1. Emotional Landmarks Georg Gartner GeoGeras2005

2. Agenda Current Projects Emotional Landmarks Status Questions Discussion

3. GeoGeras2005 Current Projects AIS NAVIO CARTA..

4. GeoGeras2005 Emotional Landmarks Background definition of landmarks is lacking important parts Exp: „Südbahnhof“

5. Defining “Landmarks” Objects with outstanding characteristics/ attributes: –Visual: characteristics –Cognitive: meaning –Structural: role or location in space (Sorrow & Hirtle, 1999) FOCUS is on Object MISSING: relation to person

6. Defining “Emotional Landmarks” Two working definitions are proposed: 1.“Distinctive emotional life-events that associate external landmarks with autobiography, thereby forming internal reference points” (Oakley, 2005). 2.“The emotional relationship between subjective and objective landmarks” (Oakley, 2005).

7. Literature - Geography Focus on external physical environment Also exploring virtual environment Wayfinding tools include digital cartographic products and integrate many types of media, and multi-sensory input (Taylor, 1997, 2003). Term “emotional landmark” not used

8. Literature - Psychology Focus on internal psychological environment Descriptions of human emotions borrow heavily from cartographic language but focus on the “inner self” environment

9. How do we use ‘Landmarks’? Aid wayfinding (confirms location and direction) Provide orientation in real/virtual space Help us to build up and organize and structure our spatial environment (e.g,. build a cognitive map) Useful to communicate about space CONSEQUENCE of NO landmark: may get lost; no confirmation of whereabouts so may lose confidence

10. How do we use ‘emotional landmarks’? Exactly as you would use landmarks But, incorporates personal preference Can allow transfer of different viewpoint or interpretations Provides internal structure for inner direction Provides a link between inner and external environments by autobiographical reference points

11. Summary of relevant findings 1.Highly emotional, distinctive life events help keep autobiography integrated by forming reference points (Berntsen et al., 2003). Strong emotion enhances memory N egative emotional stress yields strongest memories 2.Clinical evidence suggests the connections between life events (internal landmarks) can become disrupted Memories are disorganized or irretrievable (e.g., amnesia or dementia)

12. Implications These findings highlight: We use the same language when lost in geographic space or when emotionally lost Feeling of being lost is experientially similar (internally and externally) Autobiographical memory integrates our internal and external landmarks for use as reference points

13. Defining Emotional Landmarks Two working definitions: 1.“Distinctive emotional life-events that associate external landmarks with autobiography, thereby forming internal reference points” (Oakley, 2005). 2.“The emotional relationship between subjective and objective landmarks” (Oakley, 2005).

14. Hypothesis The strength of emotional attachment for a particular landmark embedded in memory, by an individual, influences our structuring of space, esp. wayfinding

15. So… If we agree that potentially: emotional landmarks can aid wayfinding, and everyone can benefit from their inclusion in wayfinding technology… Next question is how do we measure ´Emotional Landmarks`?

16. Measuring Emotional Landmarks How do we measure degree and type of emotional attachment to external landmarks, particularly when designing Cartographic systems? Can we use existing methodologies?

17. Current Methods in Measuring Landmark 1.Identification of landmarks based on content (e.g., “library building” contains library books) Adv: Easy to identify Disadv: May not stand out visually (Elias, 2002) Aux: Concept of “content” needs to be expanded if we want to explore emotional landmarks (i.e., add user dependent attributes to database)

18. Methodology cont´d. 2.Structural distinctiveness = visual distinctiveness (e.g., 4 streets meet, or an obstacle) Adv: Degree (value #) of nodes, edges and regions (automatic, Radoczky, 2002). Disadv: Most crossing features have similar node degree; therefore, few landmarks (Raubal & Winter, 2002). Aux: need to expand the use beyond “visual” to include emotion (e.g., node value = freq count vs. emotional value = freq count of number of emotional associations)

19. Methods Cont’d. 3.Landmark chosen because of visual, semantic or structural attraction (Raubal & Winter, 2002). Attraction = visual characteristics (e.g., façade, colour, shape Adv: database examines each building; therefore, this model is closer to reality Disadv: Time consuming bec have to build up database Aux: Can accommodate concept of emo land if explicitly add role of person’s emotional response/attachment/ association to object (i.e., add personal importance as expansion of semantic attraction def’n). If so, model can accommodate concept of emo-land easier than Methods 1 and 2, but more difficult to measure

20. Methods Cont´d. 4.Landmark chosen by an individual walking through and examining buildings in more detail (Brunner, 2001) Adv: Same as previous method, except data is provided by an individual and is more detailed Disadv: No “objective” basis for selection by examiner because it is personal Aux: Emotional response is automatic--albeit implicit— therefore, has potential to make explicit emotional aspects of landmark

21. Methods Cont’d. 5.Visibility of outstanding points is examined using 3D model (Achleitner, 2004) calculating visibility from various locations by digital extrapolation to add height, but lacks textural details. Similar as other models except using 3D Adv: Works well for global landmarks Disadv : - Difficult for local landmarks - Height-shape is not always accurate Aux: Not clear how, or if, 3D makes a difference to emotional response/attachment/association

22. Other Ideas in Literature 6.Reichenbacher (2004) suggest adaptive systems re user needs, expectations, skills Adv: Landmark categories can be extracted from database due to personal preference Disadv: Some categories relevant to the individual may not be in database; therefore, incomplete Aux: Author has not articulated how to develop his idea into a model. Although vague, his idea can accommodate concept of emotional landmarks

23. Things to Take Into Account All researchers agree that we should ensure Route Descriptions include most landmarks and decision points near start and end of route Adv: - Only a few objects are activated by the system - Lower importance can be left out, avoiding overload Disadv: Lose info about decision points in the middle of route Aux: Who decides lesser importance? system selection so far cannot accomodate personal preferences in the middle

24. Which method? None of these methods make explicit links between person’s memory/ experience/ emotional response with the physical environment Therefore auxilliary assumptions have to be made Need to identify which outcome measures / variables

25. Possible Measures (DVs) 1.Traditional Psychophysics measures -- RT, Accuracy/Error rates, subjective assessments of accuracy of decisions (indirect) 2.Narrative descriptions of events (direct) 3.Descriptive Experience Sampling 4.Post hoc evaluations of landmarks (which landmark remembered, details, and emotional response to it) 5.Personal mapping of emotions to locations/ landmarks 6.Personal profile based on where person goes, using monitoring system 7.Measure persons physiological arousal or stress levels-- perhaps with simultaneous video monitoring

26. Next Steps 1.Iterative experimental design to test each model 2.Build system, for each model, to allow person input 3.Test and Interpret data for each model and system 4.Evaluate usefulness of emotional information to augment wayfinding 5.Identify best model and/or system for wayfinding 6.Inform cybercartographic design

27. Next Steps 1.Typology of Landmarks  Distinctive  Emotional  Direct (episodic autobiographical memory) - based on existing memory - based on current experience  Indirect (collective autobiographical based)

28. Next Steps 2.Premliminary Tests Analyzing methods on their potential to measure - emotional response - degree of emotional response - map autobiography - pinpoint on exisiting maps - measure indicators of emotional response - interview

29. Next Steps 3.Points to find out - Link to space / Which Space? - Emotional Response - Degree of Emtional Response - Scale Dependency

30. GeoGeras2005