Document Open Access Logo

Rethinking Route Choices! On the Importance of Route Selection in Wayfinding Experiments

Authors Bartosz Mazurkiewicz , Markus Kattenbeck , Ioannis Giannopoulos

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.COSIT.2022.6.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.88 MB
  • 13 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Bartosz Mazurkiewicz
  • Geoinformation, TU Wien, Austria
Markus Kattenbeck
  • Geoinformation, TU Wien, Austria
Ioannis Giannopoulos
  • Geoinformation, TU Wien, Austria

Cite As Get BibTex

Bartosz Mazurkiewicz, Markus Kattenbeck, and Ioannis Giannopoulos. Rethinking Route Choices! On the Importance of Route Selection in Wayfinding Experiments. In 15th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2022). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 240, pp. 6:1-6:13, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2022) https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.COSIT.2022.6

Abstract

Route selection for a wayfinding experiment is not a trivial task and is often made in an undocumented way. Only recently (2021), a systematic, reproducible and score-based approach for route selection for wayfinding experiments was published. However, it is still unclear how robust study results are across all potential routes in a particular experimental area. An important share of routes might lead to different conclusions than most routes. This share would distort and/or invert the study outcome. If so, the question of selecting routes that are unlikely to distort the results of our wayfinding experiments remains unanswered. In order to answer these questions, an agent-based simulation study with four different sample sizes (N = 15, 25, 50, 3000 agents) comparing Turn-by-Turn and Free Choice Navigation approaches (between-subject design) regarding their arrival rates on more than 11000 routes in the city center of Vienna, Austria, was run. The results of our study indicate that with decreasing sample size, there is an increase in the share of routes which lead to contradictory results regarding the arrival rate, i.e., the results become less robust. Therefore, based on simulation results, we present an approach for selecting suitable routes even for small-scale in-situ studies.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Information systems → Decision support systems
  • Computing methodologies → Agent / discrete models
  • Information systems → Location based services
Keywords
  • Route Selection
  • Route Features
  • Human Wayfinding
  • Navigation
  • Experiments
  • Experimental Design

