Mahnaz Ensafi, Saman Jamshidi, Debajyoti Pati

Department of Design, Texas Tech University

Abstract

Finding one’s way is a stressful experience, especially in complex buildings such as hospitals and airports. Review articles on interior wayfinding are not widely available. This study articulates the current state of knowledge on wayfinding in building interiors.A systematic literature search was performed using the PICO framework. PsychINFO, JSTOR, ProQuest, and EBSCO databases were searched. Additional hand-searched articles were included as well (1979-2017). An integrative review was conducted by a 3-person team. A total number of 106 articles met the inclusion criteria. Four main themes emerged during data analysis: 1) personal characteristics, 2) cognitive processes, 3) navigation behavior and 4) environmental factors. This paper articulates an integrative review of 43 studies that specifically focused on the relationships between environmental factors and cognitive processes and navigation behavior. Analysis shows a greater body of knowledge in the areas of circulation configuration/ layout, signs, and maps, and a lesser volume of studies on other environmental factors.

Keywords:integrative review, wayfinding, indoor environment

Introduction

That wayfinding is a complex task is illustrated partly by the wide variety of phenomena associated with it. Vilar, Rebelo, and Noriega (2014) define it as “a process by which people try to orient and navigate themselves in an environment with the objective of finding their way from an origin to a destination and recognizing this destination when it is reached” (Vilar, Rebelo, & Noriega, 2014, p.601). Yet another definition is, among others, “the process of encoding information into and retrieving it from spatial memory, path planning, and decision making at choice points” (Wiener, Hölscher, Büchner, &Konieczny, 2012, p.713). Finding one’s way is a stressful experience, especially in complex outdoor settings and in interiors of large buildings such as hospitals and airports. However, despite a considerable body of published literature, an integrative review of the current state of knowledge on the topic is not widely available. With wayfinding continuing to be a major concern for owners of large buildings, a review of the current state of knowledge could provide a useful foundation for further applied research and decision-making. This article reports, specifically, findings in the context of interior environments from an integrative review of wayfinding literature.

Methodology

A systematic literature search was conducted by a three-person team using the PICO framework, which included hand-searched articles, in addition to PsychINFO, JSTOR, ProQuest, and EBSCO databases. The review and analysis of articles were conducted between November 2017 and December 2018. Articles included in this study were published between 1979 and 2018. From the above-mentioned databases, 2,309 scholarly publications were found, and 276 hand-searched articles were added to the list in the first step. After duplicate articles were removed, 801 articles were left. Subsequently, titles and abstracts of the articles were reviewed for inclusion/exclusion. Only empirical studies written in English language were targeted. Articles focusing on vision problems, children, any type of disability, memory issues, technology, and outdoor environments were excluded. After initial exclusion, 326 articles were left. A subsequent full-text review resulted in a list 106 articles, which were empirical studies. In the last stage, 48 articles that examined physical design factors were chosen.

An iterative process was adopted for the integrative analysis, where the focus was on the substance rather than on the quantitative data. The articles were randomly assigned for in-depth review to two team members. Each article was then discussed in detail in meetings involving all three team members. During review, one objective was to identify the principal goal of each study in addition to the findings – was it examining an intrinsic process or an extrinsic one; was it examining any aspect of the external physical environment; and was it focused on comparing and contrasting our understanding of the phenomena based on individual attributes? Extensive coding was used in a Microsoft Excel environment (version 2016), in tabular formats, to categorize articles based on primary and secondary emphases and possible meaningful clustering from both an academic and professional perspective. The classification and assignments were modified several times until meaningful categorization and article assignments were achieved. This article focuses on a subset of 43 of the 48 articles that examined physical design factors in relation to behavior or cognition. All three research team members are trained architects and interior designers and had prior training/experience in conducting systematic and integrative reviews.

Figure 1. Relationship between different factors related to wayfinding

Results

Study findings were categorized into four broad themes – those pertaining to: 1) personal characteristics, 2) cognitive processes, 3) navigation behavior, and 4) environmental factors. This article specifically provides an integrative review of findings related to the relationships between environmental factors and cognitive processes and navigation behavior (43 articles). Two subcategories were apparent within the broad range of environmental factors identified – environmental elements and qualities of environment. The subsequent sections summarize each intersection area shown in Figure 1.

