Path preference and path geometry

1. Path preference and path geometry John Zacharias, Concordia University, Montréal (Québec) Canada H3G 1M8 tel: 514-848-2424 ext 2058 e-mail: zachar@vax2.concordia.ca

2. The research questions:1. The cognitive map • Do pedestrians make path choices based on cognition of the whole environment, or alternatively, are choices primarily made from information available locally? • Do pedestrians tend to move straight ahead; for example, bisecting the environment? • Do pedestrians choose pathways offering them more path options?

3. The research questions:2. Environmental content • Are people primarily drawn to pathways and places with signs of human activity? (Zacharias, J. 2001. Path choice and visual stimuli: signs of human activity and architecture. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 341-352) • Are people drawn to pathways and places with particular geometry?

4. Indoor city of Montréal (22 km corridors)

5. Three intersections in Place Montréal-Trust, Montréal Indoor city

6. The view down the corridor from the intersection

7. Experiment I • Participants (n=40) are recruited who do not know the Indoor city • They are asked to freely explore the Indoor city and talk about what they see and why they are making path choices • The choices are recorded by the research assistant who also records their travel account

8. Experiment I continued • A new group of participants (n=40) is recruited • They sit individually in the lab and explore the same environment represented in virtual reality (VR) • The VR is created using VR Authoring Studio while the choices are recorded manually by the research assistant

9. Expressed preference for path choices (participants=40; n=668) Motivation n % People 188 27 Store 186 27 Design 96 14 Light 77 11 Path to new 69 10 Smell 19 3 Music 5 1 Avoid repeated path 9 1 Avoid dead-end 9 1 Other 10 1

10. Directional bias in navigation Straight Left Right n % n % n % Real 371 38.1 268 27.5 286 29.3 VR 243 36.4 132 19.9 146 22.0

11. Search for innovative experience Total % Choose same path second time Real environment 5 5.1 VR environment 11 22.4 Choose different path second time Real environment 93 94.9 VR environment 38 77.6

12. Aggregate distribution of paths selected by participants in the real environment (a) and the VR environment (b)

13. Real vs VR exploration •No difference in path choice is detectable between real and VR exploration 11 intersections, 37 path choices Wilcoxon test: +T = 371.5; -T = 331.5; p = .47 •No difference in path choice is detectable in first path choices either 10 intersections, 33 path choices Wilcoxon test: +T = 287.5; -T = 307.5; p = .39

14. Boundary relations (BR) • For example, do people choose paths that offer them more options for future path choices – e.g. more visible path choices? • Boundary relations in Real: 214; VR: 166 • 1 < BR < 5; mean = 1.9 • Real: r = .071, p = .48; VR, r = -.046, p = .65.

15. Experiment II • To test the hypothesis that path preference is related to the visible geometry of the intersection, a hypothetical environment is created with different intersection configurations • The 3D environment is created in Bryce and exported to VR Authoring Studio • Participants are recruited to freely explore the VR environment for 20 individual path choices

16. VR environment for path choice study

17. VR exploration • Participants navigate using a mouse and can advance into the hallway as well as select a pathway

18. Aggregate choices at intersections

19. Conclusions • Participants navigate in the VR with a modest preference for straight-ahead choices • No left- or right-hand bias is detected that is stronger than the straight-ahead bias • No geometrical configuration resulting in a particular path preference can be detected (in this relatively small sample)