Swiss Journal of Psychology 68 (1), 2009, 7–16

Wayfinding is the ability to move successfully through theenvironment. More specifically, it is the ability to learn, re-call, and follow a route through the environment (Blades,1991). It refers to purposeful movement to a specific desti-nation that is distal and, thus, cannot be perceived directlyby the traveler (e.g., Allen, 1999; Blades, 1991). Downs andStea (1973) define four stages in wayfinding activity: (a)orientation to determine self-location and estimated targetlocation; (b) initial route choice in selecting routes from ori-gin to target location; (c) route monitoring, that is, check-ing the route taken by estimates of self-location and targetlocation as well as reassessing/confirming the route choice;and (d) recognition of the target. Golledge (1999) suggest-ed that successful wayfinding necessitates: (a) identifica-tion of origin and destination, (b) determination of turn an-gles, (c) identification of segment lengths and directions ofmovement, (d) recognition of routes and distant landmarks,and (e) embedment of the routes taken in a larger frame ofreference.

The fields of environmental psychology (e.g., Baskaya,Wilson, & Özcan, 2004; Golledge, 1999) and cognitive psy-chology (e.g., Tversky, 2000) both deal with wayfinding,but from different viewpoints. Our study deals withwayfinding from a cognitive psychological point of view.Environmental psychological research focuses mainly onenvironmental characteristics that influence wayfinding be-havior. Environmental researchers look at streets and topo-

graphical maps, vary their parameters (i.e., color, size, or-ganization, complexity), and note the impact of the varia-tion on simulated or real wayfinding behavior. For exam-ple, Weisman (1979, 1981) studied the factors that influencewayfinding in buildings and found that plan configurationwas most influential, followed by spatial landmarks, spa-tial differentiation (i.e., physical qualities of the setting,such as color, light, and materials, that made it particular),and finally signage and room numbers. A number of stud-ies have suggested that the complexity of floor plan con-figuration has the greatest influence on wayfinding (e.g.,Haq & Zimring, 2003; O’Neill, 1991).

In contrast, cognitive psychological research deals withthe cognitive processes involved in route learning and thestrategies adopted to move successfully through the envi-ronment. In particular, questions concerning what route-learning processes are necessary for and which cognitivestructures are involved in successful wayfinding have beenposed repeatedly, albeit from different points of view. Lind-berg and Gärling (1981) conducted one of the first studieson this issue: They analyzed the possible role of a limited-capacity cognitive system in estimating directions and dis-tances. These are important abilities when we have to movethrough the environment to reach a goal, that is, when wecarry out wayfinding behavior (Golledge, 1999). Using adual-task paradigm (backward counting task), Lindberg andGärling asked participants to walk through alleyways and

Swiss J Psychol 68 (1), © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

Original Communication

Individual Differences in Visuo-Spatial Working Memory and

Real-World Wayfinding Raffaella Nori, Sonia Grandicelli, and Fiorella Giusberti

University of Bologna, Italy

The present research investigated the relationship between individual differences in visuo-spatial working memory (VSWM) and wayfindingperformance in adults. Forty participants completed a battery of tasks measuring VSWM (Mental Rotation Task, Corsi Block Task, CopyingTask, and Spatial Problem Task) and covered an unfamiliar route in a botanical garden. Our findings showed that VSWM was involved inwayfinding performance: High-VSWM participants performed the wayfinding task with fewer errors and faster and paused less frequently alongthe route than did low-VSWM participants. Our results suggest that different aspects of working memory, that is, active/passive and visual/se-quential/simultaneous subcomponents, are involved in remembering an unfamiliar real-world route.

Keywords: wayfinding, visuo-spatial working memory, individual differences, sequential process, simultaneous process

DOI 10.1024/1421-0185.68.1.7

8 R. Nori et al.: Working Memory and Real-World Wayfinding

estimate the direction and distance to the reference pointswhen they stopped. In the concurrent task condition, walk-ers had difficulty keeping track of where they were relativeto designated reference points along the route, but were ableto encode information about the route (distance walked anddirection changes). Moreover, as the number of route seg-ments between the site for estimation and reference pointsincreased, participants showed increased latency to estimatethe location of reference points. These results support theidea that wayfinding requires effective use of a limited-ca-pacity cognitive system.

As Garden, Cornoldi, and Logie (2002) pointed out, thework of Lindberg and Gärling (1981) did not indicate therelative involvement of a specific cognitive subsystem. Us-ing a dual-task paradigm, Garden et al. showed that learn-ing a route both from a map and real-life town environmentrequires visuo-spatial working memory (VSWM) re-sources. However, these studies do not specify which com-ponents of VSWM are involved in a route-learning task, anecessary phase for successful performance on a wayfind-ing task, as Golledge (1999) suggested.

Logie’s (1995, 2003) VSWM model supports the im-portance of looking at specific subcomponents of spatialmemory. The model consists of a passive visual cache sup-ported by an active inner scribe spatial rehearsal mecha-nism. Information held in the visual cache is subject to de-cay unless maintained. The active inner scribe is responsiblefor rehearsing the contents of the visual cache and is alsoinvolved in the planning and execution of movements. Paz-zaglia and Cornoldi (1999) have demonstrated that the ma-nipulation of the sequential/simultaneous presentation ofto-be-memorized VSWM stimuli is an important variable,suggesting a differentiation between sequential and simul-taneous processes in the inner scribe. Spatial sequential pro-cessing requires the recall of a serial position presented ina sequential format whereas in spatial simultaneous pro-cessing people are to recall a position presented simultane-ously. Therefore, it seems that the visual cache holds visu-al information such as form, color, texture, and static layoutof objects whereas the inner scribe holds both sequentialand simultaneous spatial information. As suggested byCornoldi and Vecchi (2000, 2003) in their continuity mod-el, these components are located in a horizontal continuum,which depends on the task and the degree of active controlnecessary to perform the task. In this framework, a visualor spatial sequential/simultaneous task might be passive(i.e., when a task requires the simple recall of previouslyacquired information) or active (i.e., when the task calls forthe integration and manipulation of information to producean output that is substantially different from the original in-put). It is to be noted that active processing functions aremore sensitive to deterioration and to individual differences(e.g., Salthouse & Mitchell, 1989; Vecchi, 1998).

