Pardo and Dr. Michael Bixter for sitting on my committee, taking the time to
read my thesis, and giving grateful suggestions. I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Dr.
Alan Pehrson for giving me a lot of help and advice. Thank you to the staff at the MSU,
especially for Alexis, Dana, Emmett and Justin. I am fully indebted to the research assistants
from the lab, Princess and Rebeca. I sincerel appreciate Rebecas assistance and suggestions
throughout this thesis. In addition, a thank you to all my friends and participants. If I did not
have any support and encouragement from friends and participants, I could not have gone farther
and completed this research study. Last but not least, my thanks and appreciation to my parents
and sister, for their endless support, advice and help. I was not sure if I had won the lottery until
today because I already have you guys as my family; Without you, none of this would be
possible.
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 6
Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................................1
Signature Page.................................................................................................................................2
Title Page.........................................................................................................................................3
Copyright Page................................................................................................................................4
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................5
Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................6
List of Tables...................................................................................................................................8
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................10
a. Cognitive Processing........................................................................................................10
b. Spatial Perspective............................................................................................................13
c. Language Background......................................................................................................17
d. Aim of the Current Study and Hypotheses.......................................................................19
2. Methods......................................................................................................................................21
a. Participants.......................................................................................................................24
b. Materials..........................................................................................................................20
c. Procedure.........................................................................................................................26
d. Data Analysis...................................................................................................................27
3. Results........................................................................................................................................29
4. Discussion.................................................................................................................................37
a. Implications......................................................................................................................44
b. Limitations.......................................................................................................................45
c. Future Studies...................................................................................................................45
5. Conclusion.................................................................................................................................46
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 7
6. References.................................................................................................................................47
7.Appendices.................................................................................................................................54
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 8
List of Tables
1. Comparison of Verbal and Visual Instruction (picture) ...................................................11
2. Comparison of Route and Survey Directions....................................................................13
3. Comparison of Route and Survey perspective (picture) ..................................................14
4. Summary of The Study & References...............................................................................20
5. Participants Demographics Descriptie Statistics ...........................................................22
6. Visual Map.........................................................................................................................25
7. Flow Chart of the Procedure..............................................................................................29
8. Main Effect of Modality in Accuracy................................................................................31
9. 2-way Interaction Between Modality-Perspective in Accuracy .......................................31
10. Main Effect of Modality in Cardinal Term Usage.............................................................33
11. Main Effect of Spatial Perspective in Cardinal Term Usage.............................................34
12. 2-way Interaction of Language and Modality in Cardinal Term Usage............................34
13. 2-way Interaction of Perspective and Modality in Cardinal Term Usage.........................35
14. Main effect of Modality in Relative Term Usage..............................................................36
15. 2-way Interaction of Language-Modality in Relative Term Usage...................................37
16. 2-way Interaction of Modality and Perspective in Relative Term Usage..........................37
17. Example of Korean Map (Seoul).......................................................................................42
18. Example of U.S. Map (NYC) ...........................................................................................43
19. Appendix A: Verbal Instruction (Text)..............................................................................57
20. Appendix B: Coding Instruction and Dependent Variables..............................................58
21. Appendix C: English Proficiency Test..............................................................................59
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 9
22. Appendix D: Statistics for Native speakers.......................................................................62
23. Appendix E: Statistics for Non-native speakers................................................................63
24. Appendix F: Table of Descriptive Statistics......................................................................64
25. Appendi G: Eample of Participants Anser (Map-Route Condition)..........................67
26. Appendi H: Eample of Participants Anser (Map-Survey Condition)........................67
27. Appendi I: Eample of Participants Anser (Tet-Route Condition)..........................68
28. Appendi J: Eample of Participants Anser (Tet-Survey Condition).........................68
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 10
The Role of Presentation Type and Spatial Perspective on Wayfinding
The term wayfinding pertains to finding one's way from place to place. It is an essential
activity for survival and requires a diverse range of cognitive abilities (Hund, 2016; Spires &
Maguire, 2008). Wayfinding activity reflects the cognitive functioning of humans: thus, the way
people give directions (i.e., descriptive features) may reflect human functioning as well. The
present study examined how modality, spatial perspective, and language background influence
descriptive features of directions, and also investigated how each factor interacts with other
factors and how factors mutually contribute to wayfinding. The results could be informative not
only for wayfinders but also encourage development in technology, cognitive science, and spatial
skills (Feng, Spence, & Pratt, 2007; Gilbert, 2005).
Cognitive Processing And Wayfinding
Cognitive style was defined as an individual difference in regard to organizing and
processing information (Januchta et al., 2017; Messick, 1984). Within wayfinding, there are two
types of information processing based on modality: visual and verbal processing (Taylor &
Tversky, 1992). For instance, when navigators start a journey, they need to decide which is a
short and effective way, and whenever they make turns, they have to recognize and remember
visual or verbal cues that they have seen (e.g., map, directions from someone). Previous studies
on wayfinding demonstrated considerable differences between the two modalities and have
further exhibited a range of individual differences in habits, skills, and strategies for learning an
unfamiliar environment (e.g., Kraemer et al., 2016).
First, verbal processing refers to cognitive styles that are more word focused; that is, they
rely more on verbal description (i.e., text; Mendelson & Thorson, 2004). Verbal processing
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 11
constructs information semantically without forming images and is one of the crucial tools used
in making judgments for solving cognitive tasks (see Figure 1; Soroli & Hickman, 2009). Many
psychological studies claim that people who respond to verbal information can construct mental
images concerning past and future events and that these mental images can provide the basis for
judgments and decisions (Chomsky, 1975; Clark & Clark, 1978; Pinker, 1989; Soroli &
Hickman, 2010; Wyer et al., 2008). However, there is a lack of research addressing the
advantages of verbal descriptions during spatial learning and navigation in real environments
(Allen, 1997; Denis, Pazzaglia, Comoldi, & Bertolo, 1999; Lovelace, Hegarty, & Montello,
1999; Tversky, 1996). Moreover, such studies would be based on static text so it would be hard
to change the participants phsical moement through the space (Giudice et al., 2007).
Meanwhile, visual processing refers to representing information that is pictured rather
than being described (Fodor, 1981; Homer & Gauntt, 1992). Former studies from Childers et al.
(1985) also distinguished that visual processing constructs visual images based on reading or
thinking about situations and events. Brown (2015) suggested that humans are neurologically
linked to visual sensory ability, so visual material is an easier way to recall and process
information than words. Kosslyn (2005) also found that the human brain stores visual and verbal
information in separate areas of the brain. Kosslyn compared the participants' reaction time when
they scan the overall map, participants spent a shorter time when they looked at the visual
objects than verbal objects. Kosslyn suggested that visual objects may have mental
representation with lower thresholds, which leads to faster recognition in the initial phases of
tasks. Previous studies have found another advantage of using visual materials for wayfinding
(Giudice et al., 2005). Ko and Kim (2017) demonstrated that people can navigate unfamiliar
environments without structural information (e.g., verbal information) because people can
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 12
process the necessary information from visual information such as landmarks or signs within the
environment. Pazzaglia and Moè (2013) also found a general superiority of the visual map
condition. The results indicated that participants who were assigned to a verbal description had
more hesitation and learned the route more slowly than those assigned to a visual map condition.
Moreover, visual processing may include more active decision making than verbal processing
(Schwering et al., 2017). Participants who read the text could not have active decision making
because their decision making has been replaced by detailed verbal instruction. Besides that, text
often contains abstract information, which is difficult to visualize, and people may think it might
be harder to remember than a map (Krucka et al., 2020).
Figure 1.
Comparison of Verbal and Visual Instruction
Verbal Instruction
Visual Instruction
Spatial Perspectives
Within wayfinding, there are two different perspectives: route and survey (Bloom,
Peterson, Nadel, & Garrett, 1996; Portugali, 1996). These perspectives refer to how a person
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 13
specifies the location of objects concerning other objects, and they are necessary to provide
directions. For instance, in wayfinding, a wayfinder will receive visual (map) or verbal materials
(text), and decide which direction (route or survey) they want to take. Route direction means
first-person perspectie relies on a relative direction (e.g., left-right), contains a afinders
relative frame (i.e., people ask the direction on the street), and knows how to get from one
location to another. Survey direction means third-person perspectie relies on a cardinal
direction(e.g., using N,E,W,S and people see the map through the entire view), and reconstruct
accurate rendering of the area (Wickens et al.,1984) with absolute frame. Previous research has
found that different spatial perspectives may shape human memory for spatial information and
affect the representation of spatial information in direction-giving (Shelton & McNamara, 2004).