Floor Plan Configuration

Floor plan configuration–spatial knowledge acquisition. Five studies examined relationships between spatial knowledge acquisition and circulation configuration – specifically, legibility, differentiation, angles at intersections, and alignment effect. O’Neill (1991) investigated cognitive mapping (a process where “people store the salient physical characteristics of the environment in a mental representation of some kind” [O'Neill, 1991, p.260]) in relation to legibility (“the degree to which a building facilitates the ability of users to find their way within it” [cited in O'Neill, 1991, p.260]) of floor plan configuration. Data were collected through sketch map and photograph sorting task. It was found that thecomplexity of topological network decreases accuracy of cognitive mapping when knowledge of individuals about their environment is restricted to topological knowledge (O'Neill, 1991).Buckley, Smith, and Haselgrove, (2016) examined the relationship between differentiation and wayfinding. They used modification of the shape of the environment using rectangle- and kite-shaped arenas to test the spatial learning model proposed by Miller and Shettleworth (2007,2008). They investigated the learning of geometric cues by humans. The spatial learning model states that “geometric cues compete for associative strength in the same manner as non-geometric cues do” (cited in Buckley, Smith, &Haselgrove, 2016, p.51). Findings showed that learning geometrics cues occurs in line with the Miller and Shettleworth’s (2007, 2008) model. The differences in angles between a path and its intersecting transitional space and their impact on spatial knowledge was studied by Abu-Obeid and Abu-Safieh (2010). They defined path knowledge as “the knowledge about movement from one point to another”, and survey knowledge as “the integrated conceptualization of a spatial layout, including object location and interrelationships” (Abu-Obeid & Abu-Safieh, 2010, p.58). They used two virtual paths, one with right angles and the other with oblique angles. The results showed that participants in right angle condition made more errors, had less correct answers, and recalled less objects (Abu-Obeid & Abu-Safieh, 2010). The relationship among spatial differentiation, landmark and wayfinding performance in an unfamiliar environment was investigated by Baskaya, Wilson, and Ozcan (2004). Two settings were used for this study - a symmetrical and regularly organized layout, and an asymmetrical layout with repetitive units. Data revealed that participants in the asymmetrical setting had better performance in sketching maps with less errors (Baskaya, Wilson, &Özcan, 2004).Werner and Schindler (2004) studied the ability of individuals to navigate in an environment in relative to topological and geometrical feature of the environment and the differences of aligned versus misaligned reference frame. Alignment effects was explained as “when viewing a path with multiple segments from one particular viewpoint, retrieval of spatial knowledge from memory is easier when observers must judge spatial relations from a heading parallel to their original perspective than from other headings” (Werner & Schindler, 2004, p.466). Because of the dependence of memory retrieval on the original heading during the learning phase, these effects are named alignment effects. They used computer-generated environment, and settings in their experiments differed in alignment of parts of the building. Participants were required to complete pointing task. They concluded that pointing performance of individuals was affected by the geometrical relation between different parts of the space, and alignment (Werner & Schindler, 2004).

Floor plan configuration– behavioral performance. Seven studies examined relationships between wayfinding performance and circulation configuration – specifically, legibility, complexity, familiarity, reference frames, regularity, and visibility. O’Neill (1991) measured amount of time and accuracy of wayfinding task and concluded that topological complexity decreases wayfinding performance by increasing the time to reach the destination.Subsequently, O’Neill (1992), examined theeffect of floor plan complexity and familiarity on wayfinding performance and spatial cognition.He used five dissimilar floor plans and measured the time to get to the destination and number of wrong turns. He concluded that cognitive mapping and performance are negatively related to floor plan complexity (O’Neill, 1992).Spatial orientation skills were assessed in relative to the structure of the physical environment by Slone et al. (2015). The complexity of physical environment was changed by changing the average number of connections at each decision point. The results of their study indicated that more errors were made in the more interconnected and novel environment (Slone, Burles, Robinson, Levy, &Iaria, 2015). Topological and geometrical feature of the environment and the differences of aligned versus misaligned reference frame were investigatedby Werner and Schindler (2004). Results indicated that average navigation time was significantly slowerin misaligned reference frame(Werner & Schindler, 2004). Jansen-Osmann, Schmid, and Heil (2007) studied the impact of regularity (“symmetry of the environmental structure, which can be described in terms of the relative position of points, lines, and angles within space” [Jansen-Osmann, Schmid, &Heil. 2007, pg.42]) on spatial knowledge (“landmark, route or procedural, and survey knowledge” [Jansen-Osmann, Schmid, &Heil, 2007, p.41]) and wayfinding (“orientation behavior and performance of individuals to find their way in a novel environment” [Jansen-Osmann, Schmid, &Heil, 2007, p.41]) of children and adults in a virtual environment. Measurements of distance walked and number of turns chosenrevealed that environmental structure does not impact spatial knowledge (Jansen-Osmann, Schmid, &Heil, 2007).Eaton (1991) measured route uncertainty (“the number and complexity of choices a person makes along a route” [p.521]), inside a library. Speed and the number of headings were measured. He concluded that there is no relationship between search efficiency and route uncertainty. Rather, availability and relevance of information at choice points were suggested as influential factors(Eaton, 1991). Li and Klippel (2016) examined the relationship between EL (environmental legibility; “how easily an environment can be learned and understood” [Li &Klippel, 2016, p.483]) and wayfinding performance (time and route taken) and concluded thatEL affected wayfinding performance and development of spatial awareness.

