This article focuses on the interactions between individual differences and building characteristics that may occur during multilevel wayfinding. Using the Seattle Central Library as our test case, we defined a series of within-floor and between-floor wayfinding tasks based on different building analyses of this uniquely designed structure. Tracking our 59 participants while they completed assigned tasks on-site, we examined their wayfinding performance across tasks and in relation to a variety of individual differences measures and wayfinding strategies. Both individual differences and spatial configuration, as well as the organization of the physical space, were related to the wayfinding challenges inherent to this library. We also found wayfinding differences based on other, nonspatial features, such as semantic expectations about destinations. Together, these results indicate that researchers and building planners must consider the interactions among building, human, and task characteristics in a more nuanced fashion.
AllenG. L. (1999). Spatial abilities, cognitive maps, and wayfinding. In GolledgeR. G. (Ed.), Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes (pp. 46-80). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
2.
AllenG. L.KirasicK. C.DobsonS. H.LongR. G.BeckS. (1996). Predicting environmental learning from spatial abilities: An indirect route. Intelligence, 22, 327-355. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(96)90026-4
ArthurP.PassiniR. (1992). Wayfinding: People, signs, and architecture. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book.
5.
BafnaS. (2003). Space syntax: A brief introduction to its logic and analytical techniques. Environment and Behavior, 35, 17-29. doi:10.1177/0013916502238863
6.
BarkerR. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
7.
BaskayaA.WilsonC.ÖzcanY. Z. (2004). Wayfinding in an unfamiliar environment different spatial settings of two polyclinics. Environment and Behavior, 36, 839-867. doi:10.1177/0013916504265445
BenediktM. L. (1979). To take hold of space: Isovists and isovist fields. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 6, 47-65. doi:10.1068/b060047
12.
BenediktM. L.BurnhamC. A. (1985). Perceiving architectural space: From optic arrays to isovists. In WarrenW. H.ShawR. E. (Eds.), Persistence and change: Proceedings of the first international conference on event perception (pp. 103-114). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
BüchnerS. (2010). Environmental structure, mental representations and path choice heuristics—Information processing in wayfinding (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Freiburg, Germany.
14.
BurgessN. E.JefferyK. J.O’KeefeJ. E. (1999). The hippocampal and parietal foundations of spatial cognition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
15.
CanterD. (1977). The psychology of place. New York, NY: St. Martin Press.
16.
CarlsonL. A.HölscherC.ShipleyT. F.DaltonR. C. (2010). Getting lost in buildings. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 284-289. doi:10.1177/0963721410383243
17.
ChangD. (1998). Integrated multi-floor circulation systems in dense urban areas: The effects of complex spatial designs on multi floor pedestrian movement (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of London, UK.
DaltonR. C.HölscherC. (2016). Take one building: Interdisciplinary research perspectives of the Seattle Central Library. New York: Routledge.
20.
DaltonN.DaltonR. C.HölscherC. (2015). People watcher: An app to record and analyzing spatial behavior of ubiquitous interaction technologies. In GehringA.KrügerA.AltF.TaylorN. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Pervasive Displays (pp. 1-6). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/2757710.2757714
21.
DaltonR. C.KuligaS.HölscherC. (2013). POE 2.0: Exploring the potential of social media for capturing unsolicited post occupancy evaluations. Intelligent Buildings International, 5, 162-180. doi:10.1080/17508975.2013.800813
22.
Dara-AbramsD. (2006). Ground truthing space syntax. In RichterK. F.RüetschiU. J. (Eds.), The cognitive approach to modeling environments (Report series of the transregional collaborative research center SFB/TR 8 “Spatial Cognition” Report No. 009-08/2006, pp. 23-28). Bremen, Germany: Universität Bremen.
23.
DoguU.ErkipF. (2000). Spatial factors affecting wayfinding and orientation: A case study in a shopping mall. Environment and Behavior, 32, 731-755. doi:10.1177/00139160021972775
24.
DoveyK. (2017). One way street. In DaltonR. C.HölscherC. (Eds.), Take one building: Interdisciplinary research perspectives of the Seattle Central Library (pp. 53-66). New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
DownsR. M.SteaD. (2011). Cognitive maps and spatial behavior: Process and products. In DodgeM.KitchinR.PerkinsC. (Eds.), The map reader: Theories of mapping practice and cartographic representation (pp. 312-317). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470979587.ch41
26.
EatonG. (1991). Wayfinding in the library: Book searches and route uncertainty. Reference Quarterly, 30, 519-527. doi:10.2307/25828878
27.