Figure 2.
Comparison of Spatial Direction
Route direction:
...Turn right on Green Avenue and on your
right, you will see the stock market. Past the
stock market, on your right on Green Avenue,
you will see the mortgage bank. On your right
on Green Avenue, past the mortgage bank is the
legal firm Lee & Tversky, 2005).
Survey direction:
... South of the stock market on the west side
of Green Avenue is the mortgage bank. On the
west side of Green Avenue, south of the
mortgage bank is the legal firm Lee &
Tversky, 2005).
The frames of reference. Setting a frame of reference is also necessary to find a
destination or a specific object (Surtees et al., 2012; Tomasello, 2008). Three frames of reference
are usually identified: relative, absolute, and intrinsic. Firstly, the relative frame usually accepts
egocentric views. Thus, the relative frame tends to adopt the relative dispositions of
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 14
locations/objects from a particular point of view. They tend to adapt left-right term use and often
mention ou to describe the afinding process (see figure 2; Levinson, 1997). Thus, a
wayfinder can easily understand the information. Conversely, the absolute frame of reference
prefers to use cardinal terms such as survey direction (Majid et al., 2004). The absolute frame of
reference avoids using left-right and the speakers iepoint. They can provide detailed
information concerning the hole enironment at once. The do not mention ou in their
direction (see figure 2) and describe the map and each location with an entire and precise view.
Lastly, the intrinsic frame of reference means that a location/object is described concerning
another object (e.g., "the building is beside the restaurant"; Majid et al., 2004). According to Dey
et al. (2018), the frames of reference are the main components of the spatial perspectives: survey
perspective and route perspective. For example, the relative frame of reference is more related to
the route perspective because they both prefer to take relative terms and egocentric views. On the
other hand, the absolute frame of reference is related to survey perspectives, which use cardinal
terms. The intrinsic frame of references can be described ith both perspecties (e.g., the
building is on the left of ou, or the destination is to the south of the building).
Route perspective. A route perspective refers to a mental tour with a changing viewpoint
from within the environment (Taylor & Tversky, 1992). The term presents a space, its
landmarks, and their spatial relations from an egocentric perspective (or path view). It also uses
an intrinsic frame of reference, such as to our left or in front of ou. A route perspectie
requires adopting a first-person's (e.g., traveler's) spatial perspective, and it offers a procedure for
exploring through the environment. Thus, a route perspective adopts left and right terms within a
traelers sight for describing the enironment. A naigator ith a route perspectie has a more
natural perspective to describe a route, and that is the reason why a route perspective uses more
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 15
viewer-relational terms (e.g., turn to our right-hand side) and more motion erbs (e.g., go to
our left and find the destination in front of ou) than a sure perspectie does (Tersk &
Taylor, 1996).
Survey perspective. A survey perspective is defined as a mental tour that scans an
environment from a single viewpoint (Taylor & Tversky, 1996). This term represents the space
from an allocentric perspective (bird's eye view) and uses an extrinsic frame of reference such as
compass directions (North, South, East, and West), and mentions precise distances/streets
(Lawton, 1996; Shelton & Gabrieli, 2002; Taylor & Tversky, 1996) more than a route
perspective does. A survey perspective speaker adapts a third-person perspective to see the
whole environment at once (i.e., aerial view; Hund et al, 2012). Current researchers suggest that
survey knowledge may be conceptualized as a map-like environment, which contains
information about the physical characteristics of an environment (Chrastil & Warren, 2014;
Ishikawa & Montello, 2006; Montello, 1998; Thorndyke & Hayes-Roth, 1982), consequently, a
speaker with a survey perspective tends to mention more deictic words on wayfinding directions
(e.g., there; Andonoa, 2010). Table 1 shos additional comparisons of route and sure
perspectives, while Figure 2 visually depicts the perspectives.
Table 1.
Comparison of Route and Survey Perspective
Route Perspective
Survey Perspective
Ground-level navigation / Focusing the
segments of a route
Aerial or map-like perspective /
An overview of the entire environment
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 16
Left right term use
N, E, S, W term use
Travel with a specific path
Allow to construct novel routes, shortcuts,
indicate the direction of an unseen goal
Landmark action association
An objective frame of reference concerning
the environment
Route Perspective
Survey Perspective
Figure 3.
Comparison of Route and Survey perspective (picture)
When the researchers compared the effectiveness of both perspectives, they found that a
route perspective may lead to better wayfinding performance (MacEachren, 1992). For example,
some researchers found that U.S. participants showed a more positive effectiveness rating on the
directions under the route perspective than under the survey perspective (Denis et al., 1999;
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 17
Hund et al., 2012; Padgitt & Hund, 2012). According to Pyers et al. (2015), when speakers
adapted the same spatial perspectives with their recipients (route perspective), they shared
outstanding wayfinding communication with recipients: they tended to give accurate directions
for their recipients (Schober, 1993). It is important to note that the perspective of wayfinding
instruction influences overall wayfinding performance, and route perspective may lead to better
wayfinding performance from a speaker and recipient.
Lastly, in the spatial perspective studies, Hund et al. (2009) found a notable difference
between route and survey perspective with American and Dutch subjects. They would like to
examine how factors (e.g., culture, spatial perspective) affect descriptive features that people
provided in wayfinding directions; Thus, the researchers created a fictitious visual map using
landmarks, streets, and avenues. This map was given to participants and they were asked to write
down the directions for someone to get from the starting point to the destination. They needed to
provide six directions, three in which participants imagined giving directions to a wayfinder
driving in the town (route perspective) and three in which they imagined giving directions to a
wayfinder who seeing the map (survey perspective); The researchers measured the frequency of
cardinal, left-right, street names and landmark descriptors from the directions, and found
Americans used more cardinal directions under survey perspective than Dutch subjects.
Moreover, participants used more left-right terms under the route perspective than the survey
perspective. By contrast, they used more cardinal terms under the survey perspective than route
perspective; These results indicate the difference of spatial language between two different
cultures and the fleibilit of a afinders spatial perspectie.
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 18
Language Background
Meanwhile, only a few studies have investigated the impact of different cultural/language
backgrounds on wayfinding. Previously, Hund et al. (2012) found that different language and
cultural backgrounds may influence the different consequences of wayfinding. U.S. participants
usually provided street names more frequently than Dutch participants. Americans often
preferred to use cardinal descriptions (i.e., North, East, West, South) more than Dutch
participants when they are accepting a survey perspective. Lawton (2001) suggested that U.S.
lands are usually designed with a grid system of streets and operated by address numbering and
street names. Hence, Americans are more accustomed to using cardinal terms than Europeans.
These findings supported that wayfinding direction can be differentiated depending on cultural or
geographical backgrounds. Language background also influences spatial cognition. One
cognition study demonstrated that participants using different languages perform differently on
many spatial relation tasks such as color discrimination tasks (Wolff & Holmes, 2011). The
researchers mainly assumed that when English speakers and Korean speakers describe the same
scenes, they tend to use different spatial terms. English speakers used preposition words more
frequently than Korean speakers, which may indicate that even the same scene can be encoded
differently across language (Holmes et al., 2017).
Significant differences have been found between native speakers and non-native speakers
as well. Kisser et al. (2012) compared two groups (native vs. non-native) on four different
language tasks with neuropsychological measures. The results revealed that non-native English
speakers showed poorer performance on language mediated tasks given in English (i.e., letter
and category fluency, cognitive estimation test) than native speakers. Another study (Boone et
al., 2007) also demonstrated that native English speakers outperformed on digit span, Boston
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 19
naming test, and word generation tasks more than non-native speakers. However, non-native
speakers scored relatively higher on visuospatial tasks when compared to native speakers. This
finding revealed that native and non-native may perform differently depending on modalities.