Districts

Districts–spatial updating. Mou and Wang (2015) examined the differences in navigation within boundaries (if the testing and learning rooms were the same) and across boundaries (if the two rooms were separate). Settings in their experiments differed in the size of the rooms and included piloting (“the process of determining the location of an invisible target by relying on the visible items; e.g., landmarks) and the representation of the spatial relations between the visible items and the invisible target” [Mou& Wang, 2015, p. 221]). They concluded that navigation is not influenced by boundary crossing if the navigation relies on path integration. However, navigation that depends on piloting is less efficient across boundaries and is impaired by boundary crossing (Mou& Wang, 2015).

Landmarks

Landmark –choice of strategies or paths.Choice of strategies or paths refers to the act of selecting a series of paths in a systematic manner (choice of navigation strategy) or selecting a path at a decision point (choice of path) when faced with two or more alternatives. Frankenstein,Brüssow, Ruzzoli, and Hölscher (2012) examined the impact of landmarks (“object used by individuals to orient themselves in an environment” [Frankenstein, et al., 2012, p165]) on path choice. They concluded that landmarks can be used to understand position in relation to targets (e.g. elevators are usually close to the entrance). Additionally, wayfinding decision was influenced by landmark function and the spatial relation between landmarks and targets; e.g. hallways with landmarks close to the target were mostly chosen.

Landmark–spatial updating. “Spatial updating is defined in egocentric terms as a dynamic process whereby a navigator continuously computes and updates transient self-to-object relations towards surrounding objects/landmarks or locations while traversing a path” (Zhong, J. Y., &Kozhevnikov, M., 2016, p. 155). Wan, Wang, and Crowell (2012) examined the impact of the presence of landmarks on human path integration (“one type of spatial updating that focuses on the spatial relationship between the origin of the trip and one's current position and orientation” [Wan et al., 2012, p.7])in virtual hallway. Participants, in two groups, were required to move along pathways that might include two landmarks. One group was informed regarding when they should return while the other group was uninformed. Results suggest that landmarks were not used to assist participants in the informed group, indicating that providing prior knowledge of target can remove the interference effects of landmarks. They concluded that spatial updating in humans is adapted to goals and demands of the task.

Landmark– spatial knowledge acquisition. Spatial knowledge acquisition refers to the accumulation of memories of environments which assists people to navigate from one place to another. It “includes landmark (knowledge about the identities of discrete objects or scenes that are salient and recognizable in the environment), route (sequences of landmarks and associated decisions) and survey knowledge (a two-dimensional and map-like,quantitatively scaled representation of the layout of the environment)” (Montello, 1998, pg.143).Sameer and Bhushan (2015) studied the strategies used while wayfinding in unfamiliar environments­ in two conditions –immediate and delayed recall. First strategy was route learning that “involved remembering sequence of turnswithout any aid” and the second strategy was “imagining landmarks that had personal significance for the participant at turns” (Sameer and Bhushan, 2015, p.150). They measured the accuracy of recalling the sequence of turns in the route and concluded that performancewas better in no landmark condition in immediate recall. However, no significant differences were found in delayed recall, andthey concluded that route learning may be influential in immediate recall.Davis, Therrien, and West (2008) investigated the impact of salient (“prominence or distinctiveness, with cues that capture a way finder’s way” [Davis, Therrien, & West, 2008, p.254]) and complex cues on place learning (“the cognitive process involved in encoding the cognitive map” [Davis, Therrien, & West, 2008, p.253])in younger and older adults in a virtual reality environment. Four variations in salience were considered for this study–simple salient (four black and white cues with simple drawings in a room with black walls and white floor and ceiling), complex salient (gray floor, white ceiling, and the walls differed in color and materials), non-salient (white floor, ceiling and walls with two cues on opposite sides), and control (same as simple condition but with purple walls).Measurements of the time it takes the participant to find a hidden platform and the initial heading direction revealed that the order of better place learning was as follows: complex salient cues, simple salient cues, and non-salient cues.Werkhoven, van Erp, and Philippi (2014) examined the relationship between landmark (visual landmarks such as buildings, auditory landmarks such as clock towers,and combination of them) and spatial memory in virtual environments. They found that the audiovisual landmarks can improve spatial memory in virtual environment.

