Impact of Navigation Aid and Spatial Ability Skills on Wayfinding Performance and Workload in Indoor-Outdoor Campus Navigation: Challenges and Design
Source abstract
Abstract
Wayfinding is important for everyone on a university campus to understand where they are and get to where they want to go to attend a meeting or a class. This study explores the dynamics of mobile navigation apps and the spatial ability skills of individuals on a wayfinding performance and perceived workload on a university campus wayfinding, including indoor-outdoor navigation, by focusing on three research objectives. (1) Compare the effectiveness of Google Maps (outdoor navigation app) and MazeMap (indoor-outdoor navigation app) on wayfinding performance and perceived workload in university campus wayfinding. (2) Investigate the impact of participants’ spatial ability skills on their wayfinding performance and perceived workload regardless of the used navigation app. (3) Highlight the challenges in indoor-outdoor university campus wayfinding using mobile navigation apps. To achieve this, a controlled experiment was conducted with 22 participants divided into a control (using Google Maps) and an experiment group (using MazeMap). Participants were required to complete a time-bound wayfinding task of navigating to meeting rooms in different buildings within the Gløshaugen campus of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, Norway. Participants were assessed on spatial ability tests, mental workload, and wayfinding performance using a questionnaire, observation notes and a short follow-up interview about the challenges they faced in the task. The findings reveal a negative correlation between overall spatial ability score (spatial reasoning, spatial orientation, and sense of direction) and perceived workload (NASA TLX score and Subjective Workload Rating) and a negative correlation between sense of direction score and total hesitation during wayfinding task. However, no significant difference was found between the Google Maps and the MazeMap group for wayfinding performance and perceived workload. The qualitative analysis resulted in five key challenge categories in university campus wayfinding, providing implications for designing navigation systems that better facilitate indoor-outdoor campus navigation.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Spatial Cognition and Navigation · Augmented Reality Applications · Geographic Information Systems Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Faculty of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
Funding
Research Council of Norway (NFR) through the Smart Workspace past COVID-19 project
References (99)
Show source-provided references
1. The relations among wayfinding strategy use, sense of direction, sex, familiarity, and wayfinding ability10.1006/jevp.1999.0160 ↗
2. Gender differences in spatial navigation: Characterizing wayfinding behaviors10.3758/s13423-019-01659-w ↗
3. The efficacy of campus wayfinding signage: A comparative study from Hong Kong and Pakistan10.1108/F-04-2020-0035 ↗
4. An experimental investigation into wayfinding directions for visually impaired people10.1007/s00779-005-0350-y ↗
5. An outdoor navigation assistance system for visually impaired people in public transportation10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3111544 ↗
6. Augmented-reality-based indoor navigation: A comparative analysis of handheld devices versus google glass
7. Schuldt, C., Shoushtari, H., Hellweg, N., and Sternberg, H. (2021). L5IN: Overview of an indoor navigation pilot project. Remote Sens., 13.10.3390/rs13040624 ↗
8. Biczok, G., Martínez, S.D., Jelle, T., and Krogstie, J. (2014, January 24–28). Navigating MazeMap: Indoor human mobility, spatio-logical ties and future potential. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communication Workshops (PERCOM WORKSHOPS), Budapest, Hungary.10.1109/PerComW.2014.6815215 ↗
9. Giudice, N.A., Walton, L.A., and Worboys, M. (2010, January 2). The informatics of indoor and outdoor space: A research agenda. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Indoor Spatial Awareness, San Jose, CA, USA.10.1145/1865885.1865897 ↗
10. Enhancing integrated indoor/outdoor mobility in a smart campus10.1080/13658816.2015.1049541 ↗
11. Nikander, J., Järvi, J., Usman, M., and Virrantaus, K. (2013). Progress in Location-Based Services, Springer.
12. Lu, F., Zhou, H., Guo, L., Chen, J., and Pei, L. (2021). An ARCore-Based Augmented Reality Campus Navigation System. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11167515 ↗
13. Design and implementation of outdoor and indoor campus navigation system10.21884/IJMTER.2016.3074.TTTPF ↗
14. Vanclooster, A., and De Maeyer, P. (2012). Advances in Location-Based Services, Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Location-Based Services, Vienna, Austria, 21–23 November 2011, Springer.