EvansG. W. (1980). Environmental cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 259-287. doi:10.1006/jevp.1998.0089
28.
FerréA.HwangI.KuboM.PratR.SakamotoT.SalazarJ.TetasA. (2004). Verb architecture boogazine: Connection. The changing status of the city, of architecture, of urbanism. The generation of activity, physically linking programs, people, and uses. Barcelona, Spain: Actar.
29.
FieldsA. W.SheltonA. L. (2006). Individual skill differences and large-scale environmental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 506-515. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.506
30.
FisherK. E.SaxtonM. L.EdwardsP. M.MaiJ.-E. (2007). Seattle Public Library as a place: Reconceptualizing space, community, and information at the Central Library. In BuschmanJ. E.LeckieG. J. (Eds.), The library as place: History, community, and culture (pp. 135-160). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
31.
FrankensteinJ. (2015). Human spatial representations and spatial memory retrieval (Doctoral dissertation, Diss. ETH No. 22980). ETH Zürich, Switzerland. doi:10.3929/ethz-a-010608257
32.
GärlingT.LindbergE.MäntyläT. (1983). Orientation in buildings: Effects of familiarity, visual access, and orientation aids. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 177-186. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.68.1.177
33.
GolledgeR. G. (1999). Human wayfinding and cognitive maps. In GolledgeR. G. (Ed.), Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes (pp. 5-45). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
34.
GriceH. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In ColeP.MorganJ. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
35.
HaqS.ZimringC. (2003). Just down the road a piece: The development of topological knowledge of building layouts. Environment and Behavior, 35, 132-160. doi:10.1177/0013916502238868
36.
HartleyT.MaguireE. A.SpiersH. J.BurgessN. (2003). The well-worn route and the path less traveled: Distinct neural bases of route following and wayfinding in humans. Neuron, 37, 877-888. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00095-3
37.
HegartyM.MontelloD. R.RichardsonA. E.IshikawaT.LovelaceK. (2006). Spatial abilities at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial layout learning. Intelligence, 34, 151-176. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.09.005
38.
HegartyM.RichardsonA. E.MontelloD. R.LovelaceK.SubbiahI. (2002). Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability. Intelligence, 30, 425-447. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00116-2
39.
HegartyM.WallerD. (2004). A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence, 32, 175-191. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2003.12.001
40.
HillierB.BurdettR.PeponisJ.PennA. (1987). Creating life: Or, does architecture determine anything?Architecture and Behaviour, 3, 233-250.
41.
HillierB.HansonJ. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511597237
42.
HochmairH.KarlssonV. (2005). Investigation of preference between the least-angle strategy and the initial segment strategy for route selection in unknown environments. In FreksaC.KnauffM.Krieg-BruecknerB.NebelB.BarkowskyT. (Eds.), Spatial cognition IV: Reasoning, action, interaction (pp. 79-97). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
43.
HölscherC.BrösamleM.VrachliotisG. (2012). Challenges in multilevel wayfinding: A case study with the space syntax technique. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 39, 63-82. doi:10.1068/b34050t
44.
HölscherC.BüchnerS. J.MeilingerT.StrubeG. (2009). Adaptivity of wayfinding strategies in a multi-building ensemble: The effects of spatial structure, task requirements, and metric information. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 208-219. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.010
45.
HölscherC.MeilingerT.VrachliotisG.BrösamleM.KnauffM. (2006). Up the down staircase: Wayfinding strategies in multi-floor buildings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 284-299. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.09.002
46.
HölscherC.TenbrinkT.WienerJ. M. (2011). Would you follow your own route description? Cognitive strategies in urban route planning. Cognition, 121, 228-247. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.005
47.
HundA. M.MinarikJ. L. (2006). Getting from here to there: Spatial anxiety, wayfinding strategies, direction type, and wayfinding efficiency. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 6, 179-201. doi:10.1207/s15427633scc0603_1
48.
JefferyK. J.JovalekicA.VerriotisM.HaymanR. (2013). Navigating in a three-dimensional world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 523-543. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12002476
49.
KitchinR. M. (1994). Cognitive maps: What are they and why study them. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 1-19. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80194-X
50.
Koolhaas, Prince-Ramus, Office of Metropolitan Architects, & Loschky, Marquardt, and Nesholm Architects. (2004). Seattle Central Library. Seattle, WA.
51.