Landmark–human competence. Two studies examined the relationship among landmark, human competence and wayfinding. In an fMRI study, Auger, Zeidman, and Maguire (2017) investigated the relationship between landmarks and Retrosplenial cortex. They stated thatRetrosplenialcortex was engaged in processing landmarks and mediating the influence of landmark permanence learning.When navigating an environment, helpful objects (landmarks at decision points) and information need to be recognizable from misleading information and objects (landmarks at non-decision points). Janzen and Jansen (2010) have stated that Parahippocampal might be involved in recognition of spatial environments. They found a neural wayfinding mechanism to distinguish helpful information from misleading ones. Also, the authors demonstrated that the activity of Parahippocampal gyrus increases for landmarks placed at a decision and navigationally relevant points (Janzen & Jansen, 2010).

Nodes

Nodes–choice of strategies or paths. Tang, Wu, and Lin (2009) considered wayfindingperformance during emergency situation in different conditions of not having emergency signs, having old emergency signs, and having new emergency signs. The results of their study revealed that participants mostly intend to turn left while facing a T intersection (Tang, Wu, & Lin, 2009). Vilar et al. (2013) investigated the impact of three features of corridor on route selection–width, brightness, and type of intersections (F and T type). Results indicate that corridor brightness is more influential compared to width of the corridor. Furthermore, people prefer to follow routes that are brighter in both type of intersections and routes that are wider in T type intersections (Vilar, Rebelo, Noriega, Teles, &Mayhorn, 2013). Subsequently, Vilar et al. (2014) examined the effect of environmental variables (corridor width and brightness) and signage (“an explicit directional information provider” [Vilar, Rebelo, Noriega, Duarte, &Mayhorn, 2014, p.511]) on route choice in everyday and emergency setting in a virtual hotel. Results of this study were same as previous study indicating that individuals have preference for wider and brighter corridors in everyday situations without any signs. However, when signs are available, people tend to depend on signs rather than environmental factors. Furthermore, intersection type can influence navigation during emergency situations if no sign is available. Wiener, Hölscher, Büchner, andKonieczny, (2012) studiedgaze behaviorof people during wayfinding decision making and concluded that participants had a preference of paths that have long line of sightwhen they had several path options.

Node–perception/information pick-up. Gaze behavior of people during wayfinding decision making was investigated in another part of the study by Wiener et al. (2012). Data from eye movement indicated that differences between encoding and decoding were found in gaze behavior. Participants’ attentions to routes were dependent on line of sight, features of the environment and also the type of the task (Wiener, Hölscher, Büchner, &Konieczny, 2012).

Paths

Paths– choice of strategies or paths. Butler et al. (1993) examined the effect of route simplicity (demanded less memory load) and route efficiency (required less energy expenditure) on route selection. They concluded that people tend to choose routes that require the least amount of energy. The complexity did not have a great influence on route choice(Butler, Acquino, Hissong, & Scot, 1993).In afollow up study (Frankenstein et al., 2012) revealed that participants had preference for path with longer sight line.Strategies made by people while encountering multiple route with the same length was studied by Van Tilburg and Igou (2014). They found that individuals prefer route involving continued movement compared to routes requiring early change in the movement while facing two routes that look the same. Moreover, individuals prefer a route which seems straighter and closer to the target (Van Tilburg & Igou, 2014). Vilar, Teixeira, Rebelo, Noriega, and Teles (2012) examined the impact of lighting level and width of indoor corridors on route choice in emergency condition. They found that individuals have preference for wider and brighter corridors. However, when they had to choose between a wide and dark corridor and narrow corridor with more lighting, individuals preferred the latter one.

Paths–perception/information pick-up.Hidayetoglu, Yildirim, and Akalin (2012) examined the effects of brightness, color temperature, and light levels on spatial perception. Comparing situations across these factors revealed that individuals were more attracted to warm colors. In addition, low level of lighting was consideredas a negative feature by the participants(Hidayetoglu, Yildirim, &Akalin, 2012).

Signage

Signage– choice of strategies or paths. Vilar, Rebelo, Noriega, Teles, andMayhorn (2015) studied the impact of corridor differences (width and brightness) and use of signage and concluded that although the environmental variables impacted participants route choice leading to wider and brighter corridors, they followed the signs when they were available.Tang, Wu, and Lin (2009) evaluated wayfinding performance during emergency situation in three conditions–no emergency signs, having old emergency signs, and having new emergency signs. Results indicated that having either old or new signs is better than not having any signs in the environment. Furthermore, it was concluded that individuals prefer to escape through visible doors, instead of following signs, when exit doors are available.