In order to study the relationship between the VSWMsubsystem in its active/passive and simultaneous/sequen-tial processes and general sense of direction, Coluccia andMartello (2004) conducted two experiments in which par-

ticipants studied a map, with regular and irregular routes,and performed both orientation and VSWM tasks. Overall,the results showed that simultaneous and sequentialprocesses in their active dimension were involved in dif-ferent aspects of spatial orientation (i.e., landmark recog-nition, landmark and surrounding recognition, landmarkreposition, map section rotation, route recognition, and ar-rival point decision).

The relationship between the active/passive and simul-taneous/sequential VSWM subsystem was also investigat-ed by Bosco, Longoni, and Vecchi (2004) using an ecolog-ical map which represented the Roman Palatino (anarchaeological site open to visitors). Findings showed thatVSWM was more strongly related to orientation ability inmen than in women. Although the involvement of VSWMin orientation tasks has been shown to be less relevant inwomen than in men, active processes seem to play an im-portant role. As did previous studies (e.g., Paivio & Clark,1991; Vecchi & Girelli, 1998), this provided support for therelationship between active visuo-spatial processes and fe-male gender. From a theoretical point of view, these datahave confirmed the importance of considering task charac-teristics as an essential variable in interpreting workingmemory functions. Indeed, any task can be defined in termsof the amount of active manipulation required, and this vari-able could influence the magnitude of individual differences(see Cornoldi & Vecchi, 2003).

The relationship between VSWM and wayfinding has al-so been investigated using the spatial discourse method, thatis, the production of verbal spatial indications designed tohelp people move around in the environment (e.g., De Ve-ga, 1994; Denis & Zimmer, 1992; Taylor & Tversky, 1992,1996). The involvement of VSWM in the processing of spa-tial texts with illustrations (e.g., Gyselinck, Cornoldi,Ehrlich, Dubois, & De Beni, 2002; Kruley, Scima, & Glen-berg, 1994) and even in the absence of illustrations (Paz-zaglia & Cornoldi, 1999) has been amply demonstrated.

Recently, Deyzac, Logie, and Denis (2006) investigatedthe relationship between the subcomponents of VSWM andspatial text. In particular, the authors used a dual-task par-adigm to investigate the impact of the visual and spatialcomponents of VSWM in the processing of the two mainingredients of spatial descriptions (references to landmarksand specifications of their relationships), depending on howthey were acquired: route or survey description. Route de-scription is characterized by assuming the point of view ofa person moving in the environment and by having a linearorganization; survey perspective provides an overview ofthe spatial layout. Results suggested that the elaboration oftexts written by route and survey perspective engaged thespatial component of working memory, whereas visual pro-cessing in working memory only applies to descriptions pre-sented according to the route perspective, and specificallyto landmarks.

Our experiment attempts to explore the role of VSWM(visual/sequential/simultaneous and active/passive) andwayfinding in a real-world situation. Indeed, the studies de-

Swiss J Psychol 68 (1), © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

R. Nori et al.: Working Memory and Real-World Wayfinding 9

scribed above did not address memory for large-scale move-ments such as those required to learn a route through an un-familiar environment. The value of studying the involve-ment of VSWM in a real-world wayfinding task has notbeen adequately addressed in the literature. Indeed, the fewstudies that have dealt with this issue have focused on a spe-cific aspect of VSWM, that is, the simultaneous compo-nents of the inner scribe (e.g., Blajenkova, Motes, &Kozhevnikov, 2005; Montello, Lovelance, Golledge, &Self, 1999; Rovine & Weisman, 1989) in relation towayfinding tasks, even showing contrasting results. Theseresults may have been due to the characteristics of the tasksused since active/passive differences were not considered.

The present study addressed this issue. We consideredthe possible role of VSWM and its subcomponents inwayfinding behavior in an unfamiliar environment (viz., abotanical garden). In particular, we were interested in in-vestigating whether wayfinding in an unfamiliar real-worldenvironment is supported by VSWM, considering thedistinction between visual/sequential/simultaneous andactive/passive subsystem, using an individual differencesapproach. We used this approach because individual differ-ences in ability vary continuously in the population andtherefore allow us more precision in examining the rela-tionship between some spatial processes and a specific be-havior like wayfinding (Hegarty & Waller, 2005). In par-ticular, we expected people with a high VSWM score (therelationship between VSWM and the tasks used to measureit is described below) to perform a wayfinding task withfewer errors and greater speed than people with a lowVSWM score who are also expected to pause more oftenthan those with a high VSWM score. Furthermore, we in-vestigated possible differences between participants with ahigh versus low VSWM score in remembering different sec-tions of the path (start, middle, and end) with respect towayfinding errors and number of pauses in order to revealpossible differences with respect to the serial position effect(better performance for the first and/or last items on a listas compared to middle items; Crowder, 1976). Finally, weinvestigated which visuo-spatial tasks are correlated morehighly with wayfinding performance in a real-world envi-ronment, referring to visual/sequential/simultaneous andactive/passive processes in order to reveal which subcom-ponents are principally involved in wayfinding behavior.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited from an undergraduate psy-chology class at the University of Bologna. A total of 40students (20 males) participated in the experiment. On thebasis of their scores on the VSWM tasks described below,the sample was divided into 22 participants (12 males) withhigh VSWM span and 18 participants (8 males) with low

VSWM span. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 32 (M= 24.32, SD = 2.85); 38 were right-handed and 2 were left-handed. All participants volunteered to take part in the ex-periment.

Experimental Setting and Materials

Visuo-spatial working memory (VSWM) tasks

In the literature, there are no standardized VSWM tests andno agreement on the format that such a test should follow(Vecchi, Phillips, & Cornoldi, 2001). A number of taskshave been proposed as measures of VSWM, so we chosefour visuo-spatial tasks to test the participants’VSWM abil-ity. The participants performed the tasks in a 5 × 4 m roomwith a table and two chairs, one for the participant and onefor the experimenter. The four tasks assessed different as-pects of VSWM.1. Mental Rotation Task (based on Thurstone’s primary

mental ability test cards; Thurstone, 1937): This is a pa-per-pencil version of a mental rotation task in which par-ticipants are to state which item of a set of identical itemsshown at different angles of rotation is the mirror-re-versed version of a target item. Participants completedthree trials of this task. No time limit was given. The abil-ity to mentally rotate an object demonstrates that a per-son is able to apply internal action to a mental represen-tation of an object. In order to perform the task correctly,one must use the simultaneous components of innerscribe VSWM (e.g., Nori & Giusberti, 2006). This taskis assumed to involve active processing because it re-quires participants to manipulate and transform visuo-spatial information.

2. Corsi Block Task (Corsi, 1972; De Renzi & Nichelli,1975; Milner, 1971), forward version: Participants wereto memorize a sequence of spatial locations. The exper-imenter pointed to a series of white squares selected fromnine white squares arranged randomly. The participantwas to recall the sequence of white squares. This wascarried out incrementally, starting with a sequence ofthree squares, then four and so on, until the participantsfailed to repeat a sequence correctly. This task is used tomeasure spatial memory span and in particular the se-quential component of the inner scribe VSWM subsys-tem (e.g., Della Sala, Gray, Baddeley, Allamano, & Wil-son, 1999). This task is assumed to involve passiveprocessing because it only requires remembering the cor-rect sequence of cubes (Mammarella, Pazzaglia, &Cornoldi, 2006).

3. Copying Task (based on Educational Testing ServiceStaff, 1976): Participants viewed a geometrical shape,similar to those shown in Figure 1, for 15 s, the experi-menter removed it, and participants were to reproducethe figure on a sheet of paper. Participants completedthree trials of this task. This task measures both the vi-sual cache of VSWM (the ability to remember visually

Swiss J Psychol 68 (1), © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

10 R. Nori et al.: Working Memory and Real-World Wayfinding

presented forms) and the simultaneous inner scribe com-ponent (the ability to correctly represent spatial relationsamong shapes). This task should involve passive pro-cessing because it only requires the recall of forms andthe relationship between them (Mammarella et al.,2006).

ticipants to manipulate and transform visuo-spatial in-formation (Mammarella et al., 2006).

Swiss J Psychol 68 (1), © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

Figure 1. An example of the Copying Task.

Figure 2. An example of the Spatial Problem Task.

Figure 3. The path taken byparticipants in the botanical garden.

Key: � Start, � End

4. Spatial Problem Task (based on Fenner, Heathcote, &Jerrams-Smith, 2000): The experimenter presented par-ticipants with a red cube, divided into four parts by a hor-izontal and a vertical line, printed on a sheet of paper(see Figure 2) and asked participants to mentally removea quarter and state how many faces the cube would have.Participant completed three trials of this task, which mea-sures abstract spatial reasoning ability and the simulta-neous inner scribe spatial component. This task shouldalso involve active processing because it requires par-

The four tasks were presented in random order. Except forthe Corsi Block Task, each task consisted of three trials, soeach participant completed nine spatial task trials and theCorsi Block Task. For each spatial task, the three trials wererandomized, and the same order was used for all partici-pants (e.g., Nori & Giusberti, 2003).

Wayfinding

To measure wayfinding, a route of approximately 360 mwas constructed in the botanical garden, a moderately densewooded area of approximately 2.5 hectares that belongs tothe University of Bologna. The route was plotted so that ad-joining buildings and other landmarks outside the botani-cal garden were kept out of view. Moreover, the botanicalgarden was closed to the public while the experiment wasbeing conducted so that other visitors could not provide cuesor interfere with route learning or retrieval. The startingpoint of the route was an open area approximately 30 m in-side the perimeter of the botanical garden (the route is shownin Figure 3). The route involved 14 turns or decision pointswith two- or three-way interactions. At each junction, therewas a landmark (e.g., dustbin, park bench, flowerbed) thatparticipants could use to direct actions at intersections. Astopwatch was used to record travel time.

Procedure

Participants were tested individually. Upon entering thelaboratory, participants completed a questionnaire regard-ing personal data (i.e., gender, age, education, and handdominance). The questionnaire indicated that participationwas anonymous. Participants then completed the fourVSWM tasks described above.

Participants were walked from the laboratory to the start-ing point of the route in the botanical garden. Each partic-ipant was told that s/he would be taken on a short walkthrough the botanical garden. It took approximately 5 minfor participants to complete the task. The experimenterwalked each participant from the starting point to the endof the route (see Figure 3). At the end of the route, partici-pants were asked to take the same route back to the start-ing point (i.e., they were to follow the route in the opposite

R. Nori et al.: Working Memory and Real-World Wayfinding 11

direction without assistance and with the experimenterwalking behind them). Route reversal was used because ithas been shown that backward reconstruction of a route ismore difficult than forward reconstruction (Brown, 1976).We therefore thought that this wayfinding task would high-light individual differences. This kind of wayfinding, inwhich one has to get from one point to another, is definedas a form of basic wayfinding (Reagan & Baldwin, 2006).The participants were only assisted if they took a wrongturn or they indicated that they no longer knew which di-rection to take. We adopted this strategy, so participantswould not get lost in the botanical garden. None of the par-ticipants had ever visited the botanical garden.

