The Experts below are selected from a list of 20547 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Florian Roser - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Finding the Return Path: Landmark Position Effects and the Influence of Perspective.
Frontiers in psychology, 2016Co-Authors: Harun Karimpur, Florian Roser, Kai HamburgerAbstract:Much research has been done on how people find their way from one place to another. Compared to that, there is less research available on how people find back from the destination to their origin. We first present theoretical approaches to perceptual and cognitive processes involved in finding a Return Path, including concepts such as visibility, structural salience and allocentric versus egocentric perspective, followed by a series of three experiments. In these experiments, we presented subjects intersections that contained landmark information on different positions. In order to investigate the processes involved, we used different measures such as route-continuation (in learning direction and in opposite direction) and free-recall of route information. In summary, the results demonstrate the importance of landmark positions at intersections (structural salience in combination with perspective) and that finding the Return Path is more difficult than reproducing the same route from the learning condition. All findings will be discussed with respect to the current research literature on landmark-based wayfinding.
-
CogSci - Finding the Return Path: allo- versus egocentric perspective.
Cognitive Science, 2015Co-Authors: Kai Hamburger, Florian RoserAbstract:In a series of two experiments we investigated the influence of an allocentric and egocentric perspective on landmarkbased wayfinding and finding the according Return Path. Participants had to learn a route consisting of twelve intersections with four different verbal landmarks at each intersection. They were asked to memorize at least one of the landmarks for providing a route description after the learning phase, either in the learning direction (initial Path) or in the opposite direction (Return Path). In the allocentric experiment, a clear preference and higher performance was demonstrated for landmarks located at the position before the intersection and in the direction of turn, while in the egocentric perspective landmarks in the direction of turn were better remembered and used more frequently, independent of the position before or behind the intersection. These results will be discussed with respect to current research on structural salience in landmark-based wayfinding.
-
CogSci - The influence of structural salience and verbalisation on finding the Return Path
2014Co-Authors: Thomas Hinterecker, Florian Roser, Marianne Strickrodt, Kai HamburgerAbstract:The influence of structural salience and verbalisation on finding the Return Path Thomas Hinterecker (thomas.hinterecker@psychol.uni-giessen.de ) Marianne Strickrodt (marianne.strickrodt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Florian Roser (florian.roeser@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Kai Hamburger (kai.hamburger@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Justus Liebig University Giessen, Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Science Otto-Behaghel-Strasse 10 F 35394 Giessen, Germany Abstract gation (e.g., buildings) which stick out of their environment (e.g., Lynch, 1960; Presson & Montello, 1988; Caduff & Timpf, 2008; Hamburger & Knauff, 2011). Now let us as- sume that with the help of such a verbal route description we successfully reached our goal (here, point of interest). In many cases, like in our hotel scenario, we want to get back to where we came from. This confronts us with a new prob- lem: We have to find our way back. To manage this task the probably easiest way would be to retrace the initial Path and therefore use the same landmarks provided in the initial route description. One question of interest is now: Are cer- tain landmarks and landmark positions more suitable than others for finding the Return Path? Several theories of landmark suitability have been sug- gested (e.g., Klippel & Winter, 2005; Caduff & Timpf, 2008; Roser, Krumnack, Hamburger, & Knauff, 2012). One important term in this context is landmark salience, which is often described as a pop-out effect or how much an object stands out from its immediate surroundings. Klippel and Winter (2005) differentiate between three forms of land- mark salience based on the assumptions by Sorrows and Hirtle (1999). These are visual (how much an object stands out from its surroundings, referring to colour, size, shape, etc.; Caduff & Timpf, 2008; Hamburger & Knauff, 2011), semantic or cognitive (knowledge-related features of a landmark like its meaning, function and name; Caduff & Timpf, 2008; Hamburger & Knauff, 2011), and structural salience (e.g., the location of a landmark at an intersection; Klippel & Winter, 2005). As we assumed in our previous work, the structural salience might be the most important of these three kinds of saliencies for finding the Return Path (Hamburger et al., 2013). Therefore, in the current study we try to control for the visual and semantic saliences. At a prototypical cross intersection four landmark posi- tions –the four corners of the intersection– are possible (Roser, Krumnack, & Hamburger, 2013). Since the direction of turn seems to play a critical role for choosing landmarks (e.g., Roser, Hamburger, Krumnack, & Knauff, 2012), posi- tions may be defined in dependence of the direction of turn: behind the intersection opposite to the direction of turn (A), behind the intersection in direction of turn (B), before the intersection opposite to the direction of turn (C), and before the intersection in direction of turn (D) (Hamburger et al., Are some landmark positions at intersections better for find- ing a Return Path than others? This study investigated whether there is a variation in the influence of a landmark on perfor- mance and decision times when finding a Return Path depend- ing on its position at an intersection. A variation of this influ- ence is expected depending on the type of verbalisation of spatial directions used. First, participants learned a Path either with direction specific (turn left at or turn right at) or direc- tion unspecific material (turn into direction of or turn in the opposite direction of). In this Path the positions of the land- marks were varied systematically. Secondly, participants had to find the Return Path of the learned route and their third task was to write down verbal route descriptions. An effect of the landmark position on finding the Return Path can be suggest- ed, although it was barely insignificant, for direction specific and direction unspecific material. A significant influence on the accuracy of the information in the route descriptions de- pending on the position of a landmark and on the specificity of the spatial directions could be shown. The results are dis- cussed in the context of current wayfinding and landmark re- search. Keywords: Return Path; structural salience; landmarks; ver- balisation; mental transformation; route descriptions Introduction In a previous work we introduced some theoretical assump- tions concerning the Return Path (CogSci 2013; Hamburger, Dienelt, Strickrodt, & Roser, 2013) which shall be experi- mentally addressed in the following study. Before going into detail, let us start with an initial example taken from the just mentioned work: “Imagine that you are on a vacation in an unknown foreign city. After your arrival at the hotel you want to explore the surroundings and maybe visit a place of interest or a touristic feature (e.g., a famous building such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris). You may base your search on different means for successfully reaching your goal” (Ham- burger et al., 2013, p. 537). Let us assume that we are not in possession of any of these means (e.g., a city map or a smart phone with a GPS tracking function). Besides of just walk- ing around, including the risk of getting lost, we could ask a pedestrian or the receptionist at the hotel desk for verbal route directions. It has been shown that the use of so-called landmarks in route descriptions plays an important role in finding ones way successfully (e.g., Denis, 1997). Land- marks are commonly described as reference points for navi-
