Finding your way: The influence of global spatial intelligibility and field-of-view on a wayfinding task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work, derived mainly from the fields of architecture and urban planning, has shown that the global spatial configuration of an environment, known as its spatial intelligibility, can account for some aspects of wayfinding behavior and movement of traffic in constructed environments (Penn, Environment and Behavior, 2003). These studies have subsequently been used to argue that wayfinding is based largely on the use of simple heuristics which control route decisions at choice points. However, some recent studies suggest that manipulations which interfere with perceptual processing (Meilinger, Franz, & Bülthoff, Environment and Behaviour, 2008) are also capable of influencing wayfinding behavior, but the connection between such perceptual processes and heuristics based on global spatial configuration remain unclear. In the present study, participants were asked to navigate to a central landmark in a novel virtual environment, and then return to the starting position. We manipulated both spatial configuration (high intelligibility vs. low intelligibility) and available perceptual information (150° field-of-view vs. 60° field-of-view) between participants. An analysis of variance on the path, duration of navigation, and pausing and gaze behaviors revealed a significant main effect of intelligibility on both distance and duration of navigation. More interestingly, a significant main effect of field-of-view was found such that a wider field-of-view resulted in more varied gaze within intersections. Further, a significant interaction between intelligibility and field-of-view was found such that participants with constrained field-of-view would pause more frequently overall, more frequently in intersections, and for longer periods of time in the highly intelligible environments as compared to unintelligible environment. The reverse pattern was observed for the unconstrained field-of-view condition. These results clearly support the idea that both perceptual processing at choice points and the global organization of a spatial configuration influences the wayfinding process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".