Aim of the Current Study and Hypotheses
Wayfinding is a necessary activity for everyday survival. Despite all of these factors
being related to wayfinding and its performance, previous studies have examined each factor in
separate contexts, but have not often examined them in the same context. Thus, this thesis
investigated the wayfinding directions of 62 participants with regard to the effect of three sets of
factors on direction giving: (a) role of modality (visual vs. verbal), (b) spatial perspectives
(survey vs. route perspective), and (c) role of language (native English speakers vs. non-native
speakers). Based on the descriptive features (accuracy, cardinal term, relative term, and landmark
usage), the researcher assessed how applying different modality, perspective, and language
background influence overall wayfinding performances.
There are two research questions: (1) Do different cognitive processing, spatial
perspective, and language backgrounds influence wayfinding directions? (2) If so, how can the
directions be differentiated by three factors? It was predicted that:
(1) Overall, comparing map and text, accuracy would be better with a map than with text.
(2) Comparing route and survey, accuracy should be higher and people should include
more relative terms and fewer cardinal terms in route the perspective than the survey
perspective.
(3) Comparing natives and non-natives, accuracy would be better in natives than non-
natives.
(4) The type of modality and spatial perspective might interact in different ways; the
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 20
combination of route and map might be associated with the best performance,
because they would give more effective directions among other four conditions.
Figure 4.
Summary of The Procedure and References
Based on former studies (e.g., Hund et al., 2012; see page 17) and the hypotheses, the
present study recruited participants (native and non-native English speakers), and they were
tested via an online (after COVID-19 outbreak) or lab environment. Each participant completed
the eight wayfinding trials with two different modalities (map and text) constructed by the
present researcher (see figure 3). To assess participants afinding directions, participants
needed to answer under two different spatial perspectives (route and survey). Note that each
condition was carefully manipulated and counterbalanced by the researcher, and it was used by
previous studies as well (e.g., Hund et al., 2009; see methods section below). Under route
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 21
perspective, the researcher made participants apply any direction terms they wanted. Under
survey perspective, participants needed to use cardinal terms. In the data analysis section, the
researcher coded and assessed the score of direction accuracy and proportion to the total
number of words of other descriptive features (mentioning cardinal/relative/landmarks). The
results from descriptive features may be used to assess the quality of wayfinding and how
participants use their wayfinding ability under different conditions, and how the results can be
used for real society.
Methods
Participants
Sixty-two participants took part in this experiment, including 23 men and 38 women (see
Table 3). The participants mean age as 21.2 ears. Thirt-three participants were native
English speakers (F = 18, M = 14) and 29 participants were non-native English speakers (F = 20,
M = 9). The criterion for native/non-native speaker is specified on page 25. Thirty-six
participants (F = 19, M = 16) participated in the lab study, while 26 participants (F = 19, M = 7)
participated in the online study. Overall, 10 native speaking participants and 16 non-native
participants did the online study. Ten native males and six non-native males did the lab study.
Twelve native females and seven non-native females did the lab study. The participants
identified themselves as being White/Caucasian (n = 23), Asian (n = 23), Latina/o (n = 9),
Black/African American (n = 5), and others (n = 2) on the demographic data section of the
survey. Participants were not excluded based on their ethnicity and gender. Detailed descriptions
are presented in Table 2. Meanhile, 15 participants data in the verbal condition were removed
because of non-adherence to the protocol: Before changing the protocol, participants were shown
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 22
two texts at the same time. The researcher found this process may cause research bias, therefore,
the part of protocol was changed. After changing the protocol, participants saw only one text
during the experiment. Overall, participants (58%) who were recruited through the Department
of Psychology college student participant pool (SONA) received credit for class fulfillment.
Other participants (42%) from snoball sampling (e.g., recruited the researchers friends,
families, or co-workers) did not get the credits for a class (see table 2). All participants provided
informed consent, and the study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Montclair
State University.
Table 2.
Paicia Degahic Deciie Saiic
Variable
N
Note
Gender
Female
38
Male
23
Missing
1
Ethnicity
White/Caucasi
an
23
Asian
23
Indian = 2, Vietnamese = 1, Korean = 20
Black/African-
American
5
Latinx
9
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 23
Others
2
Afro-Latinx, Black & White
Recruiting
SONA
33
F = 18, M = 14, Missing = 1
Native = 27, Non-native = 6
Snowball
sampling
29
F = 20, M = 9
Native = 6, Non-native = 23
Language
Native
33
F =18, M = 14, Missing = 1
Non-native
29
F = 20, M = 9
European Language (Polish, German, Spanish, etc)
= 6
Asian Language (Korean, Indian, Vietnamese) = 23
Site
Lab
36
F =19, M = 16, Missing = 1
Native = 23, Non-native = 13
Online
26
F = 19, M = 7
Native = 10, Non-native = 16
Note: F: female, M: male
Participant Screening
For the language proficiency screening, non-native English speakers who participated in
the online study had to pass the English proficiency test before they started the survey and
experiment (Pearson, 2015; see Appendix C). The researcher asked a few questions about the
participants English education histor. First, participants ho neer took an English classes in
their schools were excluded from the study. Second, participants who were not born in English
speaking countries, and that did not learn English before Kindergarten age were classified as a
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 24
non-native speaker. For the English proficiency test, a listening test from the U.S. middle schools
was administered to participants. Participants started with a listening task with a visual map and
audio file. Then, they needed to hear the wayfinding direction and choose the right answer on the
visual map. If they could not choose the right answer, they were dropped out of the study. As a
result, there were no dropped out participants.
Materials
The map and text condition consisted of an entire view (e.g., Hund et al., 2012), and the
researcher did not find any structural issue in two conditions. Both map and text condition used
the same spatial laout: hole ie of ton since the researcher aimed to describe an entire
fictitious model town such as previous research did (e.g., Hund et al., 2012; Taylor & Tversky,
1996). In both conditions, nine landmarks (e.g., burger, lobster) and four streets/ three avenues
(e.g., New St., Second Ave) were used to describe the environment for participants. In text
condition, the information was provided in English and presented on a computer. In the map
condition, they described different contents (landmarks) but maintained the same number of
landmarks with the text condition. The landmarks were displayed using emoticons with colors.
The same number of streets/avenues were also depicted using thick black lines and printed
names (see Figure 3).
The Way of Map and Text Were Generated
The fictitious environments were described using an Apple Macintosh and the software
and ee eened n a mni. Bh cndiin eninmen ae n diffeen in he nmbe
of streets/avenues and landmarks. Both instructions contained nine landmarks. The map and text
were adapted to similar structures from previous research (Hund et al., 2009; Taylor & Tversky,
1992). The present study generated the map and text containing common Americanized names
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 25
and structures (e.g., name of the streets, landmarks). It should be noted that for consistency of the
map and text, both conditions were maintained in the same structure, but have different contents
(name of street/avenue/landmarks). Thus, it would not affect the reliability of each condition.
Figure 5.
Visual Map
It should be noted that all participants received the same visual map (see figure 5); When
participants were given the material, the order of materials (i.e., Map first, Text second vs. Text
first, Map second) and the order of perspectives (i.e., Route perspective trials measured first vs.
Survey perspective trials measured first) were counterbalanced to minimize order effect and
other research biases. Additionally, the researcher constructed two texts (No.1 and No.2; see
Appendix A). Half of the participants received the No.1 text, and the remaining participants
received the No.2 text. Note that both texts consisted of a survey perspective (e.g., using cardinal
terms, entire view of the environment) with the same landmarks, streets, and avenues to maintain
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 26
the consistency between the two texts.
Procedures
Prior to the experiment, participants were asked to answer the demographic questions via
Qualtrics. First, if applicable, they had to disclose their ethnic, immigration, first-language, and
parents backgrounds. Then, the needed to complete afinding strategies related
questionnaires: Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ; Blazhenkove &
Kozhenvnikov, 2009), The Verbalizer-Visualizer Questionnaire (VVQ; Richardson, 1977), Santa
Barbara Sense of Direction Scale (SBSOD; Hegarty, Richardson, Montello, Lovelace, &
Subbiah, 2002), and The Wayfinding Strategy Scale (Lawton, 1994). The results are not
enumerated in this thesis, but are intended for use in further wayfinding research.
