地标权重——最短路径算法中空间距离的替代方案

IF 1.6 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Eva Nuhn, S. Timpf
{"title":"地标权重——最短路径算法中空间距离的替代方案","authors":"Eva Nuhn, S. Timpf","doi":"10.1080/13875868.2022.2130330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Although numerous studies have shown that landmarks are important for navigation, almost all navigation systems implement a shortest-route algorithm without considering landmarks. Which options do we have to integrate landmarks into a route calculation? How would the resulting routes differ from shortest routes? We propose a weighting method for Dijkstra’s shortest route algorithm to generate “landmark routes” and compare them to their corresponding shortest routes. We show that the extra distance and time needed to walk the landmark routes is acceptable in most of the routes. The main contribution is a thorough discussion of the differences between the two types of routes. Since the results are promising, we discuss variations in computing the weights as well as recommend human subject tests.","PeriodicalId":46199,"journal":{"name":"Spatial Cognition and Computation","volume":"150 1","pages":"206 - 232"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Landmark weights - an alternative to spatial distances in shortest route algorithms\",\"authors\":\"Eva Nuhn, S. Timpf\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13875868.2022.2130330\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Although numerous studies have shown that landmarks are important for navigation, almost all navigation systems implement a shortest-route algorithm without considering landmarks. Which options do we have to integrate landmarks into a route calculation? How would the resulting routes differ from shortest routes? We propose a weighting method for Dijkstra’s shortest route algorithm to generate “landmark routes” and compare them to their corresponding shortest routes. We show that the extra distance and time needed to walk the landmark routes is acceptable in most of the routes. The main contribution is a thorough discussion of the differences between the two types of routes. Since the results are promising, we discuss variations in computing the weights as well as recommend human subject tests.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46199,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Spatial Cognition and Computation\",\"volume\":\"150 1\",\"pages\":\"206 - 232\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Spatial Cognition and Computation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13875868.2022.2130330\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spatial Cognition and Computation","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13875868.2022.2130330","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: 6

摘要

尽管大量研究表明地标对导航很重要,但几乎所有的导航系统都实现了不考虑地标的最短路径算法。我们有哪些选择将地标整合到路线计算中?由此产生的路线与最短的路线有何不同?我们提出了一种Dijkstra最短路径算法的加权方法来生成“地标路径”,并将它们与相应的最短路径进行比较。我们表明,在大多数路线中,步行标志性路线所需的额外距离和时间是可以接受的。主要的贡献是对两种路线之间的差异进行了深入的讨论。由于结果是有希望的,我们讨论了计算权重的变化以及推荐人体受试者测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Landmark weights - an alternative to spatial distances in shortest route algorithms
ABSTRACT Although numerous studies have shown that landmarks are important for navigation, almost all navigation systems implement a shortest-route algorithm without considering landmarks. Which options do we have to integrate landmarks into a route calculation? How would the resulting routes differ from shortest routes? We propose a weighting method for Dijkstra’s shortest route algorithm to generate “landmark routes” and compare them to their corresponding shortest routes. We show that the extra distance and time needed to walk the landmark routes is acceptable in most of the routes. The main contribution is a thorough discussion of the differences between the two types of routes. Since the results are promising, we discuss variations in computing the weights as well as recommend human subject tests.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Spatial Cognition and Computation
Spatial Cognition and Computation PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
10
×
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