Results

Following Denis, Pazzaglia, Cornoldi, and Bertolo (1999),we derived a number of wayfinding measures: (a) directionerrors: participant walking in the wrong direction at a de-cision point; (b) pauses: participant expressing uncertain-ty and stopping during wayfinding; (c) travel time: the timea participant is taking to navigate from the end to the start-ing point. Test scores on the four visuo-spatial tasks weresummed and the mean calculated. Participants scoringabove the mean were assigned to the high-VSWM-spangroup; those scoring below the mean were assigned to thelow-VSWM-span group (Fenner et al., 2000). This methodwas employed to provide us with a complete measure ofVSWM.

Although this research was not specifically designed toaddress gender-related differences in wayfinding perfor-mance, gender may be related to differences in wayfinding.So, to distinguish gender differences from VSWM differ-ences, we performed a two-way ANOVA (2 levels of thebetween-groups variable “high/low VSWM,” × 2 levels ofthe between-groups variable “male/female gender”) ondirection errors, number of pauses, and travel time. The al-pha level chosen for considering a statistical test as signif-icant was p < .05.

Direction Errors

The main effect of high/low VSWM was statistically sig-nificant, F(1,36) = 9.51, p = .003, η2 = .21. High-VSWMparticipants made fewer errors than low-VSWM partici-

pants. There were no other reliable main effects or interac-tions in this analysis. Means and standard deviations are re-ported in Table 1.

Swiss J Psychol 68 (1), © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

In order to reveal where participants made more errorsduring their wayfinding performance and to find any dif-ferences between high- and low-VSWM participants withrespect to serial position effect, we divided the path intothree sections (start, middle, end, considering the numberof turns and their positions: four, five, and five, respective-ly, in order to maintain the same difficulty in the differentsections of the path) and performed a three-way mixedANOVA (2 high/low VSWM × 2 gender × 3 sections of thepath) on the direction errors. The main effect of high/lowVSWM, F(1,36) = 10.34, p = .002, η2 = .22, was as statis-tically significant as the main effect of the three sections ofthe path, F(2,72) = 21.60, p < .001, η2 = .43. The main ef-fect high/low VSWM revealed that the low-VSWM group(M = 1.42, SD = .19) made more errors than the high-VSWMgroup (M = .59, SD = .17). Newman-Keuls a posteriori com-parisons on the main effect of the three sections of the pathshowed that in the middle section (M = 2.01, SD = .11) par-ticipants made more mistakes than in the start (M = .59, SD= .59) or end (M = .43, SD = .43) section of the path. Therewere no other reliable main effects in this analysis.

Pauses

The main effect of high/low VSWM was statistically sig-nificant, F(1,36) = 8.80, p = .005, η2 = .20. High-VSWMparticipants paused less often than did low-VSWM partic-ipants. There were no other reliable main effects or inter-actions in this analysis. Means and standard deviations arereported in Table 1.

Moreover, in order to reveal where participants stopped(i.e., where they paused during their navigation), as above,we divided the path into three sections (start, middle, end)and performed a three-way mixed ANOVA (2 high/lowVSWM × 2 gender × 3 sections of the path) on the numberof pauses made in each section. The main effect of high/lowVSWM, F(1,36) = 8.80, p = .005, η2 = .20, the main effectof the three sections of the path, F(2,72) = 26.19, p < .001,η2 = .47, and the interaction of the two factors, F(2,72) =4.90, p = .01, η2 = .15 were significant. The main effect ofhigh/low VSWM revealed that the low-VSWM group (M =1.00, SD = .12) paused more often than the high-VSWMgroup did (M = .50, SD = .11). Newman-Keuls a posteriori

Table 1Means Showing High-VSWM/Low-VSWM and Male/Female Wayfinding Errors, Number of Pauses, and Travel Time

Wayfinding errors Number of pauses Travel time (sec.)M SD M SD M SD

High VSWM 1.79 2.20 1.50 1.59 210.20 42.40Low VSWM 4.18 2.57 3.02 1.64 246.74 64.62Male 2.97 3.02 2.40 1.80 221.65 62.67Female 2.86 2.24 2.12 1.75 235.29 48.15

12 R. Nori et al.: Working Memory and Real-World Wayfinding

comparisons on the main effect of the three sections of thepath showed that in the middle section (M = 1.61, SD = 1.61)participants paused more than in the start (M = .46, SD =.46) or end (M = .18, SD = .18) sections of the path. To in-terpret the interaction, Newman-Keuls a posteriori com-parisons of the two groups were tested for each of the threesections of the path (start, middle, end), revealing that thelow-VSWM group (M = 2.25) paused more often in the mid-dle section of the path than the high-VSWM group did (M= .98).

Travel Time

The main effect of high/low VSWM was statistically sig-nificant, F(1,36) = 4.61, p = .03, η2 = .15: The low-VSWMgroup took longer to complete the task than the high-VSWMgroup did. Means and standard deviations are reported inTable 1. There were no other reliable main effects or inter-actions in this analysis.

Correlations

In order to assess which aspect of VSWM was mainly in-volved in wayfinding performance, we measured the cor-relations between scores obtained on each visuo-spatialtask, considering the number of correct responses for eachtask, and the number of wayfinding errors. The analysis re-vealed that there was a significant negative correlation be-tween the Corsi Block Task, r = –.37, p < .05, the CopyingTask for spatial relations only, r = –.56, p < .05, the SpatialProblem Task, r = –.46, p < .05, and wayfinding directionerrors. As for pauses, we found significant negative corre-lations between the number of pauses and the Mental Ro-tation Task, r = –.47, p < .05, the Copying Task for spatialrelations only, r = –.52, p < .05, and the Spatial ProblemTask, r = –.49, p < .05. As for travel time, we found signif-icant negative correlations between travel time and the Men-tal Rotation Task, r = –.42, p < .05, the Copying Task forspatial relations only, r = –.62, p < .05, and the Spatial Prob-lem Task, r = –.41, p < .05.

