Document Open Access Logo

Perceptions of Qualitative Spatial Arrangements of Three Objects

Authors Ningran Xu, Ivan Majic , Martin Tomko

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.COSIT.2022.9.pdf
  • Filesize: 1.12 MB
  • 14 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Ningran Xu
  • Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
Ivan Majic
  • Institute of Geodesy, RG Geoinformation, TU Graz, Austria
Martin Tomko
  • Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

Funding

Work on this research has been supported by the Australian Research Council project DP170100153 Self-Healing Maps.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the assistance of Xiaolin Zhang with the design of the back-end data structure for the survey and Yan Zhang and Maggie Zhuang for testing the survey before the main data collection.

Cite AsGet BibTex

Ningran Xu, Ivan Majic, and Martin Tomko. Perceptions of Qualitative Spatial Arrangements of Three Objects. In 15th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2022). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 240, pp. 9:1-9:14, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2022)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.COSIT.2022.9

Abstract

Cognitive grounding of formal models of qualitative spatial relations is important to bridge between spatial data and human perceptions of spatial arrangements. Here, we report on an experimental verification of the cognitive alignment of the recently proposed Ray Intersection Model (RIM) capturing qualitative relationships between three spatial objects, and human perceptions of spatial arrangements through a grouping task. Further, we explore arrangements with an object positioned "between" two other objects. We show that RIM has sufficient expressive power and aligns well with human perceptions of ternary spatial relationships.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Information systems → Geographic information systems
  • Human-centered computing → User studies
Keywords
  • Spatial Perception
  • Qualitative Spatial Relationships
  • Betweenness
  • Evaluation
  • Ternary Relationships

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. Raechel A Bianchetti, Jan Oliver Wallgrün, Jinlong Yang, Justine Blanford, Anthony C Robinson, and Alexander Klippel. Free classification of canadian and american emergency management map symbol standards. The Cartographic Journal, 49(4):350-360, 2012. Google Scholar
  2. Isabelle Bloch, Olivier Colliot, and Roberto M Cesar. On the ternary spatial relation" between". IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), 36(2):312-327, 2006. Google Scholar
  3. Eliseo Clementini and Roland Billen. Modeling and computing ternary projective relations between regions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 18(6):799-814, 2006. Google Scholar
  4. Anthony G Cohn, Brandon Bennett, John Gooday, and Nicholas Mark Gotts. Qualitative spatial representation and reasoning with the region connection calculus. GeoInformatica, 1(3):275-316, 1997. Google Scholar
  5. Max J Egenhofer and Robert D Franzosa. Point-set topological spatial relations. International Journal of Geographical Information System, 5(2):161-174, 1991. Google Scholar
  6. Laura Ferreira and David B Hitchcock. A comparison of hierarchical methods for clustering functional data. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 38(9):1925-1949, 2009. Google Scholar
  7. Sally Fincher and Josh Tenenberg. Making sense of card sorting data. Expert Systems, 22(3):89-93, 2005. Google Scholar
  8. Alexander Klippel. Topologically characterized movement patterns: A cognitive assessment. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 9(4):233-261, 2009. Google Scholar
  9. Alexander Klippel and Rui Li. The endpoint hypothesis: A topological-cognitive assessment of geographic scale movement patterns. In International Conference on Spatial Information Theory, pages 177-194. Springer, 2009. Google Scholar
  10. Alexander Klippel and Daniel R Montello. Linguistic and nonlinguistic turn direction concepts. In International Conference on Spatial Information Theory, pages 354-372. Springer, 2007. Google Scholar
  11. Alexander Klippel, Michael Worboys, and Matt Duckham. Identifying factors of geographic event conceptualisation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 22(2):183-204, 2008. Google Scholar
  12. Ivan Majic, Elham Naghizade, Stephan Winter, and Martin Tomko. Rim: a ray intersection model for the analysis of the between relationship of spatial objects in a 2D plane. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 35:893-918, May 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2020.1778002.
  13. Ivan Majic, Elham Naghizade, Stephan Winter, and Martin Tomko. There is no way! Ternary qualitative spatial reasoning for error detection in map data. Transactions in GIS, 25(4):2048-2073, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12765.
  14. Paul Martin, Paul Patrick Gordon Bateson, and Patrick Bateson. Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide. Cambridge University Press, 1993. Google Scholar
  15. Glenn W Milligan and Martha C Cooper. Methodology review: Clustering methods. Applied psychological measurement, 11(4):329-354, 1987. Google Scholar
  16. David R Olson and Ellen Bialystok. Spatial cognition: The structure and development of mental representations of spatial relations. Psychology Press, 2014. Google Scholar
  17. D A Randell, Z Cui, and A Cohn. A spatial logic based on regions and connection. In B Nebel, C Rich, and W Swartout, editors, KR'92. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference, pages 165-176, San Mateo, California, 1992. Morgan Kaufmann. URL: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/randell92spatial.html.
  18. Jed R Wood and Larry E Wood. Card sorting: current practices and beyond. Journal of Usability Studies, 4(1):1-6, 2008. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact