Presentation of Björn JE Johansson, Charlotte Hellgren, Per-Anders Oskarsson and Jonathan Svensson on the topic "Supporting situation awareness on the move - the role of technology for spatial orientation in the field" at ISCRAM2013

1. Björn JE Johansson, Charlotte Hellgren,
Per-Anders Oskarsson, and Jonathan Svensson
bjorn.j.e.johansson@foi.se
Swedish Defence Research Agency
Supporting situation awareness on the move - the role
of technology for spatial orientation in the field

2. Background (i)

3. Background (ii)

4. Background (iii)

5. Research questions (i)
• How precisely can people remember and
accurately indicate the direction (by pointing) to
five different objects beyond visible range while
traversing in wooded terrain?

6. Research questions (ii)
• To what degree are people supported by state of
the art technology such as digital maps, GPS
and electronic compass when indicating the
direction to five different objects while traversing
in wooded terrain?

7. Research questions (iii)
• Are there adverse effects, for example time
needed to complete a task like indicating
directions to objects beyond visible range, when
using technologies such as digital maps, GPS
and electronic compass?

8. Research questions (iv)
• What type of spatial test (self-rating, spatial
visualization or spatial orientation) is the best
predictor of success in terms of how accurately
people can indicate the direction to five different
objects beyond visible range while traversing in
wooded terrain?

9. Design (i)
• Experimental task – navigate a route with three stations,
• At the start – presentation of five objects
• At each station – indicating the direction to the five objects.
• Two conditions:
– With GPS
– Without GPS

10. Design (ii)
• 16 persons (8 women and 8 men) between the
ages 19-42 (mean age 25.4) years participated.
• Within groups design
– Order balanced over conditions

11. Design (iii)
• A GPS-receiver with an electronic compass and a digital map
(Garmin GPSmap 62stc with the map database “Friluftskartan PRO
v2) was used for navigation.
• A Pocket Laser Range Finder (PLRF 15C from Vextronix AG) was
used for indication of direction when the pointing task was
performed. It was mounted on a tripod (Manfrotto 190B). The
accuracy of the PLRF device is ±4°.

12. Design (iv)
• Before the test began, the participants
completed three different spatial tests:
– Santa Barbara Sense of Direction
– Paper folding test
– Perspective taking test
Ekstrom, French & Hartman (1979)
Kozhevnikov & Hegarty (2001)

13. Design (v)
• Measures
– Precision of indication task (deviation in degrees from
correct direction)
– Performance time of pointing task
– Ratings of mental workload (1=Low – 7=High)
– Results on spatial tests

14. Results (i)
Start Stn 1 Stn 2 Stn 3
Sample points
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Deviation(degrees)
Without GPS
With GPS
Error Bars ±1 SE
Precision on the indication task – measured as deviation from correct direction
• Main effect of GPS-
condition (p < .001)
• Main effect of Sample
Points (p < .001)
• Significant interaction
between GPS-condition
and Sample Points
(p < .001)

15. Results (ii)
Correlation between performance on the perspective taking test and
precision on the indication task – measured as deviation from correct direction
r = .64
R2 = .41

16. Results (iii)
Without GPS With GPS
GPS-condition
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Deviation(degrees)
High spatial performance
Low spatial performance
Error Bars ±1 SE
Precision on the indication task – measured as deviation from correct direction.
Participants with high and low spatial performance separately.
• Significant interaction
between Spatial Test and
GPS-condition (p = .031)
• Post hoc: High spatial
performance –> higher
precision without GPS
(p = .037)

17. Results (iv)
Without GPS With GPS
GPS-condition
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Performancetime(s)
Performance time for indication of direction
Error Bars ±1 SE
• Significantly longer
performance time
with GPS (p < .001)

18. Results (v)
Ratings of mental workload of navigating to stations, remembering object
locations, and estimating directions, and physical demands (1=Low – 7=High)
• Significant main effect of
• GPS-condition (p = .002)
• Significant main effect of
Type of Demand (p = .001)
• Significant interaction
between GPS-condition and
type of demand (p < .001)

19. Summary Results
• Indication of direction” – significantly higher
precision with GPS.
• Performance time – significantly longer with
GPS.
• The Perspective taking test – significant
correlation with performance without GPS.
• Mental workload – ratings generally lower with
GPS.

20. Conclusions (i)
• To keep a reasonable stable and adequate level
of spatial awareness in terms of being able to
indicate direction to several objects while
traversing, a technical aid like a GPS is clearly
needed.

21. Conclusions (ii)
• Having a technical aid during indication of
direction decreased the mental workload
associated with the indication task considerably

22. Conclusion (iii)
• Using GPS-support demanded significantly more
time to perform the task of indicating direction.

23. Conclusion (iv)
• The perspective taking test may be used as a
tool for assessing spatial ability for these types
of problems.

24. Questions