Metrics

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

References

  1. David Amores, Egemen Tanin, and Maria Vasardani. A proactive route planning approach to navigation errors. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 35(6):1094-1130, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2020.1820508.
  2. Eran Ben-Elia. An exploratory real-world wayfinding experiment: A comparison of drivers’ spatial learning with a paper map vs. turn-by-turn audiovisual route guidance. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 9:100280, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100280.
  3. Weihua Dong, Yulin Wu, Tong Qin, Xinran Bian, Yan Zhao, Yanrou He, Yawei Xu, and Cheng Yu. What is the difference between augmented reality and 2d navigation electronic maps in pedestrian wayfinding? Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 48(3):225-240, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2021.1871646.
  4. Paolo Fogliaroni, Dominik Bucher, Nikola Jankovic, and Ioannis Giannopoulos. Intersections of Our World. In Stephan Winter, Amy Griffin, and Monika Sester, editors, 10th Int. Conf. on Geographic Information Science (GIScience 2018), volume 114 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 3:1-3:15, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2018. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.GISCIENCE.2018.3.
  5. Ioannis Giannopoulos, Peter Kiefer, and Martin Raubal. Gazenav: Gaze-based pedestrian navigation. In Proc of the 17th Int Conf on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, MobileHCI '15, pages 337-346. ACM, 2015. Google Scholar
  6. Antonia Golab, Markus Kattenbeck, Georgios Sarlas, and Ioannis Giannopoulos. It’s also about timing! when do pedestrians want to receive navigation instructions. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 0(0):1-33, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13875868.2021.1942474.
  7. Haosheng Huang, Thomas Mathis, and Robert Weibel. Choose your own route – supporting pedestrian navigation without restricting the user to a predefined route. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 0(0):1-20, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2021.1983731.
  8. Peter M. Kielar, Daniel H. Biedermann, Angelika Kneidl, and André Borrmann. A unified pedestrian routing model for graph-based wayfinding built on cognitive principles. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 14(5-6):406-432, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/23249935.2017.1309472.
  9. Ting-Yu Kuo, Hung-Kuo Chu, and Yung-Ju Chang. Comparing the effects of reference-based, orientation-based, and turn-by-turn navigation guidance on users' independent navigation. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2020 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2020 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers, UbiComp-ISWC '20, pages 63-66, New York, NY, USA, 2020. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3410530.3414424.
  10. R. V Levine and A. Norenzayan. The pace of life in 31 countries. J.of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(2):178-205, 1999. Google Scholar
  11. Xiangdong Ma, Mengting Jia, Zhicong Hong, Alex Pak Ki Kwok, and Mian Yan. Does augmented-reality head-up display help? a preliminary study on driving performance through a vr-simulated eye movement analysis. IEEE Access, 9:129951-129964, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3112240.
  12. Charlotte Magnusson, Kirsten Rassmus-Gröhn, and Delphine Szymczak. Navigation by pointing to GPS locations. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(8):959-971, 2012. Google Scholar
  13. Tsubasa Maruyama, Satoshi Kanai, Hiroaki Date, and Mitsunori Tada. Simulation-based evaluation of ease of wayfinding using digital human and as-is environment models. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 6(9), 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6090267.
  14. Bartosz Mazurkiewicz, Markus Kattenbeck, and Ioannis Giannopoulos. Navigating Your Way! Increasing the Freedom of Choice During Wayfinding. In K. Janowicz and J. Verstegen, editors, 11th Int. Conf. on Geographic Information Science (GIScience 2021) - Part II, volume 208 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 9:1-9:16. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.GIScience.2021.II.9.
  15. Bartosz Mazurkiewicz, Markus Kattenbeck, Peter Kiefer, and Ioannis Giannopoulos. Not Arbitrary, Systematic! Average-Based Route Selection for Navigation Experiments. In K. Janowicz and J. Verstegen, editors, 11th Int. Conf. on Geographic Information Science (GIScience 2021) - Part I, volume 177 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 8:1-8:16. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.GIScience.2021.I.8.
  16. Martin Pielot, Benjamin Poppinga, Wilko Heuten, and Susanne Boll. Tacticycle: Supporting exploratory bicycle trips. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, MobileHCI '12, pages 369-378, New York, NY, USA, 2012. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2371574.2371631.
  17. Karl Rehrl, Elisabeth Häusler, Sven Leitinger, and Daniel Bell. Pedestrian navigation with augmented reality, voice and digital map: final results from an in situ field study assessing performance and user experience. Journal of Location Based Services, 8(2):75-96, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/17489725.2014.946975.
  18. Kai-Florian Richter, Róisín Devlin, and Filippo La Greca. Investigating wayfinding under inconsistent information. In Jurǵis Šķilters, Nora S. Newcombe, and David Uttal, editors, Spatial Cognition XII, pages 191-195, Cham, 2020. Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar
  19. S. Robinson, M. Jones, P. Eslambolchilar, R. Murray-Smith, and M. Lindborg. “I Did It My Way”: Moving Away from the Tyranny of Turn-by-Turn Pedestrian Navigation. In Proc. of MobileHCI '10, pages 341-344, 2010. Google Scholar
  20. Gian-Luca Savino, Laura Meyer, Eve Emily Sophie Schade, Thora Tenbrink, and Johannes Schöning. Point me in the right direction: Understanding user behaviour with as-the-crow-flies navigation. In 22nd International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, pages 1-11, 2020. Google Scholar
  21. Tram Thi Minh Tran and Callum Parker. Designing exocentric pedestrian navigation for ar head mounted displays. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA '20, pages 1-8, New York, NY, USA, 2020. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382868.
  22. J. Thompson, M. Stevenson, and J. S. Wijnands et al. (8). A global analysis of urban design types and road transport injury: an image processing study. The Lancet Planetary Health, 4(1):e32-e42, 2020. 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 About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact