Spatial Cognition and the Processing of Verticality in Underground Environments

  • Sylvie Fontaine
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2205)


Verticality is a relevant feature in many environments. Despite its relevance, little is known about how it is processed. In work conducted with the RATP, we approached this problem by comparing three forms of graphic aids intended to provide information about the vertical dimension of subway stations. These graphic representations were : floorplans of each level of the station, the same floorplans associated with a frontal view of the station and a three-dimensional axonometric representation of the station. Use of these representations was compared to learning of the station by navigation. Sixty four persons took part in the experiment. Participants had to perform routes, to locate landmarks and to compare distances. The axonometric representation was found to be the easiest to learn. The results also showed that this representation enabled individuals to perform well on the different tasks by allowing them to elaborate a correct mental representation of the vertical relations between the levels of the station, and between the underground and the outside. Thus, this kind of representation seems to be an efficient navigational aid, allowing users to achieve good planning for their displacements.


spatial cognition verticality navigational aids underground and urban environments 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Arthur, P., & Passini, R.E. (1992). Wayfinding: People, signs, and architecture. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bronzaft, A.L., Dobrow, S.B., & O’Hanlon, T.J. (1976). Spatial orientation in a subway system. Environment and Behavior, 28, 185–203.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chown, E., Kaplan, S., & Kortenkamp, D. (1995). Prototypes, location and associative networks (PLAN): Towards a unified theory of cognitive mapping. Cognitive Science, 19, 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fontaine, S., & Denis, M. (1999). The production of route instructions in underground and urban environments. In C. Freska & D.M. Mark (Eds), Spatial information theory: Cognitive and computational foundations of geographic information science (pp. 83–94). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gärling, T., Böök, A., Lindberg, E., & Arce, C. (1990). Is elevation encoded in cognitive maps. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10, 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heft, H. (1996). The ecological approach to navigation: A Gibsonian perspective. In J. Portugali (Ed.), The construction of cognitive maps (pp. 105–132), Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Montello, D. R., & Pick, H. L., Jr. (1993). Integrating knowledge of vertically aligned large-scale spaces. Environment and Behavior, 25, 457–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Passini, R.E. (1984). Spatial representation, a wayfinding perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weisman, J. (1981). Evaluating architectural legibility. Wayfinding in the built environment. Environment and Behavior, 13, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvie Fontaine
    • 1
  1. 1.Groupe Cognition HumaineLIMSI-CNRSOrsayFrance

Personalised recommendations