15. Wayfinding with a GPS-based mobile navigation system: A comparison with maps and direct experience10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.002 ↗
16. Lin, Y.-L., and Wang, C.-H. (2011, January 9–14). Evaluation of wayfinding performance and workload on electronic map interface. Proceedings of the Human-Computer Interaction. Towards Mobile and Intelligent Interaction Environments: 14th International Conference, HCI International 2011, Orlando, FL, USA. Proceedings, Part III 14.10.1007/978-3-642-21616-9_35 ↗
17. The Effects of Practice on Navigation Performance and Mental Workload with a Mirror-In-The-Sky Map10.1177/1071181321651060 ↗
18. Schnitzler, V., and Hölscher, C. (2015, January 25–27). User Experience and Strategy Choices During Navigation: A Content Analysis of Navigators Using Different Types of Wayfinding Devices. Proceedings of the EAPCogSci, Torino, Italy.
19. Chien, Y.C., Tsai, P.A., Lin, Y.T., Wu, S.M., Chen, K.T., Han, Y.T., and Hwang, P. (2016, January 17–22). Uncertainty and mental workload among wayfinding strategies. Proceedings of the Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Users and Context Diversity: 10th International Conference, UAHCI 2016, Held as Part of HCI International 2016, Toronto, ON, Canada. Proceedings, Part III 10.
20. Wayfinding in interior environments: An integrative review10.3389/fpsyg.2020.549628 ↗
21. Mental rotation and real-world wayfinding10.2466/pms.2001.92.1.19 ↗
22. Spatial ability skills: A correlation between Augmented Reality (AR) and conventional way on wayfinding system10.21834/e-bpj.v1i2.279 ↗
23. Verghote, A., Al-Haddad, S., Goodrum, P., and Van Emelen, S. (2019). The effects of information format and spatial cognition on individual wayfinding performance. Buildings, 9.10.3390/buildings9020029 ↗
24. Individual differences in wayfinding strategies10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00011-2 ↗
25. Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00116-2 ↗
26. Visuo-spatial ability and wayfinding performance in real-world10.1007/s10339-006-0104-4 ↗
27. Accessible wayfinding and navigation: A systematic mapping study10.1007/s10209-021-00843-x ↗
28. Comparative analysis of computer-vision and BLE technology based indoor navigation systems for people with visual impairments10.1186/s12942-019-0193-9 ↗
29. Huang, H., and Gartner, G. (2009). Cartography in Central and Eastern Europe, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-03294-3 ↗
30. Ren, G., Ai, C., Xu, Q., Wang, Z., Wang, Z., and Geng, D. (2020, January 28–29). Research on Indoor and Outdoor Navigation Technology Based on the Combination of Differential GNSS and Lidar SLAM. Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Real-Time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), Asahikawa, Japan.10.1109/RCAR49640.2020.9303252 ↗
31. Seamless indoor-outdoor navigation based on GNSS, INS and terrestrial ranging techniques10.1017/S037346331700042X ↗
32. Pfaff, P., Kümmerle, R., Joho, D., Stachniss, C., Triebel, R., and Burgard, W. (November, January 29). Navigation in combined outdoor and indoor environments using multi-level surface maps. Proceedings of the WS on Safe Navigation in Open and Dynamic Environments, IROS, San Diego, CA, USA.
33. Krogstie, J. (2012, January 17–20). Bridging research and innovation by applying living labs for design science research. Proceedings of the Nordic Contributions in IS Research: Third Scandinavian Conference on Information Systems, SCIS 2012, Sigtuna, Sweden. Proceedings 3.
34. (2023, March 22). MazeMap Website. Available online: http://mazemap.com.
35. Cheung, A.K.L. (2006, January 4–5). Representational issues in interactive wayfinding systems: Navigating the Auckland University Campus. Proceedings of the Web and Wireless Geographical Information Systems: 6th International Symposium, W2GIS 2006, Hong Kong, China. Proceedings 6.
36. Kim, S., Park, E., Hong, S., Cho, Y., and del Pobil, A.P. (2011, January 16–18). Designing digital signage for better wayfinding performance: New visitors’ navigating campus of university. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Interaction Sciences, Busan, Republic of Korea.
37. Mobile student information system10.1108/10650741111097269 ↗
38. An empirical study of the adoption of an indoor location-based service: Finding reading rooms10.4018/IJTHI.2017040105 ↗
39. Spatial navigation in large-scale virtual environments: Gender differences in survey tasks10.1016/j.chb.2007.06.005 ↗
40. A review of augmented reality systems and their effects on mental workload and task performance10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06277 ↗
41. Google maps
42. Jong, S. (2015). Rethinking Spatial Abilities: A Multimethod Examination of Its Context-Dependent Nature and Whether Tests Require Increased Conceptual, Contextual, and Perceptual Similarity to Usage Context. [Ph.D. Thesis, Carleton University].