KozhevnikovM.HegartyM. (2001). A dissociation between object manipulation spatial ability and spatial orientation ability. Memory & Cognition, 29, 745-756. doi:10.3758/BF03200477
52.
KozhevnikovM.MotesM. A.RaschB.BlajenkovaO. (2006). Perspective-taking vs. mental rotation transformations and how they predict spatial navigation performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 397-417. doi:10.1002/acp.1192
53.
KozlowskiL. T.BryantK. J. (1977). Sense of direction, spatial orientation, and cognitive maps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 590-598. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.3.4.590
54.
KuboM.PrattR. (2005). Seattle Public Library OMA/LMN. Barcelona, Spain: Actar.
55.
KuipersB.TecuciD. G.StankiewiczB. J. (2003). The skeleton in the cognitive map: A computational and empirical exploration. Environment and Behavior, 35, 81-106. doi:10.1177/0013916502238866
56.
KuligaS.DaltonR. C.HölscherC. (2013). Aesthetic and emotional appraisal of the Seattle Public Library and its relation to spatial configuration. In KimY. O.ParkH. T.SeoK. W. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth international space syntax symposium (pp. 1-17). Seoul: Sejong University.
LawtonC. A. (1994). Gender differences in way-finding strategies: Relationship to spatial ability and spatial anxiety. Sex Roles, 30, 765-779. doi:10.1006/jevp.1996.0011
59.
LiR.KlippelA. (2012). Wayfinding in libraries: Can problems be predicted?Journal of Map & Geography Libraries, 8, 21-38. doi:10.1080/15420353.2011.622456
60.
LiR.KlippelA. (2016). Wayfinding behaviors in complex buildings: The impact of environmental legibility and familiarity. Environment and Behavior, 48, 482-510. doi:10.1177/0013916514550243
61.
LuY.YeY. (2019). Can people memorize multilevel building as volumetric map? A study of multilevel atrium building. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46, 225-242. doi:10.1177/2399808317705659
62.
MandelL. H. (2017). Wayfinding research in library and information studies: State of the field. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 12, 133-148. doi:10.18438/B8395P
MatternS. (2007). Resonant texts: Sounds of the American public library. Senses & Society, 2, 277-302. doi:10.2752/174589307X233521
65.
MauB. (2005). Life style. London, England: Phaidon Press.
66.
MavridouM. (2012). Perception of architectural and urban scale in an immersive virtual environment. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 39, 33-47. doi:10.1068/b34049
67.
MeneghettiC.PazzagliaF.De BeniR. (2011). Spatial mental representations derived from survey and route descriptions: When individuals prefer extrinsic frame of reference. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 150-157. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.12.003
68.
MontelloD. R. (2005). Navigation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
69.
MontelloD. R. (2014). Spatial cognition and architectural space: Research perspectives. Architectural Design, 84(5), 74-79. doi:10.1002/9781119162124.ch9
NardiD.NewcombeN. S.ShipleyT. F. (2011). The world is not flat: Can people reorient using slope?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 37, 354-367. doi:10.1037/a0021614
74.
NotheggerC.WinterS.RaubalM. (2004). Selection of salient features for route directions. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 4, 113-136. doi:10.1207/s15427633scc0402_1
75.
O’KeefeJ.NadelL. (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
76.
O’NeillM. J. (1991). Effects of signage and floor plan configuration on wayfinding accuracy. Environment and Behavior, 23, 553-574. doi:10.1177/0013916591235002
77.
PazzagliaF.CornoldiC.De BeniR. (2000). Differenze individuali nella rappresentazione dello spazio e nell’abilità di orientamento: Presentazione di un questionario autovalutativo [Individual differences in spatial representation and in orientation ability: Presentation of a self-report questionnaire]. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 27, 627-620. doi:10.1421/310
78.
PazzagliaF.De BeniR. (2001). Strategies of processing spatial information in survey and landmark-centred individuals. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13, 493-508. doi:10.1080/09541440125778
79.
PennA. (2003). Space syntax and spatial cognition: Or why the axial line?Environment and Behavior, 35, 30-65. doi:10.1177/0013916502238864
80.
PeponisJ.ZimringC.ChoiY. K. (1990). Finding the building in wayfinding. Environment and Behavior, 22, 555-590. doi:10.1177/0013916590225001
81.
PlankC.ZischF. (2017). Discovering serendip: Eye-tracking experiments in the Seattle Central Library as the beginning of a research adventure. In DaltonR. C.HölscherC. (Eds.), Take one building: Interdisciplinary research perspectives of the Seattle Central Library (pp. 188-202). New York, NY: Routledge.