After the participants completed the questionnaires, they were given the experiment.
They were asked to see the material on the monitor for familiarization. During the familiarization
stage, participants were given 30 seconds to look at the material. For participants, the researcher
noted visually and verbally the four cardinal directions, pointing to each direction. A compass
rose also appeared at the bottom of the map indicating the cardinal directions (e.g., N, E, W, S).
The starting points and destinations were noted by the experimenter (e.g., start from the garlic to
red pepper (See Figure 3 and Appendix A). After the familiarization stage, participants
completed a total of eight trials. There were two different conditions: map and text. For each
condition, participants completed four trials. In two trials, participants imagined giving directions
to a person using a route perspective (i.e., giving direction for someone who is driving). With a
route perspective, people could use any terms they wanted. Meanwhile, in two other trials
participants imagined giving directions to a person again using a survey perspective (giving
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 27
direction for someone who is walking with a map) for each condition (see figure 5). With a
survey perspective, participants needed to use cardinal terms for direction-giving. After
participants completed each trial, they were asked to type the answers on the computer on how
they would help someone to get from the starting point to reach the destination. Participants were
allowed to take as much time as needed, and they could refer to the map and text again when
they typed the answer on the computer. To complete trials, participants did not copy/paste a
paragraph from the original text. All of them answered with their own thoughts and language.
Data Analysis: coding
The Qualtrics program stored the participants' answers concerning the wayfinding tasks.
After data collection, the researcher coded the frequency with which participants used
descriptive features. Regarding cardinal term usage, a coder coded the frequency of cardinal
direction terms. Regarding relative term usage, a coder coded the frequency of relative direction
terms (e.g., go straight, left, right, turn right-hand side, etc). Regarding landmarks, a coder coded
the numbers of landmarks mentioned. At the results, the overall numbers were converted to
proportion (number of frequency/ total number of words).
Regarding accuracy, a coder scored the directions of participants from 0 to 10. Scale of
pointing is quite common measurements to assess wayfinding performances (e.g., Palac et al.,
2019; Pardo et al., 2019; Padgett & Hund, 2012), the present study partially adapted the previous
researchs measurements and criterions: When participants proided completel rong direction,
so they arrived different landmarks or paths, they received 0, whereas they gave perfect
direction, so they arrived at the right landmarks, they received a score of 10. If participants did
not find the right destination, but if they could arrive on the same side of the destination, wrong
side of the destination, or two blocks away from a correct destination, they could receive the
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 28
partial of full scores (score of 8, 6 or 4) More details are represented in Appendix B.
Data Analysis: program and variables
All data were analyzed with JASP version 0.11.1, Microsoft Excel program, and post-hoc
comparisons using the Bonferroni test. The frequency of specific descriptive features (e.g.,
cardinal term usage) was coded from the data of the experiment. Descriptive features were
analyzed using separate 2x2x2 mixed-design Analysis of Variance (ANOVAs) with cognitive
processing (map vs. text), spatial perspective (route vs. survey) as two within-subjects variables,
and language background (native vs. non-native) as a between-subject variables.
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 29
Figure 6.
Flow Chart of the Procedure
Results
As dependent variables, frequency with which participants provided 12 descriptive
features: total words, phrases, sentences, verbs, cardinal terms (N, E, W, S), relative terms (e.g.,
left, right, turn or go straight), landmarks (i.e., nine named objects in each map/text), and names
of street and avenue (i.e., a total of seven named streets/avenues in each map/text), preposition
(e.g., along, toward, between, or within), articles (a, an, the), deictic words (e.g., this, these,
there), and accuracy of wayfinding directions were used. Note that among these variables, the
researcher only focused on mean score of accuracy of wayfinding direction, proportion of
cardinal, relative terms, and landmark usage. To get the proportion, # of total words (i.e., the
sum of total words that each participant used) and # of direction terms (i.e., cardinal and relative
term usage) were used. The proportion was calculated for each participant individually, then the
results were summed. The researcher used the Microsoft Excel program to calculate the
proportion of direction terms / (÷) total words.
Detailed instruction for coding is also presented in the above data analysis and Appendix
B section. Descriptive tables are presented in Table 3, Appendix D, and Appendix E. Examples
of participants ansers are also presented in Appendi G to J; Significant effects were indicated
at the p < 0.05 level.
Wayfinding Accuracy
Analyses showed that the main effect of cognitive processing on accuracy of wayfinding
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 30
direction was statistically significant, F(1,45) = 26.33, p < 0.001, = 0.10. Based on the coding
criterion (see Appendi B), a coder assessed participants score of wayfinding accuracy.
Participants showed high scores of wayfinding accuracy when the map was provided (M = 8.85,
SD = 0.31) than when the text was provided (M = 6.61, SD = 0.52). The two-way interaction
between cognitive processing and spatial perspective on accuracy was statistically significant,
F(1,45) = 5.67, p = 0.02, = 0.01. This indicates that the effect of cognitie processing on
accuracy differs on the level of spatial perspective (route vs. survey). Post-hoc test suggested that
map (M= 9.09, SD = 0.35) is better than text (M = 6.07, SD = 0.57) in a route perspective (p <
0.001). Moreover, map (M = 8.60, SD = 0.48) is also better than text (M = 7.14, SD = 0.57) in a
survey perspective (p < 0.009). The difference was larger for the route perspective (MD = 3.01)
than for the survey perspective (MD = 1.45). The three-way interaction effect between cognitive
processing, spatial perspective, and language on accuracy was not statistically significant (see
Table 3).
Figure 7.
Main Effect of Modality in Accuracy
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 31
Figure 8.
2-way Interaction of Modality-Perspective in Accuracy
Cardinal terms
Analyses showed the main effect of cognitive processing on cardinal term usage was
statistically significant, F(1,45) = 4.94, p = 0.03, = 0.03. Based on the proportion of total
words and cardinal term usage (see page 32; total words: 6050.5), people used more cardinal
terms when the text was provided (0.039) than when the map was provided (0.029). The analysis
also demonstrated the main effect of spatial perspective on cardinal term usage was significant,
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 32
F(1,45) = 17.15, p < 0.001, = 0.04. Participants used more cardinal terms when the survey
perspective was applied (0.040) than when the route perspective was applied (0.029). The two-
way interaction between cognitive processing and language background on cardinal term usage
was statistically significant, F(1,45) = 5.12, p = 0.03, = 0.03. This indicates that the effect of
language background on cardinal term usage differs on the level of cognitive processing (map vs.
text). Post-hoc comparisons suggested that under the native speaking condition (p = 0.002; total
words: 3013), the text (0.049) included more cardinal terms than the map (0.030). Under the
non-native speaking condition (total words: 3037.5), there were no significant differences
between text (0.029) and map (0.029).
Moreover, the two-way interaction between cognitive processing and spatial perspective on
cardinal term usage was statistically significant, F(1,45) = 4.83, p = 0.03, = 0.01. Post-hoc
test suggested that under the route perspective (p < 0.006; total words: 3048.5), the text (0.04)
included more cardinal terms than the map (0.02). Under the survey perspective (total words:
3002), there were no significant differences between text (0.04) and map (0.04).
The three-way interaction effect between cognitive processing, spatial perspective, and language
on accuracy was not statistically significant (see Table 3).
Figure 9.
Main Effect of Modality in Cardinal Term Usage
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 33
Figure 10.
Main Effect of Spatial Perspective in Cardinal Term Usage
Figure 11.
2-way Interaction of Language and Modality in Cardinal Term Usage
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 34
Figure 12.