-
spatial cognition the Return Path
Conference Cognitive Science, 2013Co-Authors: Kai Hamburger, Lena E Dienelt, Marianne Strickrodt, Florian RoserAbstract:Spatial cognition: the Return Path Kai Hamburger (kai.hamburger@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Lena E. Dienelt (lena-eowyn.dienelt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Marianne Strickrodt (marianne.strickrodt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Florian Roser (florian.roeser@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Justus Liebig University Giessen, Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Science Otto-Behaghel-Strasse 10 F 35394 Giessen, Germany goal without being distracted or being led into a wrong direction? Or, would it be better to supplement the verbal description with a map, or maybe make only use of the map instead? This is not only a question of not getting lost (e.g., Dudchenko, 2010), but also a question about cognitive economy, namely, reaching the goal with the least cognitive or physical effort. Let us assume that we successfully reached the goal. We are now faced with a new, maybe more difficult, problem. We need to Return to our hotel! Finding a Return Path is an everyday problem but has rarely been investigated empirically (retrace the same route; e.g., Golledge, 1997, Buchner, Holscher, & Strube, 2007; Papinski, Scott, & Doherty, 2009). We are able to manage this task, but we do not yet know the underlying cognitive and neural processes enabling us to find the Return Path. One of the most important aspects for the Return Path is probably the structure of the environment (e.g., structural landmark salience; Sorrows & Hirtle, 1999; Klippel & Winter, 2005). Since we assume visual salience (or better perceptual salience) –that is how much an object stands out from its environment (e.g., Caduff & Timpf, 2008)– and semantic salience of landmarks –that is for example its name, meaning, or function (e.g., Hamburger & Knauff, 2011)– to be less important, we here try to control for these aspects and rather focus on the structural aspects as we have done in several previous experiments on structural salience (e.g., Roser, Hamburger, Krumnack, & Knauff, 2012a; Roser, Krumnack, Hamburger, & Knauff, 2012b). There are two optimal positions for landmarks to be located on a regular/initial Path: before the intersection (Klippel & Winter, 2005) in direction of the turn and behind the intersection in direction of the turn (Roser et al., 2012a). Most important is that the landmark is located somewhere in direction of the turn (Roser et al., 2012a). But, for the Return Path, two different positions might be the optimal ones: the positions before the intersection in direction of the turn and behind the intersection opposite to the direction of the turn. These positions are invariant for the Return Path (they remain unchanged). The other two positions are variant, since they have to be mentally and verbally transformed for the Return Path (e.g., “before the intersection opposite to the direction of turn” becomes “behind the intersection and in direction of the turn” on the way back). Further details on Abstract The cognitive representation of a Return Path is a rather unexplored topic including different issues, e.g., perception, mental imagery, mental spatial processing, and language. We here investigated the Return Path with landmarks located on different positions (optimal, suboptimal). Participants learned a total of 24 routes and had to produce the Return Paths (N=20). In a second experiment the different positions plus map learning versus verbal directions were investigated (N=20). Both experiments reveal that the position of a landmark at an intersection (structural salience) has an influence on wayfinding performance. However, the results are somehow ambiguous. Therefore, we also present first approaches for predicting behavior (e.g., optimal route descriptions) and for modeling the perceptual and cognitive processes involved in finding the Return Path, including visibility, structural salience, mental representation/ transformation, and language. Keywords: Return Path; structural salience; landmarks; mental transformation Introduction Imagine that you are on a vacation in an unknown foreign city. After your arrival at the hotel you want to explore the surroundings and maybe visit a place of interest or a touristic feature (e.g., a famous building such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris). You may base your search on different means for successfully reaching your goal. You may want to use a verbal description that you received at the reception desk of your hotel, maybe you want to make use of a city map in your tourist guide, or, if you do not have these means at hand, you may want to ask a pedestrian on the street for giving you directions to your goal location. There is also the possibility of using a mobile navigation system. This latter example is part of the debate on “extended cognition” (e.g., Clark & Chalmers, 1998), which is beyond the scope of this project. Here, the focus is rather on the “innate” navigation system, perceptual and cognitive processes that enable humans to navigate without getting lost (most of the times). In general, wayfinders use so-called landmarks, objects or buildings that stand out of their environment, to aid navigation (e.g., Lynch, 1960; Presson & Montello, 1988; Caduff & Timpf, 2008). Let us Return to our initial example. One important question is whether the verbal description is on its own sufficient for reaching the
-
CogSci - Spatial cognition: the Return Path