Signage–behavioral performance. Cope, Lutz, Ironsmith, andElbert (1999) investigated the differences in wayfinding performance while using iconic sign versus verbal signs in a university bookstore. Measurements of time and distances taken by participants showed that signs with new verbal labels and signs including both words and icons improved wayfinding performance.Vilar, Rebelo, and Noriega (2014) examined the impact of different signage system on wayfinding performance (i.e. time, average speed, number of pauses, and the traveled distance) in virtual reality in three conditions – verticalsignage (wall mounted), horizontal signage (continuous marked trail), and no signage, and concluded that there were no significant differences between signage types and participant’s performance.

Signage–perception/information pick-up. Two studies examined the relationship between signage and wayfinding and suggested that healthcare signs require standardization. Hashim, Alkaabi, and Bharwani (2014) studied the interpretation of wayfinding symbols among people with different culture, age, and literacy levels in a healthcare facility, and concluded that (1) visual symbols hastened the wayfinding process and eliminated the age and language differences; (2)the interpretation of healthcare symbols is more complicated compared to general symbols; (3) comprehension of symbols varied depending on age, culture, and literacy; and (4) healthcare symbols still lack universal design.Rousek and Hallbeck (2011) investigated factors contributing to effective comprehension of signs in healthcare settings and found that (1) signs consisting human pictograms, less complex, and with high contrasts were better comprehensible and understandable; and (2) combination of red, white, and black were preferred by the participants.

Maps

Maps–choice of strategies or paths. Map usage and verbal versus visual instruction were used in research done by Hölscher, Büchner, Meilinger, and Strube (2009) to study how wayfinding strategies are adapted. The study considered three wayfinding strategies (1) central point strategy (“sticking as much as possible to main corridors and main places in the building”, p.208); (2)direction strategy(“choosing routes that head towards the horizontal position of the goal as directly as possible, irrespective of level changes”, p.208); and (3) floor strategy (“the strategy of first moving to the correct floor in the building”, p.209). Data suggested that participants adopted strategies based on spatial features of the environment, instructions, and task information. Theyused direction strategy when receiving visual instruction, but adopted the floor plan strategy when they received number-based instruction. Moving to the right location before changing level was more effective for wayfinding performance. Participants who received visual instruction barely used maps while participants who received number-based instructions did.

Maps–behavioral performance. Five articles studied the relation between maps- color, level of details, placement of labels, YAH (you-are-here) maps, hand-held maps, schematic maps, and floor plans- and behavioral performance. Three map variables— color, level of details, and placement of labels—were studied by Devlin and Bernstein (1997). The maps varied in colors with high or low level of details, and labels placed either in the legend or next to landmarks. Results revealed that having labels in the legends requires individuals to spend more time performing wayfinding.The impact of wayfinding aids, including you-are-here maps and signs on wayfinding performance at Ball State Universitywere studied by Butler, Acquino, Hissong, and Scot (1993). First, they used YAH maps close to the entrances of a building. They then substituted signs for the maps. Results revealed an advantage of using signs over YAH maps.Wright, Hull, and Lickorish (1993) investigated the advantage of carrying a hand-held map during navigation. In their experiment, one group of participants were only allowed to use the signs while the other group also carried hand-held mapswhile navigating. Results indicated that although hand-held maps did not increase the speed of wayfinding, they could decrease the amount of load on working memory.Meilinger, Hölscher, Büchner, and Brösamle (2006) studied the differences between schematic maps (“the abstraction from unnecessary detail to concentrate on the essential information”, p.382) and floor plans, and their influence on performance and self-localization (“to regain our orientation in an unknown environment, we have to compare features of our surrounding with features of a map”, p.386)in an unfamiliar multi-level building. Results indicated that participants made less detours, covered shorter distances, and required less time for encoding information using schematic maps. However, self-localization was same for both types of information provided.Chen, Chang, and Chang (2009) examined the impact of different navigational support on wayfinding performance (“the ability to find a way to a particular destination or location in an expedient manner and to recognize the target when approaching it”, p.220). Guide signs, which have an egocentric mode, and YAH maps, which have allocentric mode, were studied with different task difficulties (terrestrial [2D] and weightless [3D] tasks). The first task required finding target in a virtual environment without having been provided with altitude information, while the second task included the altitude information. Results of the study revealed that search time in the terrestrial condition and while using guide signage were less than in the weightless condition and while using YAH maps. However, no significant relationship between task difficulty and navigational support were found.

Maps– problem solving and decision making. Levine, Marchon, and Hanley (1984) studied the impact of location of YAH maps (aligned versus misaligned) on ease of using them while wayfinding. The results of their study supported the principle that it is less complicated to use aligned maps compared to misaligned ones, and that similarly oriented vertical maps are psychologically the same as laid maps.

