Abstract:

Spatial orientation is one of the key capabilities of spatial navigation. Orientation in physical space, or large-scale spatial orientation, refers to the process by which an individual locates and navigates in a large-scale environment. Various geographic environments influence how individuals represent spatial orientation during navigation. Based on spatial reference frame theory, this study used a desktop virtual environment navigation task to explore the regional differences in large-scale spatial orientation abilities and their causes. The study findings offer valuable insights for designing navigation in different geographic areas to avoid safety accidents arising from navigation errors. Studies on the preferred reference frame and spatial orientation ability in different regions yield inconsistent results. Hence, it remains uncertain whether differences in spatial reference frame preferences are the sole reasons for regional variations in spatial orientation abilities. Moreover, the impact of factors other than spatial reference frame preferences on spatial navigation and orientation abilities remains unclear. Most prior studies primarily employed static spatial term experiments, and it remains unclear whether regional disparities exist in dynamic spatial tasks.

Experiment 1 employed desktop virtual reality technology to clarify potential differences in large-scale spatial orientation abilities using the Route-repetition and Route-retracing tasks. Experiment 2 explored the underlying causes of regional disparities by utilizing the directional approach task, which assessed the flexibility of spatial reference frame transformation. Experiment 3 aimed to improve the large-scale spatial orientation abilities among participants from the southern region by activating the environmental spatial reference frame prior to the task.

For Experiment 1, We performed a 2 (region: northern, southern) × 2 (task type: route-repetition, route-retracing) × 3 (route: 1, 2, 3) repeated measures ANOVA on the performance of the task. The result of the performance is shown in Figure 1. The performance of the northern participants was significantly better than that of the southern participants (F(1, 66) =18.16, p< 0.001, η²_p = 0.22). The main effect of task type was significant (F(1, 66) = 113.77, p< 0.001, η²_p = 0.63). The subjects' performance on the Route-repetition task was better than that on the Route-retracing task. The interaction between region and task type was significant (F(1, 66) = 5.08, p= 0.028, η²_p = 0.07). In the route-retracing task, Northern participants significantly outperformed their southern counterparts.

For Experiment 2, We performed a 2 (region: northern, southern) × 2 (direction of approach: same, different) × 3 (route: 1, 2, 3) repeated measures ANOVA on the accuracy rate and reaction time of the task. The results of the accuracy rate and reaction time are shown in Figure 2. The accuracy for the same direction in the directional approach task was higher than for different directions (F(1, 66) = 180.11, p< 0.001, η²_p = 0.73). Furthermore, in the directional approach task, the interaction between region and direction of approach was significant (F(1, 66) = 8.78, p= 0.004, η²_p = 0.12), participants from the northern region achieved a higher accuracy rate compared to their southern counterparts. All other main effects and interactions were insignificant (ps > 0.05).

For Experiment 3, We performed a 2 (group: activation group, control group) × 2 (direction of approach: same, different) × 3 (route: 1, 2, 3) repeated measures ANOVA on the accuracy rate and reaction time of the task. The accuracy response rate for the same direction in the directional approach task was higher than for different directions (F(1, 66) = 187.28, p< 0.001, η²_p = 0.74). The accuracy rate was significantly higher in the activation group than in the control group (F(1, 66) = 10.95, p= 0.002, η²_p = 0.14). Notably, there was a significant interaction between the route and group (F(2, 132) = 6.64, p = 0.002, η²_p = 0.09). Specifically, in Route 1, the activation group exhibited a significantly higher accuracy rate than the control group, suggesting that the continuous route knowledge of road signs and the environmental central reference provided by the synergistically improved task accuracy. Furthermore, orientation and group interactions were significant (F(1, 66) = 29.18, p< 0.001, η²_p = 0.30). The accuracy rate of the activation group was significantly higher than that of the control group in different direction tasks. Regarding reaction time results, a significant main effect of direction was observed (F(1, 66) = 10.44, p= 0.002, η²_p = 0.14), with reaction times being significantly longer for different directions compared to the same direction. Reaction times were also significantly longer in the activation group (F(1, 66) = 20.35, p< 0.001, η²_p = 0.24). Additionally, there was a significant interaction between the route and the activation group (F(2, 132) = 11.56, p< 0.001, η²_p = 0.15). The interaction between orientation and activation group was significant (F(1, 66) = 8.96, p= 0.004, η²_p = 0.12), as detailed in Figure 3. All other main effects and interactions were insignificant (ps > 0.05).

This study encompassed three experiments, yielding the following findings: (1) Spatial orientation abilities varied among participants from different regions. Participants from the northern region displayed superior performance in the Route-retracing task that required an environmental reference frame, while participants from the southern region preferred to utilize the egocentric reference frame. (2) These differences were attributed to disparities in the use and flexibility of spatial reference frames. Performance variations observed in the Route-retracing task between participants from different regions were linked to their capacity for flexible spatial reference frame switching during navigation tasks. (3) Activating the environmental reference frame for participants from the southern region enhanced their performance of large-scale spatial orientation tasks effectively. Specifically, incorporating a first-person perspective of the surrounding landmark structures in the navigation design facilitated the formation of an environmental reference frame for users. This study supports the spatial reference frame theory and embodied spatial transformation theory, offering valuable insights and recommendations for tailoring navigation interface designs to diverse geographic areas.

Key words: spatial orientation, spatial reference frame, regional differences, navigation task