Cognitive Science, 2013Co-Authors: Kai Hamburger, Lena E Dienelt, Marianne Strickrodt, Florian RoserAbstract:Spatial cognition: the Return Path Kai Hamburger (kai.hamburger@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Lena E. Dienelt (lena-eowyn.dienelt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Marianne Strickrodt (marianne.strickrodt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Florian Roser (florian.roeser@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Justus Liebig University Giessen, Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Science Otto-Behaghel-Strasse 10 F 35394 Giessen, Germany goal without being distracted or being led into a wrong direction? Or, would it be better to supplement the verbal description with a map, or maybe make only use of the map instead? This is not only a question of not getting lost (e.g., Dudchenko, 2010), but also a question about cognitive economy, namely, reaching the goal with the least cognitive or physical effort. Let us assume that we successfully reached the goal. We are now faced with a new, maybe more difficult, problem. We need to Return to our hotel! Finding a Return Path is an everyday problem but has rarely been investigated empirically (retrace the same route; e.g., Golledge, 1997, Buchner, Holscher, & Strube, 2007; Papinski, Scott, & Doherty, 2009). We are able to manage this task, but we do not yet know the underlying cognitive and neural processes enabling us to find the Return Path. One of the most important aspects for the Return Path is probably the structure of the environment (e.g., structural landmark salience; Sorrows & Hirtle, 1999; Klippel & Winter, 2005). Since we assume visual salience (or better perceptual salience) –that is how much an object stands out from its environment (e.g., Caduff & Timpf, 2008)– and semantic salience of landmarks –that is for example its name, meaning, or function (e.g., Hamburger & Knauff, 2011)– to be less important, we here try to control for these aspects and rather focus on the structural aspects as we have done in several previous experiments on structural salience (e.g., Roser, Hamburger, Krumnack, & Knauff, 2012a; Roser, Krumnack, Hamburger, & Knauff, 2012b). There are two optimal positions for landmarks to be located on a regular/initial Path: before the intersection (Klippel & Winter, 2005) in direction of the turn and behind the intersection in direction of the turn (Roser et al., 2012a). Most important is that the landmark is located somewhere in direction of the turn (Roser et al., 2012a). But, for the Return Path, two different positions might be the optimal ones: the positions before the intersection in direction of the turn and behind the intersection opposite to the direction of the turn. These positions are invariant for the Return Path (they remain unchanged). The other two positions are variant, since they have to be mentally and verbally transformed for the Return Path (e.g., “before the intersection opposite to the direction of turn” becomes “behind the intersection and in direction of the turn” on the way back). Further details on Abstract The cognitive representation of a Return Path is a rather unexplored topic including different issues, e.g., perception, mental imagery, mental spatial processing, and language. We here investigated the Return Path with landmarks located on different positions (optimal, suboptimal). Participants learned a total of 24 routes and had to produce the Return Paths (N=20). In a second experiment the different positions plus map learning versus verbal directions were investigated (N=20). Both experiments reveal that the position of a landmark at an intersection (structural salience) has an influence on wayfinding performance. However, the results are somehow ambiguous. Therefore, we also present first approaches for predicting behavior (e.g., optimal route descriptions) and for modeling the perceptual and cognitive processes involved in finding the Return Path, including visibility, structural salience, mental representation/ transformation, and language. Keywords: Return Path; structural salience; landmarks; mental transformation Introduction Imagine that you are on a vacation in an unknown foreign city. After your arrival at the hotel you want to explore the surroundings and maybe visit a place of interest or a touristic feature (e.g., a famous building such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris). You may base your search on different means for successfully reaching your goal. You may want to use a verbal description that you received at the reception desk of your hotel, maybe you want to make use of a city map in your tourist guide, or, if you do not have these means at hand, you may want to ask a pedestrian on the street for giving you directions to your goal location. There is also the possibility of using a mobile navigation system. This latter example is part of the debate on “extended cognition” (e.g., Clark & Chalmers, 1998), which is beyond the scope of this project. Here, the focus is rather on the “innate” navigation system, perceptual and cognitive processes that enable humans to navigate without getting lost (most of the times). In general, wayfinders use so-called landmarks, objects or buildings that stand out of their environment, to aid navigation (e.g., Lynch, 1960; Presson & Montello, 1988; Caduff & Timpf, 2008). Let us Return to our initial example. One important question is whether the verbal description is on its own sufficient for reaching the
Kai Hamburger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Finding the Return Path: Landmark Position Effects and the Influence of Perspective.
Frontiers in psychology, 2016Co-Authors: Harun Karimpur, Florian Roser, Kai HamburgerAbstract:Much research has been done on how people find their way from one place to another. Compared to that, there is less research available on how people find back from the destination to their origin. We first present theoretical approaches to perceptual and cognitive processes involved in finding a Return Path, including concepts such as visibility, structural salience and allocentric versus egocentric perspective, followed by a series of three experiments. In these experiments, we presented subjects intersections that contained landmark information on different positions. In order to investigate the processes involved, we used different measures such as route-continuation (in learning direction and in opposite direction) and free-recall of route information. In summary, the results demonstrate the importance of landmark positions at intersections (structural salience in combination with perspective) and that finding the Return Path is more difficult than reproducing the same route from the learning condition. All findings will be discussed with respect to the current research literature on landmark-based wayfinding.
-
CogSci - Finding the Return Path: allo- versus egocentric perspective.
Cognitive Science, 2015Co-Authors: Kai Hamburger, Florian RoserAbstract:In a series of two experiments we investigated the influence of an allocentric and egocentric perspective on landmarkbased wayfinding and finding the according Return Path. Participants had to learn a route consisting of twelve intersections with four different verbal landmarks at each intersection. They were asked to memorize at least one of the landmarks for providing a route description after the learning phase, either in the learning direction (initial Path) or in the opposite direction (Return Path). In the allocentric experiment, a clear preference and higher performance was demonstrated for landmarks located at the position before the intersection and in the direction of turn, while in the egocentric perspective landmarks in the direction of turn were better remembered and used more frequently, independent of the position before or behind the intersection. These results will be discussed with respect to current research on structural salience in landmark-based wayfinding.