Subcomponent of VSWM

Moreover, in order to see how the dependent variables (i.e.,direction errors, pauses, and travel time) were specificallyaffected by the measures for high/low visual, sequential,and simultaneous VSWM, respectively, we performed a se-ries of ANOVAs. In particular, we performed three-waymixed ANOVAs (2 levels [high/low] of each subcomponentof VSWM × 2 levels of gender [male/female] × 3 sectionsof the path [start, middle, end]) on direction errors and paus-es separately. Moreover, we performed a two-way ANOVA(2 levels [high/low] of each subcomponent of VSWM × 2levels of gender [male/female]) on travel time. In order to

discriminate the different ability of using each subcompo-nent of VSWM, we considered the participants’ perfor-mance in the Copying Task (remembering form only) forvisual cache; Corsi Block Task for sequential inner scribe;and Mental Rotation Task, Copying Task (for spatial rela-tions only), and Spatial Problem Task for simultaneous in-ner scribe. Moreover, we classified participants as high orlow in each subcomponent using the same method describedabove for the complete measure of VSWM.

Visual Cache

The analysis performed on direction errors revealed a sig-nificant main effect of high (28 participants)/low (12 par-ticipants) visual cache, F(1,36) = 4.63, p = .03, η2 = .11. Inparticular, high-visual-cache participants (M = .81, SD =.16) made fewer errors than low-visual-cache participantsdid (M = 1.47, SD = .26). The main effect of the three sec-tions of the path was significant, F(2,72) = 26.19, p < .001,η2 = .42. The post-hoc Newman-Keuls comparison showedthat participants made more errors in the middle (M = 1.55,SD = .32) than in the starting (M = .42, SD = .18) or end-ing (M = .17, SD = .13) sections, p < .001. There were noother reliable main effects or interactions in this analysis.

The analysis performed on number of pauses revealed asignificant main effect of the three sections of the path,F(2,72) = 22.76, p < .001, η2 = .53. The post-hoc NewmanKeuls comparison showed that participants paused more of-ten in the middle (M = 1.55, SD = .25) than at the start (M= .42, SD = .14) or end (M = .17, SD = .08) sections of thepath. The analysis performed on travel time did not revealany significant differences.

Sequential Inner Scribe

The analysis performed on direction errors showed a sig-nificant main effect of high (29 participants)/low (11 par-ticipants) sequential inner scribe, F(1,36) = 8.63, p = .005,η2 = .19. In particular, high-sequential-inner-scribe partic-ipants (M = .33, SD = .24) made fewer errors than low-se-quential-inner-scribe participants did (M = 1.19, SD = .15).The main effect of the three sections of the path was sig-nificant, F(2,72) = 15.75, p < .001, η2 = .29. The post-hocNewman-Keuls comparison showed that participants mademore errors in the middle section (M = 1.95, SD = .31) thanat the start (M = .55, SD = .17) or end (M = .40, SD = .13)of the path, p < .001. There were no other reliable main ef-fects or interactions in this analysis.

The analysis performed on the number of pauses showeda significant main effect of high/low sequential inner scribe,F(1, 36) = 5.47, p = .02, η2 = .13. High-sequential-inner-scribe participants took fewer pauses (M = .37, SD = .17)than low-sequential-inner-scribe participants did (M = .84,SD = .10). The analysis also revealed a significant main ef-fect of the three sections of the path, F(2,72) = 12.32, p <

Swiss J Psychol 68 (1), © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

R. Nori et al.: Working Memory and Real-World Wayfinding 13

.001, η2 = .35. The post-hoc Newman Keuls comparisonshowed that participants paused more in the middle section(M = 1.55, SD = .24) than at the start (M = .42, SD = .14)or end (M = .17, SD = .07) of the path, p < .001. Moreover,the interaction between the high/low sequential inner scribeand the three sections of the path was statistically signifi-cant, F(2,72) = 3.39, p = .03, η2 = .10. The post-hoc New-man Keuls comparison showed that low-sequential-inner-scribe participants took more pauses in the middle sectionof the path than the other participants did in the starting andending sections of the path, p < .001 (see Figure 4). Therewere no other reliable main effects or interactions in thisanalysis. The analysis performed on travel time did not showany significant differences.

F(2,72) = 20.93, p < .001, η2 = .47. The post-hoc NewmanKeuls comparison showed that participants paused more inthe middle section (M = 1.55, SD = .24) than at the start (M= .42, SD = .14) or end (M = .17, SD = .07) of the path. Theanalysis did not reveal any other significant differences. Theanalysis performed on travel time also showed a significantmain effect of high/low simultaneous inner scribe, F(1, 36)= 3.79, p = .04, η2 = .11: High-simultaneous-inner-scribeparticipants reached the goal faster (M = 200.44, SD =16.49) than low-simultaneous-inner-scribe participants did(M = 234.53, SD = 10.12). There were no other reliable maineffects or interactions in this analysis.

Discussion

This experiment was devised to explore the role of VSWMand its subcomponents in a task requiring wayfindingthrough an unfamiliar environment, in this case, a botani-cal garden. In particular, we were interested in investigat-ing whether wayfinding in an unfamiliar large-scale real-world environment is supported by VSWM, considering thedistinction between the visual/sequential/simultaneous andactive/passive subsystems. Previous studies had shown theinvolvement of VSWM in wayfinding tasks using maps andspatial text (e.g., Garden et al., 2002). Now we have shownthat VSWM is involved in wayfinding in a real-world en-vironment. In particular, our findings provide evidence thatadult participants who achieve high scores on VSWM testsexhibit superior performance on wayfinding tasks. More-over, our results show that the wayfinding behavior of high-VSWM participants is different from that of low-VSWMparticipants: The latter pause more often than the formerduring travel and for this reason take longer to complete the

Swiss J Psychol 68 (1), © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

Figure 4. Sections of the path ×sequential inner scribe interaction onthe number of pauses.

