3-D route-planning support for navigation in a complex indoor environment

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3-D) route-planning support offers a promising solution to overcome problems with wayfinding in complex indoor environments. An experiment was conducted to test the effect of 3-D route-planning support in a realistic setting, a large hospital building, during normal operation. Forty participants performed navigation tasks either with (n = 20) or without (n = 20) 3-D route-planning support. Support resulted in faster navigation, more use of artwork specifically installed to aid wayfinding, fewer navigation errors, less disorientation and less anxiety. In addition, participants used different strategies for wayfinding: without navigation support they used signs and route colour, but with navigation support they used not only the artwork, but also the existing furniture and other landmarks. The acceptance of 3-D route-planning support was high. Overall, the results support the value of 3-D route-planning support.

Keywords:

• wayfinding
• navigation
• indoor environment
• 3-D environment
• visualisation

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Amazing Interactives Ltd, UK, for adapting the 3-D application for the research and making the artwork available. The authors are also grateful to James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK, for operational support.

Conflict of interest disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. The effect size measure, d, is defined as the difference between two group means divided by their (pooled) standard deviation (the number of standard deviations that two means [here experimental and control] are apart). For interpretation, effect size conventions are 0.2 = small, 0.5 = medium and 0.8 = large (Cohen 1988).

2. F (2, 38) = 10.23, p < .001 for the control condition, but F < 1 for the experimental condition.

3. F (2, 38) = 17.25, p < .001 for the control condition, but F (2, 38) = 2.25, p > .05 for the experimental condition.

4. F (2, 38) = 20.03, p < .001 for the control condition, but F (2, 38) = 3.25, p = .05 for the experimental condition.

5. Tasks 2 and 3 did not differ significantly.

6. All confidence intervals exceeded the neutral value of 4 on the 7-point scales that were used.