-
CogSci - The influence of structural salience and verbalisation on finding the Return Path
2014Co-Authors: Thomas Hinterecker, Florian Roser, Marianne Strickrodt, Kai HamburgerAbstract:The influence of structural salience and verbalisation on finding the Return Path Thomas Hinterecker (thomas.hinterecker@psychol.uni-giessen.de ) Marianne Strickrodt (marianne.strickrodt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Florian Roser (florian.roeser@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Kai Hamburger (kai.hamburger@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Justus Liebig University Giessen, Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Science Otto-Behaghel-Strasse 10 F 35394 Giessen, Germany Abstract gation (e.g., buildings) which stick out of their environment (e.g., Lynch, 1960; Presson & Montello, 1988; Caduff & Timpf, 2008; Hamburger & Knauff, 2011). Now let us as- sume that with the help of such a verbal route description we successfully reached our goal (here, point of interest). In many cases, like in our hotel scenario, we want to get back to where we came from. This confronts us with a new prob- lem: We have to find our way back. To manage this task the probably easiest way would be to retrace the initial Path and therefore use the same landmarks provided in the initial route description. One question of interest is now: Are cer- tain landmarks and landmark positions more suitable than others for finding the Return Path? Several theories of landmark suitability have been sug- gested (e.g., Klippel & Winter, 2005; Caduff & Timpf, 2008; Roser, Krumnack, Hamburger, & Knauff, 2012). One important term in this context is landmark salience, which is often described as a pop-out effect or how much an object stands out from its immediate surroundings. Klippel and Winter (2005) differentiate between three forms of land- mark salience based on the assumptions by Sorrows and Hirtle (1999). These are visual (how much an object stands out from its surroundings, referring to colour, size, shape, etc.; Caduff & Timpf, 2008; Hamburger & Knauff, 2011), semantic or cognitive (knowledge-related features of a landmark like its meaning, function and name; Caduff & Timpf, 2008; Hamburger & Knauff, 2011), and structural salience (e.g., the location of a landmark at an intersection; Klippel & Winter, 2005). As we assumed in our previous work, the structural salience might be the most important of these three kinds of saliencies for finding the Return Path (Hamburger et al., 2013). Therefore, in the current study we try to control for the visual and semantic saliences. At a prototypical cross intersection four landmark posi- tions –the four corners of the intersection– are possible (Roser, Krumnack, & Hamburger, 2013). Since the direction of turn seems to play a critical role for choosing landmarks (e.g., Roser, Hamburger, Krumnack, & Knauff, 2012), posi- tions may be defined in dependence of the direction of turn: behind the intersection opposite to the direction of turn (A), behind the intersection in direction of turn (B), before the intersection opposite to the direction of turn (C), and before the intersection in direction of turn (D) (Hamburger et al., Are some landmark positions at intersections better for find- ing a Return Path than others? This study investigated whether there is a variation in the influence of a landmark on perfor- mance and decision times when finding a Return Path depend- ing on its position at an intersection. A variation of this influ- ence is expected depending on the type of verbalisation of spatial directions used. First, participants learned a Path either with direction specific (turn left at or turn right at) or direc- tion unspecific material (turn into direction of or turn in the opposite direction of). In this Path the positions of the land- marks were varied systematically. Secondly, participants had to find the Return Path of the learned route and their third task was to write down verbal route descriptions. An effect of the landmark position on finding the Return Path can be suggest- ed, although it was barely insignificant, for direction specific and direction unspecific material. A significant influence on the accuracy of the information in the route descriptions de- pending on the position of a landmark and on the specificity of the spatial directions could be shown. The results are dis- cussed in the context of current wayfinding and landmark re- search. Keywords: Return Path; structural salience; landmarks; ver- balisation; mental transformation; route descriptions Introduction In a previous work we introduced some theoretical assump- tions concerning the Return Path (CogSci 2013; Hamburger, Dienelt, Strickrodt, & Roser, 2013) which shall be experi- mentally addressed in the following study. Before going into detail, let us start with an initial example taken from the just mentioned work: “Imagine that you are on a vacation in an unknown foreign city. After your arrival at the hotel you want to explore the surroundings and maybe visit a place of interest or a touristic feature (e.g., a famous building such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris). You may base your search on different means for successfully reaching your goal” (Ham- burger et al., 2013, p. 537). Let us assume that we are not in possession of any of these means (e.g., a city map or a smart phone with a GPS tracking function). Besides of just walk- ing around, including the risk of getting lost, we could ask a pedestrian or the receptionist at the hotel desk for verbal route directions. It has been shown that the use of so-called landmarks in route descriptions plays an important role in finding ones way successfully (e.g., Denis, 1997). Land- marks are commonly described as reference points for navi-
-
spatial cognition the Return Path
Conference Cognitive Science, 2013Co-Authors: Kai Hamburger, Lena E Dienelt, Marianne Strickrodt, Florian RoserAbstract:Spatial cognition: the Return Path Kai Hamburger (kai.hamburger@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Lena E. Dienelt (lena-eowyn.dienelt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Marianne Strickrodt (marianne.strickrodt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Florian Roser (florian.roeser@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Justus Liebig University Giessen, Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Science Otto-Behaghel-Strasse 10 F 35394 Giessen, Germany goal without being distracted or being led into a wrong direction? Or, would it be better to supplement the verbal description with a map, or maybe make only use of the map instead? This is not only a question of not getting lost (e.g., Dudchenko, 2010), but also a question about cognitive economy, namely, reaching the goal with the least cognitive or physical effort. Let us assume that we successfully reached the goal. We are now faced with a new, maybe more difficult, problem. We need to Return to our hotel! Finding a Return Path is an everyday problem but has rarely been investigated empirically (retrace the same route; e.g., Golledge, 1997, Buchner, Holscher, & Strube, 2007; Papinski, Scott, & Doherty, 2009). We are able to manage this task, but we do not yet know the underlying cognitive and neural processes enabling us to find the Return Path. One of the most important aspects for the Return Path is probably