Simultaneous Inner Scribe

The analysis performed on direction errors (18 high partic-ipants and 22 low participants) revealed a significant maineffect of the three sections of the path, F(2,72) = 19.98, p< .001, η2 = .41. The post-hoc Newman-Keuls comparisonshowed that participants made more errors in the middlesection (M = 1.95, SD = 1.57) than at the start (M = .55, SD= .42) or at the end (M = .40, SD = .30) of the path, p < .001.There were no other reliable main effects or interactions inthis analysis.

However, the analysis performed on the number of paus-es showed a significant main effect of high/low simultane-ous inner scribe, F(1, 36) = 6.21, p = .01, η2 = .14. High-sequential-inner-scribe participants made fewer pauses (M= .47, SD = .13) than low-sequential-inner-scribe partici-pants did (M = .92, SD = .12). The analysis also revealed asignificant main effect of the three sections of the path,

Low sequential inner scribe

High sequential inner scribe

Start Middle End

Sections of the path

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

Num

ber

of p

ause

s

14 R. Nori et al.: Working Memory and Real-World Wayfinding

task. This behavior is particularly present in the middle sec-tion of the path where low-VSWM participants stopwayfinding. It seems as if these participants stop to have alook at the environment, in order to grasp characteristics(i.e., landmarks) that will help them recognize the correctway to reach the goal.

From our results, it seems that high-VSWM individualsare able to memorize the correct spatial relationship be-tween landmarks. This ability is essential in forming a goodspatial representation that permits one to move successful-ly through the environment without having to stop along theway and look for external cues to reach the goal. High-VSWM individuals essentially compare their mental spa-tial representation with the external environment: Thisprocess does not appear to require stopping along the way.It could be considered an online updating of spatial infor-mation. Indeed, when we walk through an environment, wecontinually have to change our perspective, and this needsto be updated every time a new orientation (e.g., a turn) ispresented. Moreover, we can assume that the moving ref-erence frame results in an additional load on the spatialcomponent of VSWM that low-VSWM people are not ableto represent.

Furthermore, independent of VSWM ability, participantsproduced fewer errors in the beginning and the end than inthe middle section of the route. This supports studies on theserial position effect: Participants perform better on first(primacy) and/or last (recency) items compared to items inthe middle of the list (Crowder, 1976). In our study, land-marks in the starting and ending sections were easier to re-member than middle-section landmarks (e.g., Golledge,1978; Golledge, Smith, Pellegrino, Doherty, & Marshall,1985; Helstrup & Magnussen, 2001; Perrig & Kintsch,1985; Taylor & Tversky, 1992). This is in agreement withthe hypothesis that participants codify the path into a route-like representation that has temporal characteristics with aclear procedural form in which the moves from one land-mark to another are specified, a feature that low-VSWM in-dividuals were not able to represent successfully. Moreover,seeing that the middle section is more difficult to deal withthan the other sections of the path, low-VSWM participantsmay have paused more there in order to grasp some cues tohelp them reach their goal. Indeed, low-sequential-inner-scribe participants paused more in the middle than in thestarting and ending sections of the path, indicating the in-volvement of sequential inner scribe in the wayfinding task.It seems that these participants stop counting and thinkabout where they are in relation to the other landmarks ofthe route.

Moreover, as regards VSWM, the tasks that are corre-lated with wayfinding ability and that concern directionalerrors, are: Corsi Block Task, Copying Task (for spatial re-lations only), and Spatial Problem Task. To perform the Cor-si Block Task correctly, one needs a strong spatial ability inwhich the time variable is particularly important (i.e., par-ticipants must remember the absolute and relative positionsof the blocks), whereas the Copying Task (spatial relations

only) and the Spatial Problem Task require participants torely exclusively on an abstract, internal representation char-acterized by an object-centered reference system whichdeals with the simultaneous inner scribe component ofVSWM. In other words, basic spatial ability, such as spa-tial-sequential memory, and spatial-simultaneous compo-nents of VSWM are related to navigation in large-scale en-vironments. Moreover, as regards pausing and travel time,they are correlated with: Mental Rotation Task, CopyingTask (for spatial relations only), and Spatial Problem Task.To perform these tasks correctly, one must rely on the si-multaneous component of VSWM. So, it seems that in or-der to follow the correct way to reach a goal, we referred tosequential and simultaneous components of VSWM where-as the speed of travel is predominantly influenced by si-multaneous components of VSWM. However, these effectswere not strong enough to be confirmed by the analysis per-formed on the individual differences. As a matter of fact, asregards the different VSWM subcomponents responsiblefor the different behavior in wayfinding, it seems that highvisual cache and sequential inner scribe capacities are prin-cipally involved in choosing the right way to reach the goal:Participants with high visual cache and sequential innerscribe capacities made fewer errors on wayfinding tasksthan did participants with a low visual cache and sequen-tial inner scribe capacities. This might be explained by tak-ing into account the fact that landmark processing shouldalso rely, although to a lesser extent, on a spatial compo-nent of VSWM when we learn a route by walking throughthe environment (Deyzac et al., 2006). Even if landmarksare stored as visual images, their maintenance also requiresactive rehearsal by the inner scribe. Furthermore, duringwayfinding performance, landmarks must be rememberedsequentially, and this processing requires the involvementof the sequential subcomponent of VSWM. Indeed, duringwayfinding activities, travelers are in a sequential processof decision making in which the purpose is to match inter-nal with external information as it is obtained (Stern & Por-tugali, 1999). Afterwards, during wayfinding activity, theenvironment is to be considered a dynamic source of in-formation used by travelers in their decision-makingprocesses: When a person arrives at a landmark relevant forhis/her trajectory, s/he thinks about where the successivelandmark is in relation to his/her position. This process ismediated by visual and sequential inner scribe VSWM sub-components.

On the contrary, the subcomponent of VSWM, whichtakes account of the different speed in travel time, is the si-multaneous inner scribe: Low-simultaneous-inner-scribeparticipants took longer to travel than high-simultaneous-inner-scribe participants did. It seems that the ability to con-sider the relationship between landmarks does not improvethe possibility of reaching the goal, at least in a wayfindingtask similar to the one we used, but it does improve the pos-sibility of reaching the goal more quickly.

