This study aimed to explore how a three-dimensional (3D) map affects the acquisition of survey knowledge in complex virtual environments (VEs). Subject navigated in virtual and real subway stations, where the virtual station was augmented with either a 3D floor map, a 3D building map, or neither. After subject's navigation in the station, they made the judgment of spatial relative directions between objects. The analyses of response time showed that participants responded faster when they were assisted by the 3D floor or building map than without a map aid in virtual stations. There was no significant difference between survey knowledge acquired in the virtual station augmented with the 3D floor or building map and in the real station. Participants with the 3D floor map performed best in spatial judgments. Implications of these findings to a 3D map design were discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FooP.DuchonA.WarrenW. H. J.TarrM. J. (2007) Humans do not switch between path knowledge and landmarks when learning a new environment. Psychological Research, 71, 240–251.
2.
FontaineS. (2001) Spatial cognition and the processing of verticality in underground environments. Proc. of the international conference on spatial information theory: Foundations of geographic information science (COSIT′2001).
3.
HaqS.ZimringC. (2003) Just down the road a piece: The development of topological knowledge of building layouts. Environment and Behavior, 35(1)132–160.
4.
HölscherC.BüchnerS. J.MeilingerT.StrubeG. (2007). Map use and wayfinding strategies in a multi-building ensemble. Spatial Cognition V: Reasoning, Action, Interaction. Heidelberg: Springer.
5.
KohG.v. WiegandT. E.GarnettR. L.DurlachM. I.Shinn-CunninghamB. (1999) Use of virtual environments for acquiring configurational knowledge about specific real-world spaces: 1. Preliminary experiment. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(6), 632–656.
6.
LuoZ.Q.DuhH. B. L. (2009) Effects of Perspective Elevation and Environmental Geometry on Representation of a Virtual Room. Virtual Reality.13, 127–35.
7.
MoeserS. D.Cognitive mapping in a complex building. Environment and Behavior, 20, (1988), 21–49.
8.
OlmosO.WickensC. D.Chudy, (2000) A. Tactical displays for combat awareness: An examination of dimensionality and frame of reference concepts and the application of cognitive engineering. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10(3), 247–271.
9.
PassiniR.Wayfinding in architecture.Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. (1984).
10.
RichardsonA. E.MontelloD. R.HegartyM. (1999) Spatial knowledge acquisition from maps and from navigation in real and virtual environments. Memory & Cognition, 27(4), 741–750.
11.
RuddleR.PayneS.JonesD. (1999) The effects of maps on navigation and search strategies in very-large-scale virtual environments, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5(1), 54–75.
12.
SheltonA. L.McNamaraT. P. (2004) Orientation and perspective dependence in route and survey learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(1)158–170.
13.
SovranoV. A.VallortigaraG. (2006) Dissecting the geometric module: A sense linkage for metric and landmark information in animals' spatial reorientation. Psychological Science17, 616–621.
14.
St. JohnM.CowenM. B.SmallmanH. S.OonkH. M. (2001) The use of 2D and 3D displays for shape-understanding versus relative-position tasks. Human Factors, 43, 179–98.
15.
ThorndykeP. W.Hayes-RothB. (1982) Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 560–589.
16.
WallerD.KnappD.HuntE. (2001) Spatial representations of virtual mazes: The role of visual fidelity and individual difference. Human Factors, 43 (1), 147–158.
17.
WeismanJ. (1981) Evaluating architectural legibility. Environment and Behavior, 13, 189–204.
18.
WickensC. D.VincowM.YehM. (2005) Design application of visual spatial thinking: The importance of frame of reference. In ShahP.MiyakeA. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking. Cambridge University Press, 383–425.
19.
WilsonP. N.ForemanN.StantonD.DuffyH. (2004a) Memory for targets in a multilevel simulated environment: Evidence for vertical asymmetry in spatial memory. Memory & Cognition, 32(2), 283–297.
20.
WilsonP. N.ForemanN.StantonD.DuffyH. (2004b) Memory for targets in a multi-level simulated-environment: A comparison between able-bodied and physically disabled children. British Journal of Psychology, 95(3), 325–338.
21.
WitmerB. G.SadowskiW. J.FinkelsteinN. M. (2002) VE-based training strategies for acquiring survey knowledge. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11, 11–18.
