• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

The World in the Head: Measuring People's Spatial Knowledge and Travel Patterns Using Mobile Devices

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2011
Dissertation
Author: Drew Dara-Abrams
Abstract:
Researchers studying environment-scale spatial cognition must usually choose between the relevance of the real world and the precision of the lab. In this dissertation, I develop and implement Cognitive Surveyor, a system that enables the automated and precise study of spatial knowledge and navigation practices in everyday environments. Much like the equipment and techniques used by land surveyors, Cognitive Surveyor uses a small mobile computer (a smartphone) with a GPS unit and a digital compass integrated. Each user carries such a device, which tracks their movement. Using the device, people label as landmarks locations they consider meaningful. The device then prompts them to point and estimate the distance toward out-of-sight landmarks. Based on these piecemeal measurements, the system can then produce analyses, both quantitative and qualitative, as well as visualizations. First, I consider the components necessary for the Cognitive Surveyor system and discuss relevant research literature from a variety of fields. I then iteratively develop a usable system in the process of running three behavioral studies. In the first study, participants complete a real-world "traveling salesman problem," in which they must take the shortest possible path to visit a set of destinations in an urban setting. Participants carry and use a Cognitive Surveyor system, which quizzes them on their spatial knowledge for the destinations, as they visit each. This study verifies that the system obtains similar patterns of results to previous lab-based studies and also suggests how different notions of distances may shape people's travel patterns. In the second study, people learn routes using a satellite navigation system and then are forced to re-walk, from memory, the same route, while also carrying a Cognitive Surveyor system, which measures their spatial knowledge. The findings begin to show how the design of navigation systems (and other location-based services) can influence their users' acquisition of spatial knowledge. In the final study, participants use the Cognitive Surveyor application on their own smartphone for a week's time. The results demonstrate how spatial knowledge can be measured in everyday, real-world settings and suggest future uses of Cognitive Surveyor, for both basic and applied research.

x contents PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1. COGNITIVE SURVEYOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 1.1. Cognitive Surveying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 1.1.1. Hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 1.1.2. Mobile Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 1.1.3. Data Analysis and Visualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.1.4. System Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.2. Moving, Traveling, Navigating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.3. Spatial Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.3.1. Landmarks and Other Locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 1.3.2. Directions and Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.3.3. Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1.3.4. Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1.4. Spatial Ability and Other Individual Diferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1.5. User Assistance and Location-based Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1.6. The Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 1.7. Questions to Consider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2. TRAVELING SALESMEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.1. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.1.1. Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.1.2. Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 2.2. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

xi 2.3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2.3.1. Participant Demographics, Sex, and Sense of Direction . . . . . . . . . . 40 2.3.2. Familiarity and Consistency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 2.3.3. Symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.3.4. Exposure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 2.3.5. Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.4. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 2.4.1. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 2.4.2. Reproducing Laboratory Findings in the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 2.4.3. Sources of Environmental Knowledge and Information . . . . . . . . . . 46 2.4.4. Improving the Instrument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 2.4.5. Experimental Control vs. Ecological Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3. TURN HERE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 3.1. LBS for Navigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 3.2. Previous Behavioral Research on LBS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 3.3. A Modular User-Centric Architecture for LBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.3.1. Adaptation to Users, Tasks, and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 3.3.2. The User-Centric LBS Architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 3.4. Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 3.4.1. Study I: Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 3.4.2. Study I: Results and Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 3.4.3. Study II: Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 3.4.4. Study II: Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 3.5. General Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

xii 4. IMAGES OF THE CITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.1. Predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4.2. Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 4.2.1. Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.2.2. Instruments and Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 4.3. Results and Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 4.3.1. Technical and Usability Challenges in “the Wild”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 4.3.2. Size of Data Set. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 4.3.3. Consistency over Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 4.3.4. Individual and Group Diferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 4.3.5. Marking Landmarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 4.3.6. Landmark Familiarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 4.3.7. Estimates across Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 4.3.8. Starting Conversations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87 4.3.9. Future Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 5. WHY BOTHER?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 5.1. Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 5.1.1. Contributions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 5.1.2. Limitations and Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 5.2. Cognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.2.1. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.2.2. Contributions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 5.2.3. Future Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 5.3. Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95

xiii 5.3.1. Contributions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 5.3.2. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 5.3.3. Experimental Control vs. Ecological Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 5.3.4. Experimental Data Collection vs. Volunteered Geographic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100 5.3.5. Future Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102 5.4. The End of Cognitive Surveying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 6. APPENDIx A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 7. APPENDIx B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 8. APPENDIx C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 8.1. Breadboard Prototype with Google Earth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118 8.2. First Version on Android with Excel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 8.3. Demo with Foursquare Client and Custom Web Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 8.4. Second Version on Android with OpenLayers Web Map. . . . . . . . . . . .124 8.5. Final Android with Polymaps Web Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

xiv “My dear young lady,” said her distinguished friend, “isn’t to ‘live’ exactly what I’m trying to persuade you to take the trouble to do?” She had gone out with these last words so in her ears that when once she was well away—back this time in the great square alone—it was as if some instant application of them had opened out there before her. It was positively, this efect, an excitement that carried her on; she went forward into space under the sense of an impulse received—an impulse simple and direct, easy above all to act upon. [...] She passed along unknown streets, over dusty littery ways, between long rows of fronts not enhanced by the August light; she felt good for miles and only wanted to get lost; there were moments at corners, where she stopped and chose her direction, in which she quite lived up to his injunction to rejoice that she was active. It was like a new pleasure to have so new a reason; she would afrm, without delay, her option, her volition; taking this per- sonal possession of what surrounded her was a fair afrmation to start with. Te Wings of the Dove by Henry James *

Full document contains 150 pages
Abstract: Researchers studying environment-scale spatial cognition must usually choose between the relevance of the real world and the precision of the lab. In this dissertation, I develop and implement Cognitive Surveyor, a system that enables the automated and precise study of spatial knowledge and navigation practices in everyday environments. Much like the equipment and techniques used by land surveyors, Cognitive Surveyor uses a small mobile computer (a smartphone) with a GPS unit and a digital compass integrated. Each user carries such a device, which tracks their movement. Using the device, people label as landmarks locations they consider meaningful. The device then prompts them to point and estimate the distance toward out-of-sight landmarks. Based on these piecemeal measurements, the system can then produce analyses, both quantitative and qualitative, as well as visualizations. First, I consider the components necessary for the Cognitive Surveyor system and discuss relevant research literature from a variety of fields. I then iteratively develop a usable system in the process of running three behavioral studies. In the first study, participants complete a real-world "traveling salesman problem," in which they must take the shortest possible path to visit a set of destinations in an urban setting. Participants carry and use a Cognitive Surveyor system, which quizzes them on their spatial knowledge for the destinations, as they visit each. This study verifies that the system obtains similar patterns of results to previous lab-based studies and also suggests how different notions of distances may shape people's travel patterns. In the second study, people learn routes using a satellite navigation system and then are forced to re-walk, from memory, the same route, while also carrying a Cognitive Surveyor system, which measures their spatial knowledge. The findings begin to show how the design of navigation systems (and other location-based services) can influence their users' acquisition of spatial knowledge. In the final study, participants use the Cognitive Surveyor application on their own smartphone for a week's time. The results demonstrate how spatial knowledge can be measured in everyday, real-world settings and suggest future uses of Cognitive Surveyor, for both basic and applied research.