Moreover, in contrast to Bosco et al.’s (2004) findings,it seems that both active (Spatial Problem, Mental Rotation

Swiss J Psychol 68 (1), © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

R. Nori et al.: Working Memory and Real-World Wayfinding 15

Task) and passive (Corsi Block Task, Copying Task – forspatial relations only) processing of VSWM are involved inwayfinding tasks. Perhaps this discrepancy depends on thetype of materials and procedure we used. In fact, there arecrucial differences between the route-learning tasks used inthe two experiments. For example, Bosco et al. used a mapand a series of tasks, such as landmark recognition, land-mark and surrounding recognition, landmark reposition,map section rotation, route recognition, and arrival pointdecision to test wayfinding. In our experiment, participantsnavigated their way through an environment, and the tasksused to test wayfinding required participants to actively ma-nipulate the memorized material in order to respond cor-rectly. Indeed, in our experiment, both active and passiveprocessing were required to perform wayfinding: It was nec-essary to remember a sequence of landmarks and to carryout right/left discrimination (passive processing), but theorder was reversed so that the mental representation of theroute would have to be manipulated (active processing) be-cause participants had to travel in a reverse direction, whichrequired backward reconstruction of the route.

To sum up, our results suggest that both active/passiveand visual/sequential/simultaneous VSWM subcompo-nents affect the capacity to move successfully through theenvironment and that high-VSWM individuals behave dif-ferently than low-VSWM individuals do during wayfind-ing. In particular, visual and sequential spatial subcompo-nents are involved in recalling and following a route throughan unfamiliar environment whereas the simultaneous spa-tial subcomponent is involved with a more rapid executionof the wayfinding task. Further research should study whatresources support wayfinding, such as adaptive processesbased on greater environmental experience. Together, basicabilities, that is, VSWM, and adaptive processes could rep-resent the primary sources of individual differences in spa-tial cognition and behavior.

Author Note

Raffaella Nori, Sonia Grandicelli, and Fiorella Giusberti,Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Italy.

A preliminary account of these data was presented at theInternational Conference on Spatial Cognition (ICSC),2006, 12–15 September, Rome, Italy.

References

Allen, G. L. (1999). Spatial abilities, cognitive maps, and wayfind-ing. Bases for individual differences in spatial cognition andbehavior. In R. G. Golledge (Ed.), Wayfinding behavior. Cog-nitive mapping and other spatial processes (pp. 46–80). Bal-timore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Baskaya, A., Wilson, C., & Özcan, Y. (2004). Wayfinding in anunfamiliar environment. Different spatial settings of two poly-clinics. Environment and Behavior, 36, 839–867.

Blades, M. (1991). Wayfinding theory and research: The need fora new approach. In D. M. Mark & A. Y. Franks (Eds.), Cog-nitive and Linguistic Aspects of Geographic Space (pp.137–165). London: Kluwer Academic.

Blajenkova, O., Motes, M. A., & Kozhevnikov, M. (2005). Indi-vidual differences in the representations of novel environ-ments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 97–109.

Bosco, A., Longoni, A. M., & Vecchi, T. (2004). Gender effects inspatial orientation: Cognitive profiles and mental strategies.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 519–532.

Brown, A. L. (1976). The construction of temporal succession bypre-operational children. In A. Pick (Ed.), Minnesota Sympo-sium on Child Psychology, Vol. 10 (pp. 103–152). Minneapo-lis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Coluccia, E., & Martello, A. (2004). Il ruolo della memoria di la-voro visuo-spaziale nell’orientamento geografico: Uno studiocorrelazionale [The role of visuo-spatial working memory ingeographical orientation: A correlation study]. Giornale Ital-iano di Psicologia, 3, 523–551.

Cornoldi, C., & Vecchi, T. (2000). Mental imagery in blind peo-ple: The role of passive and active visuo-spatial processes. InM. Heller (Ed.), Touch, representation, and blindness (pp.143–181). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Cornoldi, C., & Vecchi, T. (2003). Visuo-spatial working memo-ry and individual differences. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Corsi, P. M. (1972). Human memory and the medial temporal re-gion of the region of the brain. Unpublished doctoral disser-tation, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec.

Crowder, R. G. (1976). Principles of learning and memory. Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

De Renzi, E., & Nichelli, P. (1975). Verbal and nonverbal shortterm memory impairment following hemispheric damage.Cortex, 11, 341–353.

Della Sala, S., Gray, C., Baddeley, A., Allamano, N., & Wilson,L. (1999). Patter span: A tool for unwelding visuo-spatialmemory. Neuropsychologia, 37, 1189–1199.

Denis, M., & Zimmer, H. D. (1992). Analog properties of cogni-tive maps constructed from verbal descriptions. Psychologi-cal Research/Psychologische Forschung, 54, 286–298.

Denis, M., Pazzaglia, F., Cornoldi, C., & Bertolo, L. (1999). Spa-tial discourse and navigation: An analysis of route directionin the city of Venice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 145–174.

De Vega, M. (1994). Characters and their perspectives in narra-tives describing spatial environments. Psychological Re-search/Psychologische Forschung, 56, 116–126.

Deyzac, E., Logie, R. H., & Denis, M. (2006). Visuospatial work-ing memory and the processing of spatial descriptions. BritishJournal of Psychology, 97, 217–243.

Downs, R. M., & Stea, D. (1973). Image & environment: Cogni-tive mapping and spatial behavior. New Brunswick, NJ:AldineTransaction.

Educational Testing Service Staff (1976). Manual and technicalreport. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fenner, J., Heathcote, D., & Jerrams-Smith, J. (2000). The devel-opment of wayfinding competency: Asymmetrical effects ofvisuo-spatial and verbal ability. Journal of Environmental Psy-chology, 20, 165–175.

