Abstract
In task 1, all subjects were asked to reach an exit without reading a map and no one found the shortest way to the nearest exit. In task 2, subjects were asked to read a map, to plan a route for the designated exit, and then to reach it. 2D map subjects’ way-finding performance was superior to that of 3D map subjects. 2D map subjects had problems with stairway connections, but 3D map subjects were confused by the incompleteness of symbols. 2D map subjects used wall and action-based information to construct their route knowledge, but 3D map subjects tended to rely on landmarks.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
