Document Open Access Logo

Empirical Evidence for Concepts of Spatial Information as Cognitive Means for Interpreting and Using Maps

Authors Enkhbold Nyamsuren, Eric J. Top, Haiqi Xu, Niels Steenbergen, Simon Scheider

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.COSIT.2022.7.pdf
  • Filesize: 15.27 MB
  • 14 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Enkhbold Nyamsuren
  • Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Eric J. Top
  • Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Haiqi Xu
  • Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Niels Steenbergen
  • Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Simon Scheider
  • Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Funding

This work was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 803498).

Cite As Get BibTex

Enkhbold Nyamsuren, Eric J. Top, Haiqi Xu, Niels Steenbergen, and Simon Scheider. Empirical Evidence for Concepts of Spatial Information as Cognitive Means for Interpreting and Using Maps. In 15th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2022). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 240, pp. 7:1-7:14, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2022) https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.COSIT.2022.7

Abstract

Due to the increasing prevalence and relevance of geo-spatial data in the age of data science, Geographic Information Systems are enjoying wider interdisciplinary adoption by communities outside of GIScience. However, properly interpreting and analysing geo-spatial information is not a trivial task due to knowledge barriers. There is a need for a trans-disciplinary framework for sharing specialized geographical knowledge and expertise to overcome these barriers. The core concepts of spatial information were proposed as such a conceptual framework. These concepts, such as object and field, were proposed as cognitive lenses that can simplify understanding of and guide the processing of spatial information. However, there is a distinct lack of empirical evidence for the existence of such concepts in the human mind or whether such concepts can be indeed useful. In this study, we have explored for such empirical evidence using behavioral experiments with human participants. The experiment adopted a contrast model to investigate whether the participants can semantically distinguish between the object and field core concepts visualized as maps. The statistically significant positive results offer evidence supporting the existence of the two concepts or cognitive concepts closely resembling them. This gives credibility to the core concepts of spatial information as tools for sharing, teaching, or even automating the process of geographical information processing.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Information systems → Geographic information systems
  • General and reference → Empirical studies
Keywords
  • core concepts
  • cognition
  • map interpretation
  • spatial analysis

Metrics

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

Supplementary Materials

References

  1. Jochen Albrecht. Universal analytical gis operations: A task-oriented systematization of data structure-independent gis functionality. Geographic information research: Transatlantic perspectives, pages 577-591, 1998. Google Scholar
  2. Johannes Brauner. Formalizations for geooperators-geoprocessing in Spatial Data Infrastructures. PhD thesis, Technische Universität Dresden, 2015. Google Scholar
  3. Nicholas R Chrisman. Exploring geographic information systems. Wiley New York, 2002. Google Scholar
  4. Marc Destefano, John K Lindstedt, and Wayne D Gray. Use of complementary actions decreases with expertise. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, volume 33, 2011. Google Scholar
  5. Roger M Downs. The representation of space: Its development in children and in cartography. In The development of spatial cognition, pages 349-372. Psychology Press, 2013. Google Scholar
  6. Max J Egenhofer and David M Mark. Naive geography. In International Conference on Spatial Information Theory, pages 1-15. Springer, 1995. Google Scholar
  7. Thomas R Etherington. Teaching introductory gis programming to geographers using an open source python approach. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 40(1):117-130, 2016. Google Scholar
  8. Philip J Gersmehl and Carol A Gersmehl. Spatial thinking by young children: Neurologic evidence for early development and “educability”. Journal of Geography, 106(5):181-191, 2007. Google Scholar
  9. Philip J Gersmehl and Carol A Gersmehl. Spatial thinking: Where pedagogy meets neuroscience. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 27:48, 2011. Google Scholar
  10. Reginald G Golledge. Geographical perspectives on spatial cognition. In Advances in psychology, volume 96, pages 16-46. Elsevier, 1993. Google Scholar
  11. Michael F Goodchild. A spatial analytical perspective on geographical information systems. International journal of geographical information system, 1(4):327-334, 1987. Google Scholar
  12. Michael F Goodchild. Towards an enumeration and classification of gis functions. In International Geographical Information Systems Symposium, 1988. Google Scholar
  13. Michael F Goodchild, May Yuan, and Thomas J Cova. Towards a general theory of geographic representation in gis. International journal of geographical information science, 21(3):239-260, 2007. Google Scholar
  14. Torsten Hahmann and E Lynn Usery. What is in a contour map? In International Conference on Spatial Information Theory, pages 375-399. Springer, 2015. Google Scholar
  15. U. Hahn and E. Heit. Semantic similarity, cognitive psychology of. In Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes, editors, International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, pages 13878-13881. Pergamon, Oxford, 2001. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01548-5.
  16. Diane F Halpern and Jonathan Wai. The world of competitive scrabble: Novice and expert differences in visuopatial and verbal abilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(2):79, 2007. Google Scholar
  17. Toru Ishikawa. Spatial thinking in geographic information science: Students' geospatial conceptions, map-based reasoning, and spatial visualization ability. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106(1):76-95, 2016. Google Scholar
  18. Donald G Janelle and Michael F Goodchild. Concepts, principles, tools, and challenges in spatially integrated social science. The SAGE handbook of GIS and society, pages 27-45, 2011. Google Scholar
  19. Johannes F Kruiger, Vedran Kasalica, Rogier Meerlo, Anna-Lena Lamprecht, Enkhbold Nyamsuren, and Simon Scheider. Loose programming of gis workflows with geo-analytical concepts. Transactions in GIS, 25(1):424-449, 2021. Google Scholar
  20. Werner Kuhn. Core concepts of spatial information for transdisciplinary research. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26(12):2267-2276, 2012. Google Scholar
  21. Werner Kuhn and Andrea Ballatore. Designing a language for spatial computing. In AGILE 2015, pages 309-326. Springer, 2015. Google Scholar
  22. David M Mark. Human spatial cognition. Human factors in geographical information systems, pages 51-60, 1993. Google Scholar
  23. Enkhbold Nyamsuren and Niels A Taatgen. Pre-attentive and attentive vision module. Cognitive systems research, 24:62-71, 2013. Google Scholar
  24. Simon Scheider and Tom de Jong. A conceptual model for automating spatial network analysis. Transactions in GIS, 2021. Google Scholar
  25. Simon Scheider, Rogier Meerlo, Vedran Kasalica, and Anna-Lena Lamprecht. Ontology of core concept data types for answering geo-analytical questions. Journal of Spatial Information Science, 2020(20):167-201, 2020. Google Scholar
  26. Simon Scheider, Enkhbold Nyamsuren, Han Kruiger, and Haiqi Xu. Geo-analytical question-answering with gis. International Journal of Digital Earth, 14(1):1-14, 2021. Google Scholar
  27. Elizabeth S Spelke and Katherine D Kinzler. Core knowledge. Developmental science, 10(1):89-96, 2007. Google Scholar
  28. Eric J Top. The semantics of extensive quantities in geographical information. Master’s thesis, Utrecht University, 2021. Google Scholar
  29. Jeremy M Wolfe and Todd S Horowitz. What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? Nature reviews neuroscience, 5(6):495-501, 2004. Google Scholar
  30. Haiqi Xu, Ehsan Hamzei, Enkhbold Nyamsuren, Han Kruiger, Stephan Winter, Martin Tomko, and Simon Scheider. Extracting interrogative intents and concepts from geo-analytic questions. AGILE: GIScience Series, 1:1-21, 2020. Google Scholar
  31. Hao Ye, Michael Brown, and Jenny Harding. Gis for all: exploring the barriers and opportunities for underexploited gis applications. OSGeo Journal, 13(1):19-28, 2014. 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