Garden, S., Cornoldi, C., & Logie, R. H. (2002). Visuo-spatialworking memory in Navigation. Applied Cognitive Psychol-ogy, 16, 35–50.

Golledge, R. G. (1978). Learning about urban environments. In T.Carlstein, D. N. Parkes, & N. J. Thrift (Eds.), Timing Spaceand Spacing Time I: Making Sense of Time (pp. 76–98). Lon-don: Edward Arnold.

Golledge, R. G. (1999). Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mappingand other spatial processes. Baltimore, MD: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

Golledge, R. G., Smith, T. R., Pellegrino, J. W., Doherty, S., &

Swiss J Psychol 68 (1), © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

16 R. Nori et al.: Working Memory and Real-World Wayfinding

Perrig, W., & Kintsch, W. (1985). Propositional and situationalrepresentations of text. Journal of Memory Language, 24,503–518.

Reagan, I., & Baldwin, C. L. (2006). Facilitating route memorywith auditory route guidance systems. Journal of Environ-mental Psychology, 26, 146–155.

Rovine, M. J., & Weisman G. D. (1989). Sketch-map variables aspredictors of way-finding performance. Journal of Environ-mental Psychology, 9, 217–232.

Salthouse, T. A., & Mitchell, D. R. D. (1989). Structural and op-erational capacities in integrative spatial ability. Psychologyand Aging, 4, 18–25.

Stern, E., & Portugali, Y. (1999). Environmental cognition and de-cision making in urban navigation. In G. R. Golledge, (Ed.),Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatialprocesses (pp. 99–119). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Uni-versity Press.

Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1992). Spatial mental models de-rived from survey and route description. Journal of Memoryand Language, 31, 261–292.

Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1996). Perspective in spatial de-scriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 371–391.

Thurstone, L. L. (1937). Psychological tests for the study of men-tal abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tversky, B. (2000). Remembering spaces. In E. Tulving & F. I.M. Craik (Eds.), Handbook of memory (pp. 363–378). NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Vecchi, T. (1998). Visuo-spatial limitations in congenitally total-ly blind people. Memory, 6, 91–102.

Vecchi, T., & Girelli, L. (1998). Gender differences in visuo-spa-tial processing: The importance of distinguishing betweenpassive storage and active manipulation. Acta Psychologica,99, 1–16.

Vecchi, T., Phillips, L. H., & Cornoldi, C. (2001). Individual dif-ferences in visuo-spatial working memory. In M. Denis, R. H.Logie, C. Cornoldi, M. de Vega, & J. Engelkamp (Eds.), Im-agery, language, and visuo-spatial thinking (pp. 29–58).Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Weisman, G. D. (1979). Way-finding in the built environment: Astudy in architectural legibility. Unpublished doctoral disser-tation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Weisman, G. D. (1981). Evaluating architectural legibility:Wayfinding in the built environment. Environment and Be-havior, 13, 189–204.

Raffaella Nori

Department of PsychologyUniversity of BolognaV.le Berti Pichat, 5I-40127 BolognaItalyraffaella.nori@unibo.it

Swiss J Psychol 68 (1), © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

Marshall, S. P. (1985). A conceptual model and empiricalanalysis of children’s acquisition of spatial knowledge. Jour-nal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 125–152.

Gyselinck, V., Cornoldi, C., Ehrlich, M.-F., Dubois, V., & De Beni,R. (2002). Visuospatial memory and phonological loop in pro-cessing texts and illustrations. Applied Cognitive Psychology,16, 665–685.

Haq, S., & Zimring, C. (2003). Just down the road a piece: Thedevelopment of topological knowledge of building layouts.Environment and Behavior, 35, 132–160.

Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2005). Individual differences in spa-tial abilities. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), The Cambridgehandbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 121–169). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Helstrup, T., & Magnussen, S. (2001). The mental representationof familiar, long-distance journeys. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 21, 411–421.

Kruley, P., Scima, S., & Glenberg, A. M. (1994). On-line pro-cessing of textual illustrations in the visuo-spatial sketchpad:Evidence from dual-task studies. Memory and Cognition, 22,261–272.

Lindberg, E., & Gärling, T. (1981). Acquisition of locational in-formation about reference points during locomotion with andwithout a concurrent task: Effects of number of referencepoints. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 22, 109–115.

Logie, R. H. (1995). Visuo-spatial working memory. Hove, UK:Erlbaum.

Logie, R. H. (2003). Spatial and visual working memory: A men-tal workspace. In B. H. Ross & D. E. Irwin (Eds.), Cognitivevision: The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 42,(pp. 37–78). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Mammarella, I. C., Pazzaglia, F., & Cornoldi, C. (2006). The as-sessment of imagery and visuo-spatial working memory func-tions. In T. Vecchi, & G. Bottini, Imagery and Spatial Cogni-tion (pp. 15–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Milner, B. (1971). Interhemispheric differences in the localizationof psychological processes in man. British Medical Bulletin,27, 272–277.

Montello, D. R., Lovelance, K. L., Golledge, R. G., & Self, C. M.(1999). Sex-related differences and similarities in geograph-ic and environmental spatial abilities. Annals of the Associa-tion of the American Geographers, 89, 515–534.

Nori, R., & Giusberti, F. (2003). Cognitive styles: Errors in di-rectional judgments. Perception, 32, 307–320.

Nori, R., & Giusberti, F. (2006). Predicting cognitive styles fromspatial abilities. American Journal of Psychology, 119, 67–86.

O’Neill, M. J. (1991). Effects of signage and floor plan configu-ration on wayfinding accuracy. Environment and Behavior,223, 553–574.

Paivio, A., & Clark, J. M. (1991). Static versus dynamic imagery.In C. Cornoldi & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.), Imagery and Cog-nition (pp. 221–245). New York: Springer.

Pazzaglia, F., & Cornoldi, C. (1999). The role of the distinct com-ponents of visuospatial working memory in processing thetexts. Memory, 7, 19–41.