2-way Interaction of Perspective and Modality in Cardinal Term Usage
Relative terms
Analyses showed the main effect of cognitive processing on relative term usage was
statistically significant, F(1,45) = 15.45, p < 0.001, = 0.07. Based on the proportion of total
words and relative term usage, participants used more relative terms when the map was provided
(0.063) than when the text was provided (0.044). The two-way interaction between cognitive
processing and language background on relative term usage was marginally significant, F(1,45)
= 4.22, p = 0.05, = 0.02. This indicates that the effect of language background on cardinal
term usage differs on the level of cognitive processing (map vs. text). Post-hoc comparisons
suggested that under the non-native speaking condition (p = 0.05), the map (0.07) included more
relative terms than the text (0.041). Under the native speaking condition, there were no
significant differences between map (0.06) and text (0.05). The two-way interaction between
cognitive processing and spatial perspective on relative term usage was statistically significant,
F(1,45) = 8.74, p < 0.01, = 0.02. This indicates that the effect of spatial perspectie on
relative term usage differs on the level of cognitive processing. Post-hoc test suggested that
under the route perspective (p < 0.001), the map (0.07) included more relative terms than the text
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 35
(0.043). Under the survey perspective, there were no significant differences between map (0.06)
and text (0.05). The three-way interaction effect between cognitive processing, spatial
perspective, and language on accuracy was not statistically significant (see Table 3).
Figure 13.
Main effect of Modality in Relative Term Usage
Figure 14.
2-way Interaction of Language and Modality in Relative Term Usage
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 36
Figure 15.
2-way Interaction of Modality and Perspective in Relative Term Usage
Landmark Usage
Analyses showed there were no statistically significant main effects. Although the
primary ANOVA analysis indicated that there were interactions between cognitive processing,
spatial perspective, and language on landmark usage, post-hoc tests suggested that they were not
statistically significant. These results indicated one of two possibilities: a false positive finding or
that post-hoc tests lack power.
Discussion
The primary goal of this thesis was to examine how cognitive processing, spatial
perspective, and language background influenced wayfinding direction giving. The experiment
investigated the frequencies of each descriptive feature comparing natives and non-natives, and
observed how directions would be differentiated by modality and spatial perspective. Based on
previous research, it was hypothesized that: (1) Comparing map and text, accuracy would be
better in map than text, (2) Comparing route and survey, accuracy should be higher and people
should include more relative terms and fewer cardinal terms in the route perspective than in the
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 37
survey perspective, (3) Comparing natives and non-natives, accuracy would be better in natives
than non-natives, and (4) A combination of route and map might yield the best performance,
whereas a combination of survey and map might yield the worst performance among all four
conditions.
Cognitive processing: map and text. The results showed a significant main effect for
cognitive processing (map vs. text), on the accuracy of wayfinding. The researcher found map
was better than text on accuracy. From these results, this first hypothesis was supported.
Shabiralyani et al. (2015) suggested that visual materials may provide easy learning for
recipients. In this experiment, the researcher found that the relationship between abstract objects
could be easily clarified through visual processing. Based on previous researchers, in the present
experiment participants could learn to use a map better than a text because they can see exactly
where they should start and the destination. Of course, the text also gave detailed information,
but participants needed to 'imagine' the map one more time to personally visualize each location.
This might give a higher workload and decrease the accuracy in text condition. The Map
condition was also better than the text condition on relative terms usage. For instance, visual
information uses several ranges of points of view mixed with the information presented in
graphical formats. This information does not restrict the viewer's opportunity to view and
interpret the materials (Bignell, 2005). However, the text of the present study adopted strict
writing formats (e.g., using only cardinal terms). The present study also anticipated that map
would be better than text on landmark usage. However, the results of ANOVA were significant,
but the post-hoc tests revealed that the main and interaction effects were not significant. These
results might indicate a false-positive error or the lack of power in the post-hoc tests. Or,
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 38
landmark usage might not be associated with three factors. For example, a person might use
verbal processing to mention landmarks regardless of modality, whereas they cannot do the same
for cardinal/relative term usage.
Furthermore, text included more cardinal terms than map included. As Hund et al.
(2012) demonstrated, the priming effect could have influenced the relation between the text
condition and cardinal term usage. In line with previous literature such as Ehrenbrink and
Hillmann (2017), priming refers to the psychological effect associated with a semantic
activation. Reading a priming word may activate semantically related words and increase their
usage. For instance, when the verbal stimulus 'North' is presented, participants might be able to
actiate similar ords such as 'South because these are semantically associated with each other.
Overall, modality is a determining variable on accuracy and direction term usage. To sum up, use
of a map is an efficient way to give accurate directions using more relative terms than are used
with text. To convey accurate directions for someone, a speaker should use visual maps rather
than text.
Spatial perspective: route and survey. There were no significant main effects of spatial
perspective on accuracy. Contrary to findings of Denis et al. (1999) that the route perspective
gives less ambiguity and more detailed instruction than the survey perspective, differences were
not found in the present study. Meanwhile, there was no significant main effect of route
perspective on more relative term usage. From these results, this second hypothesis was not
supported. However, there were significant main effects of spatial perspective on cardinal term
usage: under survey perspective, participants included more cardinal terms than under the route
perspective. A survey perspective looks through the overall environment at once and tends to
describe the entire overview of an environment layout using global frames of reference (e.g., the
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 39
sun or the lake range; Hund et al., 2012). Thus, a speaker mostly adopts cardinal terms (Lawton,
1996; Shelton & Gabrieli, 2002; Taylor & Tversky, 1996). Overall, it is plausible to say that the
spatial perspective is not a determining factor for accuracy, but it might be crucial for cardinal
term usage on wayfinding direction.That is, with the survey perspective speakers adopt cardinal
terms more than with the route perspective. Note that the researcher instructed participants to use
cardinal terms under survey perspective and use any terms participants wanted under route
perspective. However, interestingly, some participants clearly preferred to use relative terms
even under survey perspective, or some of participants presented mied(using both cardinal
and relative terms together) terms to present their direction. Moreover, surprisingly, there were
some participants who preferred to use cardinal directions under route perspective as well. Even
though the results itself reflected those unexpected results of subjects, this clearly showed
participants still included more cardinal terms under survey perspective. However, spatial
perspective is not a determining factor for accuracy and relative term usage. The researcher also
suggests that adopting the survey perspective and including cardinal terms might be associated
with modality. For instance, cardinal term usage is mainly associated with the text condition
since it consists of cardinal directions. Thus, participants with the text condition might
consciously or unconsciously adopt cardinal term usage rather than relative term usage.
Language background and cognitive processing. The researcher could not find the
main effect of language background on accuracy. From these results, the third hypothesis was
not supported. However, there were significant interactions between cognitive processing and
language background on direction terms: For Native participants, the text condition included
more cardinal terms than the map condition. Non-natives did not show significant differences
between map and text on cardinal term usage. Regarding language processing, native speakers
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 40
could process and understand more about verbal information than non-native speakers (Lev-ari,
2015), perhaps due to naties higher cardinal term usage on the tet than non-native speakers.
Several Korean participants said that they were not used to including cardinal terms in directions
because they always use relative terms since their childhood. These cultural or geographical
differences (see Figures 5 and 6) may be linked to non-native participants' relatively low cardinal
term usage as well. For non-native speakers, the map included more relative terms than the text.
Previous studies argued that understanding visual material would be more helpful for non-natives
than understanding verbal material (Kisser et al., 2012; Sanford, 2002; Sturt et al., 2004;).
Further, although non-native speakers tend to struggle more than natives in processing all the
information, and provide less accurate wayfinding performances (Sanford, 2002; Sturt et al.,
2004), the present study did not find no significant differences in accuracy between language
conditions. In the experiment, some native speakers had more difficulties with the text condition
than the map. Not surprisingly, the same happened to non-natives. Regardless of language
background, a visual map may work better for effective communication than a text. Therefore,
for better wayfinding communication it is necessary to consider cultural and language
differences.
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 41
Figure 16.
Example of Korean Map (Seoul)
Figure 17.
Example of U.S. Map (NYC)
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 42
Cognitive processing and spatial perspective. Significant interaction effects of
cognitive processing and spatial perspective were also found: under the map condition, people
with a survey perspective provided more cardinal terms than with those with a route perspective.
The results of the current study support those of Taylor and Tversky (1996), who suggested that
the survey perspective mentions more cardinal terms than the route perspective. People in the
present study also had significant differences in directions due to their spatial perspectives.
Under the route perspective, a map was better than a text on wayfinding accuracy. Padgitt and
Hund (2012) also supported this finding: participants made fewer errors with route perspective
directions than with survey directions. Note that when participants gave directions using a visual
map, 80% of participants adopted a route perspective. They also felt more confident and
conveyed information more precisely toward other people (Denis et al., 1999; Lowen et al.,
2017) This may indicate that participants may have more tendency to use a route perspective to
give clear directions for someone. Meanwhile, under the map condition, both the route and
survey perspectives on accuracy are statistically significant compared to text condition. Even
though the difference was larger in the route perspective, the survey perspective still showed
better accuracy under the map condition than under the text condition. This finding indicates that
people can flexibly adjust their perspective to a map to give accurate directions. Thus, regardless
of perspective, people could give accurate direction with a map. Additionally, under the route
perspective, the text provided more cardinal terms than the map. This indicated that cardinal
term usage may be differentiated depending on modality (map vs. text). Ward et al. (1986) found
participants included cardinal terms more when primed by the verbal instruction that verbally
noted the cardinal directions. Further, under the route perspective, the map included more
relative terms than the text did. These results support the findings conducted in previous studies
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 43
(e.g., Beckermann, 1995; Kemmerer, 2014). Previous researchers also found that under the route
perspective, participants included relative terms for a map more than they did for a text. A route
perspective usually adopts "a viewer's perspective," and includes more relative terms than a
survey perspective (e.g., Tversky & Taylor, 1996). This may indicate the interaction of map and
route perspectives could provide clearer and more precise directions than other conditions.
Furthermore, when participants had no specific detailed guideline (text) and used their own terms
(relative direction), they could give accurate directions for someone. This may indicate that when
people apply their own wayfinding structures, they find detours and paths more accurately than
when they are given detailed instruction. Thus, the combination of route and map showed better
interaction performance than the other four conditions, whereas the survey and map combination
presented less efficient performance than other conditions. From the results, the fourth
hypothesis was supported.
Implications
This thesis aimed to assess the quality of wayfinding performances using descriptive
features. From the results of the study, the researcher can imply that modality, perspective, and
language influence wayfinding direction. However, previous research mostly focused on one
factor such as how different spatial perspectives affect directions and how different modality
affects route learning (Hund et al., 2012; Levinson, 2003; Li et al., 2015). Previous research has
not compared several cognitive factors together in the same context. In this thesis, the researcher
compared several factors (e.g., route and map) and how the affected performance together.
Studying interactions between factors helps explain how to give better wayfinding directions and
facilitate wayfinding communication processes.
Furthermore, another goal of this study was to understand how language background
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 44
affects wayfinding directions. Previous wayfinding research has focused on cross-cultural or
gender comparisons (e.g., Lawton, 2012; Suzuki, 2013), but there was a lack of research
comparing native versus non-native English speakers. In this thesis, language background
(Native vs. non-native) and its interactive effects on wayfinding was one of the factors
investigated. This finding can apply to further research for developing new wayfinding tools. For
example, user experience (UX) designers can apply this information of how native and non-
native English speakers differ in the use of route and survey perspectives. This insight could be
fundamental for travelers across different cultures who need to use maps and GPS. According to
Kim and Kang (2017), some countries have developed and shared wayfinding software (e.g.,
Google map). However, these programs reflect more Western geographical information and
cannot be applied to non-Western countries. For instance, U.S. travelers who go to Korea might
find it challenging to locate places using an American GPS that is not adapted to Korean
geography (Ko & Kim, 2017). At the same time, if U.S. travelers try to ask directions from
Koreans using cardinal terms without a visual map, Koreans might find it difficult to provide
directions for Americans. With these findings, this study would tell how wayfinding
communication can be more productive and efficient for travelers.
Limitations
One limitation of the present study is the reliance on a visual map. The present study was
conducted with a two-dimensional (2D) design town map. The 2D visual map was shown
through a monitor, and participants typed their answers on computers. However, the town map
could not represent a relatively larger space such as a country. Moreover, even though the
researcher recruited participants who lived in different cultures, the structure of the map (e.g.,
name of streets and avenues) was Americanized (Hund et al., 2008), which makes it harder to
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 45
replicate the research to other cultures. Further wayfinding research should make a map that has
more universal structures.
Future Studies
With more universal maps, a future researcher can recruit more participants from various
places. For instance, the present study focused on people who speak English, and most
participants were from the United States and East Asia. However, it is important to know how
different first language users have different wayfinding description styles. Future studies can
involve a varied group such as residents in Latin America or Africa. This cross-cultural setting
will allow discovery of a variety of similarities and differences in spatial cognition and
wayfinding.
Conclusion
The present study suggested the effect of modality and spatial perspective on wayfinding
directions. Results showed that wayfinding accuracy and use of relative terms were better under
the map condition than under the text condition, but the use of cardinal terms was more
predominant under the text condition. On the other hand, when route and survey perspectives
were compared, more cardinal terms were used under the survey perspective than under the route
perspective. Furthermore, wayfinding accuracy and use of relative terms within the map was
better under the route perspective than under the survey perspective. Besides that, under the route
perspective, more cardinal terms were used with the text than with the map. Under the non-
native condition, people used more relative terms, but fewer cardinal terms were used under the
map condition than under the text condition. However, compared to non-natives, natives used
more cardinal terms with a text than with a map. Overall, the results suggest visual processing
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 46
may be the better choice than verbal processing for accuracy. Moreover, using relative terms
under a route perspective may be more supportive of conveying clearer wayfinding
communication than using cardinal terms under a survey perspective. These findings may
contribute to advanced direction-giving from a wayfinder. For instance, what kind of instructions
do they see? Which perspective do they take? Depending on their decision, the consequence of
wayfinding and its effectiveness (e.g., accuracy) can be differentiated. Knowing the
characteristics and interactions of each factor significantly promotes better wayfinding
communication and strategies. Lastly, it would be beneficial to conduct further research using
multiple kinds of maps. It would be important for future researchers to recruit more participants
from various regions to examine the differences in direction effectiveness for wayfinding of
individual ethnic groups.
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 47
References
Andonova, E., Tenbrink, T., Coventry, K. R. (2010). Function and context affect spatial informa
tion packaging at multiple levels. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(4), 575-580.
Bower G. H., Morrow D. C., (1990). Mental modules in narrative comprehension. Science
247:44-48.
Bloom, P., Peterson, M.A., Nadel, L., Garrett, M.F.: Language and space. The MIT Press,
Cambridge (1996).
Brown, T. M. (2016). Using light to tell the time of day: sensory coding in the mammalian circa
dian visual network. Journal of Experimental Biology, 219(12), 1779.
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.
Clark, H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement of individual differences
in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2),
125134.
Chrastil, E. R., & Warren, W. H. (2014). From cognitive maps to cognitive graphs. PLoS ONE,
9(11), 18. Davies, D., Bathurst, D., and Bathurst, R. (1990). The telling image. The
changing balance between pictures and words in a technological age, Clarendon Press
Oxford.
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, 145174
(1999).
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 48
Ehrenbrink, Patrick & Prezenski, Sabine. (2017). Causes of psychological reactance in human-
computer interaction a literature review and survey.
He, Q., McNamara, T.P. & Brown, T.I. Manipulating the visibility of barriers to improve spatial
navigation efficiency and cognitive mapping. Sci Rep 9, 11567 (2019).
Holmes, K. J., & Wolff, P. (2012). Does categorical perception in the left hemisphere depend on
language?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication.
Holmes, K.J., Moty, K. & Regier, T. (2017). Revisiting the role of language in spatial cognition:
Categorical perception of spatial relations in English and Korean speakers. Psych on Bull
Rev, 24, 20312036.
Hund, A. M., Haney, K. H., & Seanor, B. D. (2008). The role of recipient perspective in
giving and following wayfinding directions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, (7), 896.
Hund, A. M.,& Schmettow, M. & Noordzij, Matthijs. (2012). The impact of culture and recipient
perspective on direction giving in the service of wayfinding. Journal of Environmental
Psychology. 32. 327-336.
Ishikawa, T., & Montello, D. R. (2006). Spatial knowledge acquisition from direct experience in
the environment: Individual differences in the development of metric knowledge and the
integration of separately learned places. Cognitive Psychology, 52(2), 93129.
Kim, S., & Kang, Y. (2017). Development and validation of the way-finding ability scale for
middle-aged and older adults. Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders, 16.
Kisser, J. E., Wendell, C. R., Spencer, R. J., & Waldstein, S. R. (2012). Neuropsychological
Performance of Native versus Non-native English Speakers. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 27(7), 749755.
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 49
Ko, E., & Kim, E. Y. (2017). A vision-based wayfinding system for visually impaired people
using situation awareness and activity-based instructions. Sensors (Basel,
Switzerland), 17(8), 1882.
Ko-Januchta, M., Höffler, T., Thoma, G.-B., Prechtl, H., & Leutner, D. (2017). Visualizers ver
sus verbalizers: Effects of cognitive style on learning with texts and pictures An eye-
tracking study. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 170179.
Kosslyn, S. M. (2005). Mental images and the brain. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3-4), 333
347.
Kraemer, D. J., Schinazi, V. R., Cawkwell, P. B., Tekriwal, A., Epstein, R. A., & Thompson-
Schill, S. L. (2017). Verbalizing, visualizing, and navigating: The effect of strategies on
encoding a large-scale virtual environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(4), 611621.
Krukar, J., Anacta, V. J., & Schwering, A. (2020). The effect of orientation instructions on the
recall and reuse of route and survey elements in wayfinding descriptions. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 68.
Lawton, C.A. Sex Roles (1994) 30: 765.
Lawton, C. A. (1996). Strategies for indoor wayfinding: The role of orientation. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 16 (2), p. 137-145.
Lawton C. A., & Kallai, J. (2002). Gender differences in wayfinding strategies and anxiety about
wayfinding: A cross-cultural comparison. Sex Roles, 47(9-10), p. 389-401.
Leinson, S.C.: Frames of reference and Molneus question: Crosslinguistic eidence. In:
Bloom, P., Peterson, M.A., Nadel, L., Garrett, M.F. (eds.) Language and space,
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 50
pp. 109-169. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1996).
Levinson, S.C., Kita, S., Haun, D.B.M., Rasch, B.H. (2002). Returning the tables: Language
affects spatial reasoning. Cognition. 84. 155188.
Lev-Ari S. (2015). Comprehending non-native speakers: theory and evidence for adjustment in
manner of processing. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 1546.
Li, Yao & Brown, Michael & Pinchin, James & Blakey, John. (2015). Comparison of methods to
support in-hospital navigation: A pilot study in healthy volunteers.
Löwen, H., Krukar, J., & Schwering, A. (2019). Spatial Learning with Orientation Maps:
The Influence of Different Environmental Features on Spatial Knowledge Acquisition.
ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 8(3), 149.
MacEachren, A. M. (1992). Visualizing uncertain information. Cartographic Perspectives, (13),
10-19.
Majid, Asifa & Bowerman, M. & Kita, Sotaro & Haun, Daniel & Levinson, Stephen. (2004).
Can language restructure cognition? The case of space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
108-114.
Meneghetti C, Cardillo R, Mammarella IC, Caviola S, Borella E. The role of practice and
strategy in mental rotation training: transfer and maintenance effects. Psychol Res.
2017;81(2):415‐431.
Meilinger, T., & Knauff, M. (2008). Ask for directions or use a map: A field experiment on
spatial orientation and wayfinding in an urban environment. Journal of Spatial Science,
53 (2), p. 13-23.
Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice.
Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 5974.
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 51
Montello, D. R. (1998). A new framework for understanding the acquisition of spatial
knowledge in large-scale environments. In M. J. Egenhofer & R. G. Golledge (Eds.),
Spatial and temporal reasoning in geographic information systems (pp. 143154). New
York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
Montello D. R., & Sas, C. (2006). Human factors of wayfinding in navigation maintenance
effects. Psychological Research. 81.
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. M., & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Can language
restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 108114.
Padgitt, A. J., & Hund, A. M. (2012). How good are these directions? Determining direction
quality and wayfinding efficiency. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(2), 164
172.
Pardo, J. S., Urmanche, A., Gash, H., Wiener, J., Mason, N., Wilman, S., Francis, K., & Decker,
A. (2019). The montclair map task: Balance, efficacy, and efficiency in conversational
Interaction. Language & Speech, 62(2), 378398.
Pazzaglia, F., & Moè, A. (2013). Cognitive styles and mental rotation ability in map learning.
Cognitive Processing, 14(4), 391399.
Péruch, Patrick & Chabanne, Vanessa & Nesa, Marie-Pascale & Thinus-Blanc, Catherine &
Denis, Michel. (2006). Mental scanning of images constructed from visual experience or
verbal descriptions: The impact of survey versus route perspective. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology. 59. 1950-67.
Pyers, J. E., Perniss, P., & Emmorey, K. (2015). Viewpoint in the Visual-Spatial Modality: The
coordination of spatial perspective. Spatial cognition and computation, 15(3), 143169.
Robert S. Wyer Jr., Iris W. Hung, & Yuwei Jiang. (2008). Visual and verbal processing
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 52
strategies in comprehension and judgment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(4), 244.
Sanford, A. J., & Workshop on Pragmatics and Cognitive Science. (2002). Context, attention and
depth of processing during interpretation. Pragmatics and Cognitive Science, 17(12),
188206.
Schober M. F. (1993). Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition, 47(1), 124.
Schwering, A., Krukar, J., Li, R., Anacta, V. J., & Fuest, S. (2017). Wayfinding through
orientation. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 17(4), 273303.
Shabiralyani, G., Hasan, K. S., Hamad, N., & Iqbal, N. (2015). Impact of visual aids in
enhancing the learning process case research: District dera ghazi khan. Journal of
Education and Practice, 6(19), 226233.
Shelton, A. L., Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Neural correlates of encoding space from route and
survey perspectives. Journal of Neuroscience, 22, 2711-2717.
Shelton, A.L., McNamara, T.P. Spatial memory and perspective taking. Memory & Cognition
32, 416426 (2004)
Soroli, E. & Hickmann, M. (2009). Spatial cognition in french and in english: Some evidence
from eye-movements. International Conference Language and Space. Pisa.
Spiers, H. J., & Maguire, E. A. (2008). The dynamic nature of cognition during wayfinding.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28 (3), p. 232-249.
Suzuki, K. (2013). A cross-cultural comparison of human wayfinding behavior using maps and
written directions. Geographical Review of Japan Series B. 85. 7483.
Symonds, P., Brown, D. H. K., & Lo Iacono, V. (2017). Exploring an absent presence:
wayfinding as an embodied sociocultural experience. Sociological Research Online,
22(1), 4867.
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 53
Sturt, P., Sanford, A.J., Stewart, A. (2004) Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An
application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 882
888.
Talor, H. A., Tersk, B., (1992) Mental models, pictures and tet: integration of spatial and
erbal information. S. I.; 1991-05-02). Descriptions and depictions of environments.
Memory & Cognition, (5), 483.
Taylor, H. A. & Tversky, B., (1996). Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and
Language. 35. 371-391.
Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74,
209-253.
Thorndyke, P. W., & Hayes-Roth, B. (1982). Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from
maps and navigation. Cognitive Psychology, 14(4), 560589.
Tversky, A., Gati, I.: Studies of similarity. In: Lloyd, E., Rosch, B.B. (eds.) Cognition and
Categorization, pp. 7998. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ (1978).
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 54
Appendices
Appendix A.
Verbal Instruction(Text)
[Survey Perspective 1]
One of the largest food markets in the town is held each year. This food market map represents
the locations where each food is sold.
The district consists of nine rectangular blocks of foods sold at the market.
There are six different blocks in the district.
This district contains three different avenues running North to South.
From West to East, they are Second Avenue, Third Avenue, and Parkway Avenue.
There are four different streets running East to West.
From North to South, they are Church Street, New Street, Ridgefield Street and River Street.
In the most Northwest block between New Street and Second Avenue, there is bacon.
Moving South, there is a salad in the next block.
In the most Southwest block between Second avenue and Ridgefield street, there is a chicken.
Moving East, there is a burger in the next block.
In the most Southeast block between Third Avenue and Ridgefield Street, there is a steak.
Moving North, there is a lobster in the next block.
In the most Northeast block between Third Avenue and New Street, there is bread.
Moving West, there is a cake in the next block.
In the Southeast block between Third Avenue and Ridgefield Street, there is a donut.
