Route effects in city-based survey knowledge estimates.

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Jakub Krukar, Samuel Navas Medrano, Angela Schwering
{"title":"Route effects in city-based survey knowledge estimates.","authors":"Jakub Krukar,&nbsp;Samuel Navas Medrano,&nbsp;Angela Schwering","doi":"10.1007/s10339-022-01122-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When studying wayfinding in urban environments, researchers are often interested in obtaining measures of participants' survey knowledge, i.e., their estimate of distant locations relative to other places. Previous work showed that distance estimations are consistently biased when no direct route is available to the queried target or when participants follow a detour. Here we investigated whether a corresponding bias is manifested in two other popular measures of survey knowledge: a pointing task and a sketchmapping task. The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is a systematic bias in pointing/sketchmapping performance associated with the preferred route choice in an applied urban setting. The results were mixed. We found moderate evidence for the presence of a systematic bias, but only for a subset of urban locations. When two plausible routes to the target were available, survey knowledge estimates were significantly biased in the direction of the route chosen by the participant. When only one plausible route was available, we did not find a statistically significant pattern. The results may have methodological implications for spatial cognition studies in applied urban settings that might be obtaining systematically biased survey knowledge estimates at some urban locations. Researchers should be aware that the choice of urban locations from which pointing and sketchmapping are performed might systematically distort the results, in particular when two plausible but diverging routes to the target are visible from the location.</p>","PeriodicalId":47638,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Processing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10110726/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Processing","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-022-01122-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When studying wayfinding in urban environments, researchers are often interested in obtaining measures of participants' survey knowledge, i.e., their estimate of distant locations relative to other places. Previous work showed that distance estimations are consistently biased when no direct route is available to the queried target or when participants follow a detour. Here we investigated whether a corresponding bias is manifested in two other popular measures of survey knowledge: a pointing task and a sketchmapping task. The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is a systematic bias in pointing/sketchmapping performance associated with the preferred route choice in an applied urban setting. The results were mixed. We found moderate evidence for the presence of a systematic bias, but only for a subset of urban locations. When two plausible routes to the target were available, survey knowledge estimates were significantly biased in the direction of the route chosen by the participant. When only one plausible route was available, we did not find a statistically significant pattern. The results may have methodological implications for spatial cognition studies in applied urban settings that might be obtaining systematically biased survey knowledge estimates at some urban locations. Researchers should be aware that the choice of urban locations from which pointing and sketchmapping are performed might systematically distort the results, in particular when two plausible but diverging routes to the target are visible from the location.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

基于城市的调查知识估算中的路径效应。
当研究城市环境中的寻路时,研究人员通常对获得参与者的调查知识感兴趣,即他们对相对于其他地方的距离的估计。先前的研究表明,当被查询的目标没有直接路线可用或参与者绕路时,距离估计始终是有偏差的。在这里,我们研究了相应的偏差是否表现在另外两种流行的测量知识:指向任务和草图绘制任务。本研究的目的是调查在应用城市环境中,是否存在与首选路线选择相关的指向/草图映射性能的系统性偏差。结果喜忧参半。我们发现了存在系统性偏差的适度证据,但仅适用于城市地区的一小部分。当有两条可行的路线到达目标时,调查知识估计明显偏向于参与者选择的路线方向。当只有一条可行的路径时,我们没有发现统计上显著的模式。该结果可能对应用城市环境中的空间认知研究具有方法学意义,这些研究可能在某些城市地点获得系统的有偏见的调查知识估计。研究人员应该意识到,从城市位置的选择进行指向和绘制草图可能会系统性地扭曲结果,特别是当从该位置可以看到两条看似合理但不同的路线到达目标时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognitive Processing
Cognitive Processing PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
5.90%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Cognitive Processing - International Quarterly of Cognitive Science is a peer-reviewed international journal that publishes innovative contributions in the multidisciplinary field of cognitive science.  Its main purpose is to stimulate research and scientific interaction through communication between specialists in different fields on topics of common interest and to promote an interdisciplinary understanding of the diverse topics in contemporary cognitive science. Cognitive Processing is articulated in the following sections:Cognitive DevelopmentCognitive Models of Risk and Decision MakingCognitive NeuroscienceCognitive PsychologyComputational Cognitive SciencesPhilosophy of MindNeuroimaging and Electrophysiological MethodsPsycholinguistics and Computational linguisticsQuantitative Psychology and Formal Theories in Cognitive ScienceSocial Cognition and Cognitive Science of Culture
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信