Maps– spatial knowledge acquisition. The differences between learning and acquiring spatial knowledge by navigating in real world, inVE (virtual environment), and by reading maps wereevaluated by Richardson, Montello and Hegarty (1999). Results indicated that learning from maps and from navigating in the real environment are more similar if the exposure time is equal, however, maps are better for acquiring fast and accurate survey knowledge if the orientation is aligned with the map. Furthermore, spatial learning was inferior in VE and that individuals have a preferred orientation similar to their original facing direction in VE. Nonetheless, performance level of learning the layout of landmarks was the same for all conditions.Spatial knowledge acquisition, judgement, and performance were studied in relation to using map versus navigating in the environment by Thorndyke and Hayes-Roth (1982). Results revealed that performance declined in both navigation and map-based tasks when perspective (bird’s eye view in map-based vs. navigator view in real world) was changed. In addition, learning from map was superior for judgments of relative locations and straight distances while learning from navigation was superior for orientation and estimating route distances. The effectiveness of route learning versus map (survey) learning was investigated by Golledge, Doughtery, and Bell (1995). A map or a computer simulated environment was used by participants to evaluate their learning and the amount of spatial knowledge acquired. Results confirmed that less errors in distance and angle estimation were found in map learning compared to route learning.

Other Environmental Elements

Other environmental elements–choice of strategies or paths. In part of the study done by Jansen-Osmann and Wiedenbauer (2004), researchers studied the influence of color on strategies used by individuals. Strategies considered in this study were least angle strategy (“strategy based on the navigator’s heuristic of selecting the street segment at an intersection, which is most in line with the target, or the believed target’s direction”, p.339) and complexity minimizing strategy (“participants chose the straightest possible routes as opposed to more meandering ones”, p.339]). Results indicated that color did not have animpact on strategy chosen by participants.

Other environmental elements –behavioral performance. Jansen-Osmann and Wiedenbauer (2004) also investigated the impact of color on wayfinding performance (“the performance to find the way and strategies used”, p.338]) in a virtual environment, among children and adults. Results revealed that color improved wayfinding performance in both groups.

Other environmental elements–spatial knowledge acquisition. In another part of the study, Jansen-Osmann and Wiedenbauer (2004) studied the impact of color on acquisition of survey knowledge. Results indicated that color did not affect spatial knowledge acquisition.

Other environmental elements–perception/information pick-up. Two studies simply explored environmental elements that provide information during wayfinding. Pati, Harvey, Willis, and Pati (2015) investigated the factors that informed wayfinding (“the ability to find one’s way without getting lost”, p.44]) in a community hospital and frequency of being sought by people. Maps, signs, logical clustering of functions, furniture, logical pairing of interior architecture elements, structural elements, and architectural features were found to be information sources. Additionally, less frequently, artwork, fixed furniture and millwork, display boards and information panels, wall color, vending machines, and indoor plants were found to be used by participants. In a follow upobjective study, the same question was examined using eye-tracking technologyin an educational setting. Result of this study, generally confirmed findings from the previous study, indicating that subjects got visually fixated on signs, architectural features, maps, and interior artifacts (Ghamari&Pati, 2018).

Discussion

This paper articulates an integrative review of 43 studies that specifically focused on the relationships between environmental factors and cognitive processes and navigation behavior in interior environments. Studies suggest that (1) floor plan complexity influences legibility, cognitive mapping, wayfinding performance, pointing performance, and development of spatial awareness, but not spatial knowledge; (2) navigation is influenced by district boundaries; (3) landmarks affect wayfinding decisions, performance and route learning in immediate recall, and spatial memory, but providing prior knowledge of targets can remove the interference effects of landmarks; (4) two parts of cognition are engaged in processing landmarks including the retrosplenial and parahippocampal; (5) people have preference for wider and brighter corridors when signs are not available, and brightness is more influential than width; (6) line of sight, features of the environments, type of task, and type of intersection were influential factors in wayfinding; (7) wider and brighter corridors and warm colors are preferred; (8) individuals have preference for continued movement, straighter routes, and paths that require the least amount of energy; (9) signs that include both words and icons were found to enhance wayfinding; less complex signs with human pictograms, high contrast, and a combination of red, white, and black were preferred and better understood; healthcare symbols require more consideration; having either old or new signs is better than having no signs; people pay more attention to signs than to the wideness and brightness of corridors; and during an emergency situation, individuals choose visible exit doors over exit signs; (10) signage has advantage over YAH maps; schematic maps were found to cause better performance and take less time for encoding information compared to topographic floor plans; maps are better for judgment of relative locations, for acquiring fast and accurate knowledge if orientation is aligned with maps, and map learners have superior understanding of spatial relationships; hand-held maps can also decrease the amount of load on memory; maps are more helpful if they are aligned with orientation and if the perspective is not changed; and people who receive visual instructions barely used wall-mounted maps; (11) color can influence wayfinding performance and strategies chosen by participants, but it did not have any impact on spatial knowledge acquisition; and (12) besides signs and maps, people draw wayfinding information from a wide range of other environmental elements.