PressonC. C.MontelloD. R. (1988). Points of reference in spatial cognition: Stalking the elusive landmark. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6, 378-381. doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.1988.tb01113.x
84.
RuddleR.PayneS. J.JonesD. M. (1997). Navigating buildings in “desk-top” virtual environments: Experimental investigations using extended navigational experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 143-159. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.3.2.143
85.
SeamonD. (2017). A phenomenological and hermeneutic reading of Rem Koolhaas’s Seattle Central Library: Buildings as lifeworlds and architectural texts. In DaltonR. C.HölscherC. (Eds.), Take one building: Interdisciplinary research perspectives of the Seattle Central Library (pp. 67-94). New York, NY: Routledge.
86.
SheltonA. L.GabrieliJ. D. (2004). Neural correlates of individual differences in spatial learning strategies. Neuropsychology, 18, 442-449. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.18.3.442
87.
SheltonA. L.ZacksJ. M. (2015). Spatial transformations of scene stimuli: It’s an upright world. In GeroJ. S. (Ed.), Studying visual and spatial reasoning for design creativity (pp. 245-266). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
88.
SoedaM.KushiyamaN.OhnoR. (1997). Wayfinding in cases with vertical motion. In Proceedings of MERA 97: International Conference on Environment-Behavior Studies (pp. 559-564).
SteckS. D.MallotH. A. (2000). The role of global and local landmarks in virtual environment navigation. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9(1), 69-83. doi:10.1162/105474600566628
91.
TellevikJ. (1992). Influence of spatial exploration patterns of cognitive mapping by blindfolded sighted persons. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 86, 221-224.
92.
TlaukaM.WilsonP. N.AdamsM.SouterC.YoungA. H. (2007). An investigation into vertical bias effects. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 7, 365-391. doi:10.1080/13875860701684138
93.
TolmanE. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 55, 189-208. doi:10.1037/h0061626
94.
TurnerA.DoxaM.O’SullivanD.PennA. (2001). From isovists to visibility graphs: A methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29, 103-121. doi:10.1068/b2684
95.
TurnerA.PennA. (1999). Making isovists syntactic: Isovist integration analysis. In HolandaF. (Ed.), Second international symposium on space syntax (pp. 1-9). Brasilia, Brazil. Retrieved from http://cvcl.mit.edu/SUNSeminar/Turner_isovist_space_99.pdf
96.
TverskyB. (1993). Cognitive maps, cognitive collages, and spatial mental models. In FrankA. U.KuhnW. (Eds.), Spatial information theory: A theoretical basis for GIS (pp. 14-24). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
97.
VandenbergS. G.KuseA. R. (1978). Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 599-604. doi:10.2466/pms.1978.47.2.599
98.
WangW. (2017). Epilogue: Drawing together multiple perspectives of the Seattle Central Library. In DaltonR. C.HölscherC. (Eds.), Take one building: Interdisciplinary research perspectives of the Seattle Central Library (pp. 203-209). New York, NY: Routledge.
99.
WeismanJ. (1981). Evaluating architectural legibility way-finding in the built environment. Environment and Behavior, 13, 189-204. doi:10.1177/0013916581132004
100.
WienerJ. M.SchneeA.MallotH. A. (2004). Use and interaction of navigation strategies in regionalized environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 475-493. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.09.006
101.
WilsonP.ForemanN.StantonD.DuffyH. (2004). Memory for targets in a multilevel simulated environment: Evidence for vertical asymmetry in spatial memory. Memory & Cognition, 32, 283-297. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03196859
102.
WolbersT.HegartyM. (2010). What determines our navigational abilities?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 138-146. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.01.001
103.
YanevaA. (2009). Made by the Office for Metropolitan Architecture: An ethnography of design. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: nai010.
104.
ZacksJ. M.MichelonP. (2005). Transformations of visuospatial images. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 4, 96-118. doi:10.1177/1534582305281085
105.
ZhangL.ChiradiaA.ZhuangY. (2013). In the intelligibility maze of space syntax: A space syntax analysis of toy models, mazes and labyrinths. In KimY. O.ParkH. T.SeoK. W. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth international space syntax symposium (pp. 1-18). Seoul, South Korea: Sejong University.
106.
ZookJ. B.BafnaS. (2012). Imaginative content and building form in the Seattle Central Public library. In GreeneM.ReyesJ.CastroA. (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international space syntax symposium (pp. 1-24). Santiago: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