43. A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities10.1016/j.intell.2003.12.001 ↗
44. Evidence for a unitary structure of spatial cognition beyond general intelligence10.1038/s41539-020-0067-8 ↗
45. NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later10.1177/154193120605000909 ↗
46. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9 ↗
47. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration-task load index: NASA-TLX: Evaluation of its use in surgery10.1111/ans.17830 ↗
48. What is the difference between augmented reality and 2D navigation electronic maps in pedestrian wayfinding?10.1080/15230406.2021.1871646 ↗
49. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology10.1177/1094428112452151 ↗
50. Creswell, J.W., and Creswell, J.D. (2017). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Sage Publications.
51. Played into collaborating: Design games as scaffolding for service co-design project planning10.1177/1046878116664662 ↗
52. Lichtman, M. (2012). Qualitative Research in Education: A User’s Guide, Sage Publications.
53. Zhang, X., Jin, L., Zhao, J., Li, J., Luh, D.-B., and Xia, T. (2022). The Influences of Different Sensory Modalities and Cognitive Loads on Walking Navigation: A Preliminary Study. Sustainability, 14.10.3390/su142416727 ↗
54. How do voice-assisted digital maps influence human wayfinding in pedestrian navigation?10.1080/15230406.2021.2017798 ↗
55. Satellite navigation and geospatial awareness: Long-term effects of using navigation tools on wayfinding and spatial orientation10.1080/00330124.2018.1479970 ↗
56. Albers, M.J. (2011, January 3–5). Tapping as a measure of cognitive load and website usability. Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication, Pisa, Italy.10.1145/2038476.2038481 ↗
57. NASA RTLX as a novel assessment tool for determining cognitive load and user acceptance of expert and user-based usability evaluation methods
58. Jöst, M., Häußler, J., Merdes, M., and Malaka, R. (2005, January 10–13). Multimodal interaction for pedestrians: An evaluation study. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, San Diego, CA, USA.10.1145/1040830.1040852 ↗
59. Vainio, T. (2009, January 24–28). Exploring multimodal navigation aids for mobile users. Proceedings of the Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2009: 12th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Uppsala, Sweden. Proceedings, Part I 12.
60. Testing two tools for multimodal navigation
61. Kuriakose, B., Shrestha, R., and Sandnes, F.E. (2020). Multimodal navigation systems for users with visual impairments—A review and analysis. Multimodal Technol. Interact., 4.10.3390/mti4040073 ↗
62. Map design evaluation for mobile display10.1559/152304005775194773 ↗
63. Which one helps tourists most? Perspectives of international tourists using different navigation aids10.1080/14616688.2015.1016099 ↗
64. A framework for assessing the salience of landmarks for wayfinding tasks10.1007/s10339-006-0049-7 ↗
65. Immersive AR Landmark-Based Campus Wayfinding Solution with Focus on People with Navigation Difficulties
66. Zheng, M.-C., and Hsu, Y.-W. (2021). How 2.5 D Maps Design Improve the Wayfinding Performance and Spatial Ability of Map Users. Informatics, 8.10.3390/informatics8040088 ↗
67. Spatial decision dynamics during wayfinding: Intersections prompt the decision-making process10.1186/s41235-018-0098-3 ↗
68. Wayfinding and acquisition of spatial knowledge with navigation assistance10.1037/xap0000237 ↗
69. Kuhl, P.K., Lim, S.-S., Guerriero, S., and van Damme, D. (2019). Developing Minds in the Digital Age: Towards a Science of Learning for 21st Century Education, OECD.10.1787/562a8659-en ↗
70. Impact of AR Navigation Display Methods on Wayfinding Performance and Spatial Knowledge Acquisition
71. Spatial knowledge acquisition with virtual semantic landmarks in mixed reality-based indoor navigation10.1080/15230406.2021.1908171 ↗
72. Snopková, D., Švedová, H., Kubíček, P., and Stachoň, Z. (2019). Navigation in indoor environments: Does the type of visual learning stimulus matter?. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf., 8.10.3390/ijgi8060251 ↗
73. Harper, C., Duke, T., Avera, A., Crosser, A., Jefferies, S., and Klisans, D.V. (2020). Advances in Human Factors and Ergonomics in Healthcare and Medical Devices: Proceedings of the AHFE 2020 Virtual Conference on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Healthcare and Medical Devices, Virtual Conference, USA, 16–20 July 2020, Springer.
74. Foltz, M.A. (1998). Designing Navigable Information Spaces. [Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science].