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 55
[Survey Perspective 2]
Starting from the Southwest corner, begin moving towards the East side of the market on River
Street.
As it continues on River Street, go up North onto Second Avenue.
There will be chicken on the West and the burger on the East.
At the intersection, head East onto Ridgefield Street.
A Little farther along Ridgefield Street, there is a donut on the North.
At the intersection of Ridgefield Street and Third Avenue, there is a steak on the Southeast.
Next, head North onto Third Avenue. There is a lobster in the East.
At the intersection of Third Avenue and New Street, head North.
After that, there is bread in the Northeast.
At the intersection of Church street and Third Avenue, head West.
There is a cake in the South.
Head South onto Second avenue.
Then head West onto New Street.
A Little farther along New Street, there is a salad to the South and bacon to the North.
APPENDIX B.
Coding Instruction and Dependent Variables
DV
Measures
Cardinal terms
North, South, East, West
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 56
Relative terms
Left, right, go straight, turn, or other relative
terms relevant to first-person perspective.
Accuracy
If a participant gave the right answer, a coder
gave the score '10'
If a participant got to the wrong destination,
but it's still on the same side of the right path, a coder
gave the score '8'
If a participant got to the wrong destination,
but it's on the wrong side of the right path, a coder
gave the score '6'
If a participant got to the wrong destination,
and it's more than two blocks away in any direction
without regard to the right path, a coder gave the
score '4'
If a participant completely missed, a coder
gave the score .
Landmarks
Mentioned Specific objects (e.g., name of vegetables or
foods)
APPENDIX C.
English Proficiency Test
For Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4: if a participant selects Neer, the ill be screened out. For Q5, the
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 57
anser is A ; if a participant selects B, C, or D, the ill be screened out.
Q1. How many English classes did you take in your high school?
Neer
Please specif
I graduated from high school in an English speaking countr(e.g., United States, Canada)
I graduated from international school in a non-English speaking country(e.g., China, Thailand)
Q2. How many English classes did you take in your high school?
Neer
Please specif
I attend or graduated from college/uniersit in an English speaking countr(e.g., United
States, Canada)
I attend or graduated from college/uniersit in a non-English speaking country, but most of
the courses offered during regular semesters were lectured in English.
Q3.How many times do you use English per week?For example, having conversations with
English, taking English lessons, writing essays in English, or reading English
books/journals.
Neer
Please specif
I alas use English in m dail life.
Q4.Did you take any official English test before?For example, TOEIC, TOEFL, IELTS,
GRE verbal, TOEIC Speaking or OPIC. If it's applicable, please type the name of the test
and your score here.
Neer
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 58
Please specif
I did not take an official test but English is m mother language.
I did not take an official test but I graduated schools from English speaking countries(e.g.,
United States, Canada)
Q5.Please look at the map and play the audio file below. Then, choose the answer. Now,
you will hear the listening script the direction, and solve the question; you will look at the
graphic above while listening to the script, then decide which option, labeled A, B, C, or D
in the graphic, is correct and mark it on the answer document. Please look at the map and
play the audio file below. Then, choose the answer.
Question: Where will you work on your group science project tomorrow?
Audio script (dictated only)
Listen to the phone message from your classmate from school. Hi, this is Julie. I hope you got
the science books from the librar. Lets meet at 2:00 oclock tomorro at m house and then
alk oer to Samshis house is at the corner of Sunset and River Road. We can finish our
project on reccling there. Dont forgetee got to turn in all our ork to Mr. Thomas at
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 59
school next Thursday.
Answer options: A, B, C, D (Correct answer is A)
Appendix D.
Natie speakers mean, SE, and range (CI 95% lower-upper bound) frequency of mention of
descriptive features during eight trials for each perspective. (Standard error is listed in
parenthesis)
Native Speakers
DV
Map
Text
Route
Survey
Route
Survey
Accuracy
Mean(SE)
9.05(0.68)
8.63(0.68)
6.88(0.68)
7.38(0.68)
Range
7.69-10.00
7.28-9.98
5.53-8.23
6.30-8.73
Cardinal terms
Mean(SE)
1.24(0.34)
2.57(0.34)
2.86(0.34)
3.36(0.34)
Range
0.56-1.91
1.89-3.24
2.19-3.54
2.69-4.04
Relative terms
Mean(SE)
4.06(0.42)
3.14(0.42)
3.23(0.42)
2.85(0.42)
Range
3.22-4.90
2.31-3.98
2.39-4.06
2.01-3.69
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 60
Landmarks
Mean(SE)
1.80(0.27)
1.98(0.27)
2.09(0.27)
2.28(0.27)
Range
1.26-2.33
1.45-2.52
1.55-2.62
1.74-2.81
Note. Mean(SE); Range= 95% CI; lower-upper bound
Appendix E.
Non-natie speakers mean, SE, and range(CI 95% loer-upper bound) frequency of mention of
descriptive features during eight trials for each perspective. (Standard error is listed in
parenthesis)
Non-Native Speakers
DV
Map
Text
Route
Survey
Route
Survey
Accuracy
Mean(SE)
9.14(0.69)
8.57(0.69)
5.27(0.69)
6.92(0.69)
Range
7.77-10.00
7.21-9.93
3.90-6.63
5.55-8.28
Cardinal terms
Mean(SE)
1.53(0.35)
2.45(0.35)
1.79(0.35)
2.07(0.35)
Range
0.85-2.21
1.67-3.04
1.11-2.47
1.39-2.75
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 61
Relative terms
Mean(SE)
5.06(0.43)
4.00(0.43)
2.34(0.43)
3.13(0.43)
Range
4.22-5.91
3.15-4.84
1.50-3.19
2.28-3.97
Landmarks
Mean(SE)
2.14(0.27)
1.57(0.27)
1.09(0.27)
1.44(0.27)
Range
1.60-2.68
1.03-2.11
0.55-1.63
0.90-1.98
Note. Mean(SE); Range= 95% CI; lower-upper bound
Appendix F.
Table of Descriptive Statistics
Source(df)
F
p
Accuracy
CP (1,45)
26.33
<.001 ***
0.10
SP (1,45)
0.93
0.34
0.00
Language (1,45)
0.48
0.49
0.01
CP * Language (1,45)
1.46
0.23
0.01
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 62
SP * Language (1,45)
0.68
0.41
0.00
CP * SP (1,45)
5.67
0.02 *
0.01
CP * SP * Language (1,45)
0.98
0.33
0.00
Cardinal terms
CP (1,45)
4.94
0.03 *
0.03
SP (1,45)
17.15
<.001 ***
0.04
Language (1,45)
3.04
0.09
0.06
CP * Language (1,45)
5.12
0.03 *
0.03
SP * Language (1,45)
1.04`
0.31
0.00
CP * SP (1,45)
4.83
0.03 *
0.01
CP * SP * Language (1,45)
0.21
0.65
0.00
Relative terms
CP (1,45)
15.45
<.001 ***
0.07
SP (1,45)
2.93
0.09
0.01
Language (1,45)
0.55
0.46
0.01
CP * Language (1,45)
4.22
0.05 *
0.02
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 63
SP * Language (1,45)
1.20
0.28
0.00
CP * SP (1,45)
8.74
0.00 **
0.02
CP * SP * Language (1,45)
2.61
0.11
0.01
Landmarks
CP (1,45)
0.68
0.42
0.00
SP (1,45)
0.19
0.67
0.00
Language (1,45)
2.37
0.13
0.05
CP * Language (1,45)
5.99
0.02 *
0.03
SP * Language (1,45)
2.65
0.11
0.00
CP * SP (1,45)
5.16
0.03 *
0.01
CP * SP * Language (1,45)
5.16
0.03 *
0.01
Note. CP: Cognitive processing, SP: Spatial cognition; *: p 0.05, **: p 0.01, ***: p 0.001
Appendix G.
Example of Paicia Ae (Ma-Route Condition)
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 64
Appendix H.
Eae f Paicia Ae (Ma-Survey Condition)
Appendix I.
Eae f Paicia Ae (Te-Route Condition)
Appendix J.
Eae f Paicia Ae (Te-Survey Condition)
WAYFINDING AND SPATIAL COGNITION 65