the structure of the environment (e.g., structural landmark salience; Sorrows & Hirtle, 1999; Klippel & Winter, 2005). Since we assume visual salience (or better perceptual salience) –that is how much an object stands out from its environment (e.g., Caduff & Timpf, 2008)– and semantic salience of landmarks –that is for example its name, meaning, or function (e.g., Hamburger & Knauff, 2011)– to be less important, we here try to control for these aspects and rather focus on the structural aspects as we have done in several previous experiments on structural salience (e.g., Roser, Hamburger, Krumnack, & Knauff, 2012a; Roser, Krumnack, Hamburger, & Knauff, 2012b). There are two optimal positions for landmarks to be located on a regular/initial Path: before the intersection (Klippel & Winter, 2005) in direction of the turn and behind the intersection in direction of the turn (Roser et al., 2012a). Most important is that the landmark is located somewhere in direction of the turn (Roser et al., 2012a). But, for the Return Path, two different positions might be the optimal ones: the positions before the intersection in direction of the turn and behind the intersection opposite to the direction of the turn. These positions are invariant for the Return Path (they remain unchanged). The other two positions are variant, since they have to be mentally and verbally transformed for the Return Path (e.g., “before the intersection opposite to the direction of turn” becomes “behind the intersection and in direction of the turn” on the way back). Further details on Abstract The cognitive representation of a Return Path is a rather unexplored topic including different issues, e.g., perception, mental imagery, mental spatial processing, and language. We here investigated the Return Path with landmarks located on different positions (optimal, suboptimal). Participants learned a total of 24 routes and had to produce the Return Paths (N=20). In a second experiment the different positions plus map learning versus verbal directions were investigated (N=20). Both experiments reveal that the position of a landmark at an intersection (structural salience) has an influence on wayfinding performance. However, the results are somehow ambiguous. Therefore, we also present first approaches for predicting behavior (e.g., optimal route descriptions) and for modeling the perceptual and cognitive processes involved in finding the Return Path, including visibility, structural salience, mental representation/ transformation, and language. Keywords: Return Path; structural salience; landmarks; mental transformation Introduction Imagine that you are on a vacation in an unknown foreign city. After your arrival at the hotel you want to explore the surroundings and maybe visit a place of interest or a touristic feature (e.g., a famous building such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris). You may base your search on different means for successfully reaching your goal. You may want to use a verbal description that you received at the reception desk of your hotel, maybe you want to make use of a city map in your tourist guide, or, if you do not have these means at hand, you may want to ask a pedestrian on the street for giving you directions to your goal location. There is also the possibility of using a mobile navigation system. This latter example is part of the debate on “extended cognition” (e.g., Clark & Chalmers, 1998), which is beyond the scope of this project. Here, the focus is rather on the “innate” navigation system, perceptual and cognitive processes that enable humans to navigate without getting lost (most of the times). In general, wayfinders use so-called landmarks, objects or buildings that stand out of their environment, to aid navigation (e.g., Lynch, 1960; Presson & Montello, 1988; Caduff & Timpf, 2008). Let us Return to our initial example. One important question is whether the verbal description is on its own sufficient for reaching the
-
CogSci - Spatial cognition: the Return Path
Cognitive Science, 2013Co-Authors: Kai Hamburger, Lena E Dienelt, Marianne Strickrodt, Florian RoserAbstract:Spatial cognition: the Return Path Kai Hamburger (kai.hamburger@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Lena E. Dienelt (lena-eowyn.dienelt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Marianne Strickrodt (marianne.strickrodt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Florian Roser (florian.roeser@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Justus Liebig University Giessen, Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Science Otto-Behaghel-Strasse 10 F 35394 Giessen, Germany goal without being distracted or being led into a wrong direction? Or, would it be better to supplement the verbal description with a map, or maybe make only use of the map instead? This is not only a question of not getting lost (e.g., Dudchenko, 2010), but also a question about cognitive economy, namely, reaching the goal with the least cognitive or physical effort. Let us assume that we successfully reached the goal. We are now faced with a new, maybe more difficult, problem. We need to Return to our hotel! Finding a Return Path is an everyday problem but has rarely been investigated empirically (retrace the same route; e.g., Golledge, 1997, Buchner, Holscher, & Strube, 2007; Papinski, Scott, & Doherty, 2009). We are able to manage this task, but we do not yet know the underlying cognitive and neural processes enabling us to find the Return Path. One of the most important aspects for the Return Path is probably the structure of the environment (e.g., structural landmark salience; Sorrows & Hirtle, 1999; Klippel & Winter, 2005). Since we assume visual salience (or better perceptual salience) –that is how much an object stands out from its environment (e.g., Caduff & Timpf, 2008)– and semantic salience of landmarks –that is for example its name, meaning, or function (e.g., Hamburger & Knauff, 2011)– to be less important, we here try to control for these aspects and rather focus on the structural aspects as we have done in several previous experiments on structural salience (e.g., Roser, Hamburger, Krumnack, & Knauff, 2012a; Roser, Krumnack, Hamburger, & Knauff, 2012b). There are two optimal positions for landmarks to be located on a regular/initial Path: before the intersection (Klippel & Winter, 2005) in direction of the turn and behind the intersection in direction of the turn (Roser et al., 2012a). Most important is that the landmark is located somewhere in direction of the turn (Roser et al., 2012a). But, for the Return Path, two different positions might be the optimal ones: the positions before the intersection in direction of the turn and behind the intersection opposite to the direction of the turn. These positions are invariant for the Return Path (they remain unchanged). The other two positions are variant, since they have to be mentally and verbally transformed for the Return Path (e.g., “before the intersection opposite to the direction of turn” becomes “behind the intersection and in direction of the turn” on the way back). Further details on Abstract The cognitive representation of a Return Path is a rather unexplored topic including different issues, e.g., perception, mental imagery, mental spatial processing, and language. We here investigated the Return Path with landmarks located on different positions (optimal, suboptimal). Participants learned a total of 24 routes and had to produce the Return Paths (N=20). In a second experiment the different positions plus map learning versus verbal directions were investigated (N=20). Both experiments reveal that the position of a landmark at an intersection (structural salience) has an influence on wayfinding performance. However, the results are somehow ambiguous. Therefore, we also present first approaches for predicting behavior (e.g., optimal route descriptions) and for modeling the perceptual and cognitive processes involved in finding the Return Path, including visibility, structural salience, mental representation/ transformation, and language. Keywords: Return Path; structural salience; landmarks; mental transformation Introduction Imagine that you are on a vacation in an unknown foreign city. After your arrival at the hotel you want to explore the surroundings and maybe visit a place of interest or a touristic feature (e.g., a famous building such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris). You may base your search on different means for successfully reaching your goal. You may want to use a verbal description that you received at the reception desk of your hotel, maybe you want to make use of a city map in your tourist guide, or, if you do not have these means at hand, you may want to ask a pedestrian on the street for giving you directions to your goal location. There is also the possibility of using a mobile navigation system. This latter example is part of the debate on “extended cognition” (e.g., Clark & Chalmers, 1998), which is beyond the scope of this project. Here, the focus is rather on the “innate” navigation system, perceptual and cognitive processes that enable humans to navigate without getting lost (most of the times). In general, wayfinders use so-called landmarks, objects or buildings that stand out of their environment, to aid navigation (e.g., Lynch, 1960; Presson & Montello, 1988; Caduff & Timpf, 2008). Let us Return to our initial example. One important question is whether the verbal description is on its own sufficient for reaching the
Xiaodong Xian - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Corrigendum to Determination of an Optimal Return-Path on Road Attributes for Mobile Robot Recharging
International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 2012Co-Authors: Fei Liu, Shan Liang, Xiaodong XianAbstract:This corrigendum is offered as a means to correct errors in “Determination of an Optimal Return‐Path on Road Attributes for Mobile Robot Recharging” (Fei Liu, Shan Liang, Xiaodong Xian, International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol.8, no.5, pp. 83‐92, 2011). The error is due to the fact that we reckoned without taking into account the energy consumed by the sensors on the robot. Please see the corrections below. Page 85‐86 (1) In column 2, the last paragraph should read: (c) The cost that the robot will pay for passing each segment includes two parts: energy consumption e c and the influence of vibration on the robot body b c that describes the probability of the robot’s equipment failure. Actually, e c includes two parts, the part that the sensors on the robot will consume, and secondly, the energy used for driving the motor. Here, we use s c to describe the first part and use ˆe c to describe the second part. Therefore, ˆ e e s c c c (1) Then the cost C can be described as ( , ) e b C c c (2) Page 86 (1) In column 2, the chapter title “4.2.1 Mathematical Model of e c ” should read: “4.2.1 Mathematical Model of ˆe c ”.
-
Determination of An Optimal Return-Path on Road Attributes for Mobile Robot Recharging
International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 2011Co-Authors: Fei Liu, Shan Liang, Xiaodong XianAbstract:Optimal Path-planning for mobile robot recharging is a very vital requirement in real applications. This paper proposes a strategy of determining an optimal Return-Path in consideration of road attributes which include length, surface roughness, road grade and the setting of speed-control hump. The road in the environment is partitioned into multiple segments, and for each one, a model of cost that the robot will pay for is established under the constraints of the attributes. The cost consists of energy consumption and the influence of vibration on mobile robot that is induced by motion. The Return-Path is constituted by multiple segments and its cost is defined to be the sum of the cost of each segment. The idle time, deduced from the cost, is firstly used as the decision factor for determining the optimal Return-Path. Finally, the simulation is given and the results prove the effectiveness and superiority of the strategy.
Craig E. Manning - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Emerging geothermometers for estimating slab surface temperatures
Nature Geoscience, 2009Co-Authors: Terry Plank, Lauren B. Cooper, Craig E. ManningAbstract:Slab fluids drive mantle melting and Return ocean water to the Earth's surface through arc volcanism. New ways of estimating the temperature of slab fluids indicate relatively hot conditions, and hint at a shallow and fast Return Path for ocean water.
Marianne Strickrodt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
CogSci - The influence of structural salience and verbalisation on finding the Return Path
2014Co-Authors: Thomas Hinterecker, Florian Roser, Marianne Strickrodt, Kai HamburgerAbstract:The influence of structural salience and verbalisation on finding the Return Path Thomas Hinterecker (thomas.hinterecker@psychol.uni-giessen.de ) Marianne Strickrodt (marianne.strickrodt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Florian Roser (florian.roeser@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Kai Hamburger (kai.hamburger@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Justus Liebig University Giessen, Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Science Otto-Behaghel-Strasse 10 F 35394 Giessen, Germany Abstract gation (e.g., buildings) which stick out of their environment (e.g., Lynch, 1960; Presson & Montello, 1988; Caduff & Timpf, 2008; Hamburger & Knauff, 2011). Now let us as- sume that with the help of such a verbal route description we successfully reached our goal (here, point of interest). In many cases, like in our hotel scenario, we want to get back to where we came from. This confronts us with a new prob- lem: We have to find our way back. To manage this task the probably easiest way would be to retrace the initial Path and therefore use the same landmarks provided in the initial route description. One question of interest is now: Are cer- tain landmarks and landmark positions more suitable than others for finding the Return Path? Several theories of landmark suitability have been sug- gested (e.g., Klippel & Winter, 2005; Caduff & Timpf, 2008; Roser, Krumnack, Hamburger, & Knauff, 2012). One important term in this context is landmark salience, which is often described as a pop-out effect or how much an object stands out from its immediate surroundings. Klippel and Winter (2005) differentiate between three forms of land- mark salience based on the assumptions by Sorrows and Hirtle (1999). These are visual (how much an object stands out from its surroundings, referring to colour, size, shape, etc.; Caduff & Timpf, 2008; Hamburger & Knauff, 2011), semantic or cognitive (knowledge-related