1.2 Cognitive Mapping and Frames of Reference

Part of the field intervention task in the study required students to successfully transpose orientations of their physical selves in three-dimensional space to two-dimensional pictorial representations thereof.  Commonly referred to as ground-to-map transpositions, this is otherwise known as cognitive mapping.  As stated earlier, Peuquet (1998: 49) has defined the term as “the cognitive representation of geographical-scale space, from the immediate space of one’s own neighbourhood, to very large and complex spatial entities such as towns and cities”.  It therefore follows that “the traveler must necessarily build a cognitive map of the environment by integrating observations over extended periods of time, inferring spatial structure from perceptions” (Kuipers and Levit, 1990: 124).

In doing so, the traveler – or, as is the case in the present study, the student – is navigating and constructing his (or her) own naïve geography, defined as “the body of knowledge that people have about the surrounding geographic world” (Egenhofer and Mark, 1995: 131). Catling (unpbl.) contends that naïve geographies are at once personal, but are also shaped by social interaction.

In all, sixty-one males and sixty-two females, aged between fourteen and fifteen, took part in the intervention described by the present study.  Rieger (1999) suggests that males tend to perform better than females in the reading and interpretation of maps.  This contention is to some extent supported by Anstett (2000), citing the work of Gail Armstrong-Hall, who elaborates that males are more predisposed to using certain spatial skills which are helpful in the successful completion of orienteering activities.  These spatial skills are:
•    Tracking using sense of direction, which involves moving to a new location through unfamiliar territory with few landmarks;
•    Imagined mental movement of objects, which comes into play when the protagonist cannot see the subject and must picture the direction of movement; and
•    Abstract mental movement in any direction at any distance, which requires the recognition of an object in the environment from multiple perspectives.

While cognitive spatial awareness involves the combination of personal knowledge and understanding of spatial layout, patterns and processes, it is also generally agreed that such cognitive maps are not founded upon the metric Euclidean geometry of traditional maps (Kuipers, 1982).  Indeed Levinson (1996), building on the work of Bryant (1992), describes at least three Frames of Reference (defined as a co-ordinate system which spatially relates objects and their components) – cognitive maps demand that the individual employ mainly Relative or Egocentric (viewer-centric origins and axes) and Intrinsic or Allocentric (origins and axes are anchored to prominent reference objects such as buildings) Frames of Reference.  As will be seen in subsequent chapters, participants’ differential use of these various Frames of Reference had much bearing on their success (or lack thereof) in one of the wayfinding component of the field-based intervention.

Indeed, it might be argued that the effective use of such Frames of Reference might be predicated upon one’s spatial intelligence.  Gaughran (1996) has described a hierarchy of so-called spatial factors, progressing from image holding and comparing, to planar rotation, to orientation, to kinetic imagery and finally to dynamic imagery.  Of most relevance to the present discussion is the orientation factor, tests of which have been designed by Guay and McDaniel (1978), and Shepard and Cooper (1982).  These tests, which involve the mental rotation of three-dimensional objects, form part of the basis of the pre- and post-tests in the present study.

Taylor and Tversky (1996) contend that when asked to describe environments, one of three spatial perspectives is often used; namely the gaze tour, the route perspective or the survey perspective.  They have mapped these spatial perspectives onto the respective Frames of Reference, such that for small environments which can be observed from a single point of view, the Egocentric Frame of Reference is used in the gaze tour, while for larger environments (such as the neighbourhoods used in the present study), the route perspective corresponds to the use of the Allocentric Frame of Reference, with the Extrinsic Frame of Reference used during the survey perspective.

Iachini and Logie (2003) go one step further and postulate that in physical, rather than laboratory, environments, Egocentric Frames of Reference are employed more than their Allocentric counterparts.  This contention was investigated through the analysis of the communication transcripts generated by participants as they attempted to guide each other in the wayfinding task.  In contrast, navigating using Euclidean properties (such as distance walked) is referred to as using Extrinsic Frames of Reference (for example, North).  While the language of these latter maps is familiar, and includes elements such as the scale and legend, cognitive maps require a new syntax to describe (Lynch, 1960; Jiang, 1998).  

One such element is the axial line, which is essentially a line of sight and a proxy for intervisibility.  A set of axial lines around a person represents the viewable space, sometimes termed the vista space.  In turn, a set of vista spaces eventually forms the entire urban environment in which the individual finds himself. The task of determining how to traverse one’s vista space essentially constitutes the wayfinding component of the field-based intervention.

Vista spaces are punctuated by landmarks, which vary from naïve geography to naïve geography. In giving route directions, Denis et al. (1999: 148) contend that the use of landmarks is “quasi-mandatory”, because the other mode of purposeful navigation – following a compass heading – is metrically incompatible with common forms of spatial discourse.  As will be seen in subsequent chapters, this is supported by the research data – as is the fact that such landmarks are not necessarily the largest or most prominent structures in the vista space, instead they are that which reside in the individual’s memory, and therefore that which the individual finds most meaningful (Couclelis, 1996; Siegel and White, 1975).

Further, Denis et al. (1999: 147) describe three sets of cognitive operations which are usually required by the leader (that is, the person giving directions, as opposed to receiving them) in the production of route directions – namely, the activation of spatial knowledge relevant to the route, usage of the spatial knowledge in defining the route, and finally the formulation of the procedure that the person being led would have to use to move along the route.  In the present study, emphasis is placed on the lattermost of these cognitive operations, first by prescribing the route, and second by having the leader himself walk it.

The spatial knowledge relevant to the route would therefore already be in the leader’s recent memory registers.  Tulving (1972) makes a distinction between episodic and semantic memory.  The former is the kind of memory which receives and stores information about specific events.  The latter is the organized knowledge a person possesses about concepts and their interrelationships.  The two are not entirely discrete.  Learning involves associating events with concepts in semantic memory as examples.  Cognitive maps, consequently, comprise both semantic and episodic memory. In the present study, the resultant spatial discourse between the leader and the led was subsequently analysed in terms of its descriptions as well as the instructions therein.

In summary, some of the fundamental cognitive processes used in wayfinding and route description have been outlined above.  In turn, wayfinding and route description form one of two complementary halves in the field-based intervention described by the present study.  The data obtained during this part of the intervention will be described in detail in Chapters Five and Six , in which three cases of participants’ wayfinding attempts will be presented.  These narratives will shed light not only on the naïve geographies of adolescents, but also on how these geographical understandings are communicated to each other and co-constructed.

<- 1.1 Methodology          -> 1.3 Research Questions and Purpose