As with any integrative review, conclusions from this study may be subject to change based on papers in progress or studies that are not in the databases we searched. It was limited by the applied search terms, the journals included, and the time period of published papers. Limited number of studies within each thematic area precluded meta-analysis of quantitative data.

References

Abu-Obeid, N., & Abu-Safieh, S. (2010). The Effect of the Angle between Navigation Paths and Transitional Spaces on Spatial Knowledge. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 57-68.

Auger, S. D., Zeidman, P., & Maguire, E. A. (2017). Efficacy of navigation may be influenced by retrosplenial cortex-mediated learning of landmark stability. Neuropsychologia, 104, 102-112.

Baskaya, A., Wilson, C., &Özcan, Y. Z. (2004). Wayfinding in an unfamiliar environment: Different spatial settings of two polyclinics. Environment and Behavior, 36(6), 839-867.

Buckley, M. G., Smith, A. D., &Haselgrove, M. (2016). Blocking spatial navigation across environments that have a different shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 42(1), 51.

Butler, D. L., Acquino, A. L., Hissong, A. A., & Scott, P. A. (1993). Wayfinding by newcomers in a complex building. Human factors, 35(1), 159-173.

Chen, C. H., Chang, W. C., & Chang, W. T. (2009). Gender differences in relation to wayfinding strategies, navigational support design, and wayfinding task difficulty. Journal of environmental psychology, 29(2), 220-226.

Cope, J., Lutz, J., Ironsmith, M., & Elbert, E. (1999). Use of signs to enhance way-finding in a university bookstore. Perceptual and motor skills, 88(3_suppl), 1271-1279.

Davis, R. L., Therrien, B. A., & West, B. T. (2008). Cue conditions and wayfinding in older and younger women. Research in gerontological nursing, 1(4), 252-263.

Devlin, A. S., & Bernstein, J. (1997). Interactive way-finding: Map style and effectiveness. Journal of environmental psychology, 17(2), 99-110.

Eaton, Gale. (1991). Wayfinding in the Library: Book Searches and Route Uncertainty. RQ, 30(4), 519-27.

Frankenstein, J., Brüssow, S., Ruzzoli, F., &Hölscher, C. (2012). The language of landmarks: the role of background knowledge in indoor wayfinding. Cognitive processing, 13(1), 165-170.

Ghamari, H., Pati, D. (2018). Examining Eye-Fixations during Wayfinding in Unfamiliar Indoor Environments. The International Journal of Designed Objects, 12(2), 15-33.

Golledge, R. G., Dougherty, V., & Bell, S. (1995). Acquiring Spatial Knowledge: Survey Versus Route‐Based Knowledge in Unfamiliar Environments. Annals of the association of American geographers, 85(1), 134-158.

Hashim, M. J., Alkaabi, M. S. K. M., &Bharwani, S. (2014). Interpretation of way-finding healthcare symbols by a multicultural population: Navigation signage design for global health. Applied ergonomics, 45(3), 503-509.

Hidayetoglu, M. L., Yildirim, K., &Akalin, A. (2012). The effects of color and light on indoor wayfinding and the evaluation of the perceived environment. Journal of environmental psychology, 32(1), 50-58.

Hölscher, C., Büchner, S. J., Meilinger, T., &Strube, G. (2009). Adaptivity of wayfinding strategies in a multi-building ensemble: The effects of spatial structure, task requirements, and metric information. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(2), 208-219.

Janzen, G., & Jansen, C. (2010). A neural wayfinding mechanism adjusts for ambiguous landmark information. NeuroImage, 52(1), 364-370.

Jansen-Osmann, P., Schmid, J., &Heil, M. (2007). Wayfinding behavior and spatial knowledge of adults and children in a virtual environment: The role of the environmental structure. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 66(1), 41-50.

Jansen-Osmann, P., &Wiedenbauer, G. (2004). Wayfinding performance in and the spatial knowledge of a color-coded building for adults and children. Spatial cognition and computation, 4(4), 337-358.

Levine, M., Marchon, I., & Hanley, G. (1984). The placement and misplacement of you-are-here maps. Environment and Behavior, 16(2), 139-157

Li, R., &Klippel, A. (2016). Wayfinding behaviors in complex buildings: The impact of environmental legibility and familiarity. Environment and Behavior, 48(3), 482-510.

Meilinger, T., Hölscher, C., Büchner, S. J., &Brösamle, M. (2006, September). How much information do you need? Schematic maps in wayfinding and self localisation. In International Conference on Spatial Cognition (pp. 381-400). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Miller, N. Y., &Shettleworth, S. J. (2007). Learning about environmental geometry: An associative model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 191–212.

Miller, N. Y., &Shettleworth, S. J. (2008). An associative model of geometry learning: A modified choice rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 419–422.

Montello, D. R. (1998). A new framework for understanding the acquisition of spatial knowledge in large-scale environments. Spatial and temporal reasoning in geographic information systems, 143-154.

Mou, W., & Wang, L. (2015). Piloting and path integration within and across boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(1), 220.

O'Neill, M. J. (1992). Effects of familiarity and plan complexity on wayfinding in simulated buildings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(4), 319-327.

O'Neill, M. J. (1991). Evaluation of a conceptual model of architectural legibility. Environment and Behavior, 23(3), 259-284.

Pati, D., Harvey Jr, T. E., Willis, D. A., &Pati, S. (2015). Identifying elements of the health care environment that contribute to wayfinding. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 8(3), 44-67.

Richardson, A. E., Montello, D. R., &Hegarty, M. (1999). Spatial knowledge acquisition from maps and from navigation in real and virtual environments. Memory & cognition, 27(4), 741-750.

Rousek, J. B., &Hallbeck, M. S. (2011). Improving and analyzing signage within a healthcare setting. Applied ergonomics, 42(6), 771-784.

Sameer, A., &Bhushan, B. (2015). Route memory in an unfamiliar homogeneous environment: a comparison of two strategies. Cognitive processing, 16(1), 149-152.

Slone, E., Burles, F., Robinson, K., Levy, R. M., &Iaria, G. (2015). Floor plan connectivity influences wayfinding performance in virtual environments. Environment and Behavior, 47(9), 1024-1053.

Tang, C. H., Wu, W. T., & Lin, C. Y. (2009). Using virtual reality to determine how emergency signs facilitate way-finding. Applied ergonomics, 40(4), 722-730.

Thorndyke, P. W., & Hayes-Roth, B. (1982). Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cognitive psychology, 14(4), 560-589.

Van Tilburg, W. A., & Igou, E. R. (2014). Moving onwards: An action continuation strategy in finding the way. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27(5), 408-418.

Vilar, E., Rebelo, F., & Noriega, P. (2014). Indoor human wayfinding performance using vertical and horizontal signage in virtual reality. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 24(6), 601-615.

Vilar, E., Rebelo, F., Noriega, P., Duarte, E., &Mayhorn, C. B. (2014). Effects of competing environmental variables and signage on route-choices in simulated every day and emergency wayfinding situations. Ergonomics, 57(4), 511-524.

Vilar, E., Rebelo, F., Noriega, P., Teles, J., &Mayhorn, C. (2015). Signage versus environmental affordances: is the explicit information strong enough to guide human behavior during a wayfinding task? Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 25(4), 439-452.

Vilar, E., Rebelo, F., Noriega, P., Teles, J., &Mayhorn, C. (2013). The influence of environmental features on route selection in an emergency situation. Applied ergonomics, 44(4), 618-627.

Vilar, E., Teixeira, L., Rebelo, F., Noriega, P., &Teles, J. (2012). Using environmental affordances to direct people natural movement indoors. Work, 41(Supplement 1), 1149-1156.

Wan, X., Wang, R. F., & Crowell, J. A. (2012). The effect of landmarks in human path integration. Actapsychologica, 140(1), 7-12.

Werkhoven, P., van Erp, J. B., & Philippi, T. G. (2014). Navigating virtual mazes: the benefits of audiovisual landmarks. Displays, 35(3), 110-117.

Werner, S., & Schindler, L. E. (2004). The role of spatial reference frames in architecture: Misalignment impairs way-finding performance. Environment and Behavior, 36(4), 461-482.

Wiener, J. M., Hölscher, C., Büchner, S., &Konieczny, L. (2012). Gaze behaviour during space perception and spatial decision making. Psychological research, 76(6), 713-729.

Wright, P., Hull, A. J., & Lickorish, A. (1993). Navigation in a Hospital Outpatients’ Department: The Merits of Maps and Wall Signs. Journal of Architectural and Planning research, 76-89

Zhong, J. Y., &Kozhevnikov, M. (2016). Relating allocentric and egocentric survey-based representations to the self-reported use of a navigation strategy of egocentric spatial updating. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 154–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.007