If you have ever thought about the differences in or influences on pedestrian route processing, this paper is for you. The authors compare the results of three different experiment settings--a navigator without any map, with a paper map, and with a digital map (in a smartphone)--and take an in-depth look at corridors and decision points such as “t-junctions, turnoffs, and areas where floor changes are possible (via stairs or lift).” They let their testers find routes from three different starts to three different goals (three routes with different levels of difficulty).

The authors monitored the navigators’ wayfinding behavior and moreover their gaze “with mobile eyetracking technology (SensoMotoricInstruments ETG 2, binocular mobile eye tracker).” This allowed them to compare fixation frequency on signage within a building, on the correct route option, on the incorrect route option, and on the map, and to examine them under different experimental conditions. One of their “interesting findings is that decision points along the route that would allow for a floor change led to a higher attention on visual information.”

The whole experiment, as well as the background, is described very rigorously. The paper is very well written and easy to read and follow, except for the middle part with statistical results--one should be very familiar with statistics to comprehend all the numbers; for the rest of us there are graphs, which are easier to read, and section 5, where these results are described using words.

The authors’ findings (as cognitive scientists) can be used, for example, in designing mobile applications, which deal with indoor navigation, or simply when placing navigation signs in building.