75. Paving the way with machine learning for seamless indoor–outdoor positioning: A survey10.1016/j.inffus.2023.01.023 ↗
76. NavCog3 in the wild: Large-scale blind indoor navigation assistant with semantic features10.1145/3340319 ↗
77. Huang, B.-C., Hsu, J., Chu, E.T.-H., and Wu, H.-M. (2020). Arbin: Augmented reality based indoor navigation system. Sensors, 20.10.3390/s20205890 ↗
78. Li, Y., Zhang, P., Niu, X., Zhuang, Y., Lan, H., and El-Sheimy, N. (2015, January 13–16). Real-time indoor navigation using smartphone sensors. Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation (IPIN), Banff, AB, Canada.10.1109/IPIN.2015.7346966 ↗
79. Designing indoor navigation interfaces on smartphones compatible with human information processing in an emergency evacuation scenario10.1080/13467581.2019.1696805 ↗
80. Meliones, A., and Sampson, D. (2018). Blind MuseumTourer: A system for self-guided tours in museums and blind indoor navigation. Technologies, 6.10.3390/technologies6010004 ↗
81. Harper, C., Duke, T., Crosser, A., Avera, A., and Jefferies, S. (2020). Advances in Human Factors and Ergonomics in Healthcare and Medical Devices, Proceedings of the AHFE 2019 International Conference on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Healthcare and Medical Devices, Washington DC, USA, 24–28 July 2019, Springer. 10.
82. Ng, X.H., and Lim, W.N. (2020, January 22–24). Design of a mobile augmented reality-based indoor navigation system. Proceedings of the 2020 4th International Symposium on Multidisciplinary Studies and Innovative Technologies (ISMSIT), Istanbul, Turkey.10.1109/ISMSIT50672.2020.9255121 ↗
83. Design of three-dimensional visualization indoor navigation system in smart city construction10.1051/e3sconf/202128302025 ↗
84. Sandoval, E.B., Li, B., Diakite, A., Zhao, K., Oliver, N., Bednarz, T., and Zlatanova, S. (2020, January 25–29). Visually Impaired User Experience using a 3D-Enhanced Facility Management System for Indoors Navigation. Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 2020 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, Virtual.10.1145/3395035.3425247 ↗
85. A Scoping Literature Review and Content Analysis of Navigation Apps for Blind and Visually Impaired Users10.1177/1071181322661554 ↗
86. Alnabhan, A., and Tomaszewski, B. (2014, January 4). INSAR: Indoor navigation system using augmented reality. Proceedings of the Sixth ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Indoor Spatial Awareness, Dallas/Fort Worth, TX, USA.10.1145/2676528.2676535 ↗
87. Swobodzinski, M., and Parker, A.T. (2019). A Comprehensive Examination of Electronic Wayfinding Technology for Visually Impaired Travelers in an Urban Environment, Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC).10.15760/trec.227 ↗
88. Sanford, J.A., Melgen, S., Guhathakurta, S., and Zhang, G. (2018). Utility of a Mobile Route Planning App for People Aging with Disability, IARIA.
89. Swobodzinski, M., and Parker, A.T. (2019). Electronic Wayfinding for Visually Impaired Travelers: Limitations and Opportunities, Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC).
90. Flores, J.Z., Charbonnier, E., Cornus, S., and Rasseneur, L. (2021, January 3–7). Navi Campus: Quantitative Methodology for Evaluating the User Interface of a Navigation App Using Eye Tracker and Smartphone. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Informatics and Assistive Technologies for Health-Care, Medical Support and Wellbeing, Barcelona, Spain.
91. Hall, A.J. (2022). A Computer Vision and Maps Aided Tool for Campus Navigation, Texas A&M University.
92. Designing Mixed Reality-Based Indoor Navigation for User Studies10.1007/s42489-022-00108-4 ↗
93. Liu, B., and Meng, L. (2020, January 21–25). Doctoral colloquium—Towards a better user interface of augmented reality based indoor navigation application. Proceedings of the 2020 6th International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN), San Luis Obispo, CA, USA.10.23919/iLRN47897.2020.9155198 ↗
94. Helmi, R.A.A., Ravichandran, H.A., Jamal, A., and Mohammed, M. (2022, January 17). Design and Development of Indoor Campus Navigation Application. Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 10th Conference on Systems, Process & Control (ICSPC), Malacca, Malaysia.
95. Puikkonen, A., Sarjanoja, A.-H., Haveri, M., Huhtala, J., and Häkkilä, J. (2009, January 22–25). Towards designing better maps for indoor navigation: Experiences from a case study. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, Cambridge, UK.10.1145/1658550.1658566 ↗
96. The effect of interface consistency and cognitive load on user performance in an information search task10.1177/154193120905302206 ↗
97. Dynamic navigation indoor map using Wi-Fi fingerprinting mobile technology10.11591/eei.v9i2.2066 ↗
98. Apelt, R., Crawford, J., and Hogan, D.J. (2007). Wayfinding Design Guidelines, CRC for Construction Innovation.
99. Gender differences in large-scale and small-scale spatial ability: A systematic review based on behavioral and neuroimaging research10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00128 ↗