features of a landmark like its meaning, function and name; Caduff & Timpf, 2008; Hamburger & Knauff, 2011), and structural salience (e.g., the location of a landmark at an intersection; Klippel & Winter, 2005). As we assumed in our previous work, the structural salience might be the most important of these three kinds of saliencies for finding the Return Path (Hamburger et al., 2013). Therefore, in the current study we try to control for the visual and semantic saliences. At a prototypical cross intersection four landmark posi- tions –the four corners of the intersection– are possible (Roser, Krumnack, & Hamburger, 2013). Since the direction of turn seems to play a critical role for choosing landmarks (e.g., Roser, Hamburger, Krumnack, & Knauff, 2012), posi- tions may be defined in dependence of the direction of turn: behind the intersection opposite to the direction of turn (A), behind the intersection in direction of turn (B), before the intersection opposite to the direction of turn (C), and before the intersection in direction of turn (D) (Hamburger et al., Are some landmark positions at intersections better for find- ing a Return Path than others? This study investigated whether there is a variation in the influence of a landmark on perfor- mance and decision times when finding a Return Path depend- ing on its position at an intersection. A variation of this influ- ence is expected depending on the type of verbalisation of spatial directions used. First, participants learned a Path either with direction specific (turn left at or turn right at) or direc- tion unspecific material (turn into direction of or turn in the opposite direction of). In this Path the positions of the land- marks were varied systematically. Secondly, participants had to find the Return Path of the learned route and their third task was to write down verbal route descriptions. An effect of the landmark position on finding the Return Path can be suggest- ed, although it was barely insignificant, for direction specific and direction unspecific material. A significant influence on the accuracy of the information in the route descriptions de- pending on the position of a landmark and on the specificity of the spatial directions could be shown. The results are dis- cussed in the context of current wayfinding and landmark re- search. Keywords: Return Path; structural salience; landmarks; ver- balisation; mental transformation; route descriptions Introduction In a previous work we introduced some theoretical assump- tions concerning the Return Path (CogSci 2013; Hamburger, Dienelt, Strickrodt, & Roser, 2013) which shall be experi- mentally addressed in the following study. Before going into detail, let us start with an initial example taken from the just mentioned work: “Imagine that you are on a vacation in an unknown foreign city. After your arrival at the hotel you want to explore the surroundings and maybe visit a place of interest or a touristic feature (e.g., a famous building such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris). You may base your search on different means for successfully reaching your goal” (Ham- burger et al., 2013, p. 537). Let us assume that we are not in possession of any of these means (e.g., a city map or a smart phone with a GPS tracking function). Besides of just walk- ing around, including the risk of getting lost, we could ask a pedestrian or the receptionist at the hotel desk for verbal route directions. It has been shown that the use of so-called landmarks in route descriptions plays an important role in finding ones way successfully (e.g., Denis, 1997). Land- marks are commonly described as reference points for navi-
-
spatial cognition the Return Path
Conference Cognitive Science, 2013Co-Authors: Kai Hamburger, Lena E Dienelt, Marianne Strickrodt, Florian RoserAbstract:Spatial cognition: the Return Path Kai Hamburger (kai.hamburger@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Lena E. Dienelt (lena-eowyn.dienelt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Marianne Strickrodt (marianne.strickrodt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Florian Roser (florian.roeser@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Justus Liebig University Giessen, Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Science Otto-Behaghel-Strasse 10 F 35394 Giessen, Germany goal without being distracted or being led into a wrong direction? Or, would it be better to supplement the verbal description with a map, or maybe make only use of the map instead? This is not only a question of not getting lost (e.g., Dudchenko, 2010), but also a question about cognitive economy, namely, reaching the goal with the least cognitive or physical effort. Let us assume that we successfully reached the goal. We are now faced with a new, maybe more difficult, problem. We need to Return to our hotel! Finding a Return Path is an everyday problem but has rarely been investigated empirically (retrace the same route; e.g., Golledge, 1997, Buchner, Holscher, & Strube, 2007; Papinski, Scott, & Doherty, 2009). We are able to manage this task, but we do not yet know the underlying cognitive and neural processes enabling us to find the Return Path. One of the most important aspects for the Return Path is probably the structure of the environment (e.g., structural landmark salience; Sorrows & Hirtle, 1999; Klippel & Winter, 2005). Since we assume visual salience (or better perceptual salience) –that is how much an object stands out from its environment (e.g., Caduff & Timpf, 2008)– and semantic salience of landmarks –that is for example its name, meaning, or function (e.g., Hamburger & Knauff, 2011)– to be less important, we here try to control for these aspects and rather focus on the structural aspects as we have done in several previous experiments on structural salience (e.g., Roser, Hamburger, Krumnack, & Knauff, 2012a; Roser, Krumnack, Hamburger, & Knauff, 2012b). There are two optimal positions for landmarks to be located on a regular/initial Path: before the intersection (Klippel & Winter, 2005) in direction of the turn and behind the intersection in direction of the turn (Roser et al., 2012a). Most important is that the landmark is located somewhere in direction of the turn (Roser et al., 2012a). But, for the Return Path, two different positions might be the optimal ones: the positions before the intersection in direction of the turn and behind the intersection opposite to the direction of the turn. These positions are invariant for the Return Path (they remain unchanged). The other two positions are variant, since they have to be mentally and verbally transformed for the Return Path (e.g., “before the intersection opposite to the direction of turn” becomes “behind the intersection and in direction of the turn” on the way back). Further details on Abstract The cognitive representation of a Return Path is a rather unexplored topic including different issues, e.g., perception, mental imagery, mental spatial processing, and language. We here investigated the Return Path with landmarks located on different positions (optimal, suboptimal). Participants learned a total of 24 routes and had to produce the Return Paths (N=20). In a second experiment the different positions plus map learning versus verbal directions were investigated (N=20). Both experiments reveal that the position of a landmark at an intersection (structural salience) has an influence on wayfinding performance. However, the results are somehow ambiguous. Therefore, we also present first approaches for predicting behavior (e.g., optimal route descriptions) and for modeling the perceptual and cognitive processes involved in finding the Return Path, including visibility, structural salience, mental representation/ transformation, and language. Keywords: Return Path; structural salience; landmarks; mental transformation Introduction Imagine that you are on a vacation in an unknown foreign city. After your arrival at the hotel you want to explore the surroundings and maybe visit a place of interest or a touristic feature (e.g., a famous building such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris). You may base your search on different means for successfully reaching your goal. You may want to use a verbal description that you received at the reception desk of your hotel, maybe you want to make use of a city map in your tourist guide, or, if you do not have these means at hand, you may want to ask a pedestrian on the street for giving you directions to your goal location. There is also the possibility of using a mobile navigation system. This latter example is part of the debate on “extended cognition” (e.g., Clark & Chalmers, 1998), which is beyond the scope of this project. Here, the focus is rather on the “innate” navigation system, perceptual and cognitive processes that enable humans to navigate without getting lost (most of the times). In general, wayfinders use so-called landmarks, objects or buildings that stand out of their environment, to aid navigation (e.g., Lynch, 1960; Presson & Montello, 1988; Caduff & Timpf, 2008). Let us Return to our initial example. One important question is whether the verbal description is on its own sufficient for reaching the
-
CogSci - Spatial cognition: the Return Path
Cognitive Science, 2013Co-Authors: Kai Hamburger, Lena E Dienelt, Marianne Strickrodt, Florian RoserAbstract:Spatial cognition: the Return Path Kai Hamburger (kai.hamburger@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Lena E. Dienelt (lena-eowyn.dienelt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Marianne Strickrodt (marianne.strickrodt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Florian Roser (florian.roeser@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Justus Liebig University Giessen, Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Science Otto-Behaghel-Strasse 10 F 35394 Giessen, Germany goal without being distracted or being led into a wrong direction? Or, would it be better to supplement the verbal description with a map, or maybe make only use of the map instead? This is not only a question of not getting lost (e.g., Dudchenko, 2010), but also a question about cognitive economy, namely, reaching the goal with the least cognitive or physical effort. Let us assume that we successfully reached the goal. We are now faced with a new, maybe more difficult, problem. We need to Return to our hotel! Finding a Return Path is an everyday problem but has rarely been investigated empirically (retrace the same route; e.g., Golledge, 1997, Buchner, Holscher, & Strube, 2007; Papinski, Scott, & Doherty, 2009). We are able to manage this task, but we do not yet know the underlying cognitive and neural processes enabling us to find the Return Path. One of the most important aspects for the Return Path is probably the structure of the environment (e.g., structural landmark salience; Sorrows & Hirtle, 1999; Klippel & Winter, 2005). Since we assume visual salience (or better perceptual salience) –that is how much an object stands out from its environment (e.g., Caduff & Timpf, 2008)– and semantic salience of landmarks –that is for example its name, meaning, or function (e.g., Hamburger & Knauff, 2011)– to be less important, we here try to control for these aspects and rather focus on the structural aspects as we have done in several previous experiments on structural salience (e.g., Roser, Hamburger, Krumnack, & Knauff, 2012a; Roser, Krumnack, Hamburger, & Knauff, 2012b). There are two optimal positions for landmarks to be located on a regular/initial Path: before the intersection (Klippel & Winter, 2005) in direction of the turn and behind the intersection in direction of the turn (Roser et al., 2012a). Most important is that the landmark is located somewhere in direction of the turn (Roser et al., 2012a). But, for the Return Path, two different positions might be the optimal ones: the positions before the intersection in direction of the turn and behind the intersection opposite to the direction of the turn. These positions are invariant for the Return Path (they remain unchanged). The other two positions are variant, since they have to be mentally and verbally transformed for the Return Path (e.g., “before the intersection opposite to the direction of turn” becomes “behind the intersection and in direction of the turn” on the way back). Further details on Abstract The cognitive representation of a Return Path is a rather unexplored topic including different issues, e.g., perception, mental imagery, mental spatial processing, and language. We here investigated the Return Path with landmarks located on different positions (optimal, suboptimal). Participants learned a total of 24 routes and had to produce the Return Paths (N=20). In a second experiment the different positions plus map learning versus verbal directions were investigated (N=20). Both experiments reveal that the position of a landmark at an intersection (structural salience) has an influence on wayfinding performance. However, the results are somehow ambiguous. Therefore, we also present first approaches for predicting behavior (e.g., optimal route descriptions) and for modeling the perceptual and cognitive processes involved in finding the Return Path, including visibility, structural salience, mental representation/ transformation, and language. Keywords: Return Path; structural salience; landmarks; mental transformation Introduction Imagine that you are on a vacation in an unknown foreign city. After your arrival at the hotel you want to explore the surroundings and maybe visit a place of interest or a touristic feature (e.g., a famous building such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris). You may base your search on different means for successfully reaching your goal. You may want to use a verbal description that you received at the reception desk of your hotel, maybe you want to make use of a city map in your tourist guide, or, if you do not have these means at hand, you may want to ask a pedestrian on the street for giving you directions to your goal location. There is also the possibility of using a mobile navigation system. This latter example is part of the debate on “extended cognition” (e.g., Clark & Chalmers, 1998), which is beyond the scope of this project. Here, the focus is rather on the “innate” navigation system, perceptual and cognitive processes that enable humans to navigate without getting lost (most of the times). In general, wayfinders use so-called landmarks, objects or buildings that stand out of their environment, to aid navigation (e.g., Lynch, 1960; Presson & Montello, 1988; Caduff & Timpf, 2008). Let us Return to our initial example. One important question is whether the verbal description is on its own sufficient for reaching the
