Area Estimation of World Regions and the Projection of the Global-Scale Cognitive Map

Dados Bibliográficos

ID8378147
AutoresSarah E Battersby (0000-0003-2716-4382, University of South Carolina), Daniel R Montello (University of California, Santa Barbara)
Ano2009
Volume99
Fascículo2
Páginas273-291
Data de publicação2009-04-22
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessNão
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoAnnals of the Association of American Geographers (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0004-5608 • E-ISSN: 1467-8306
EditoraInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/00045600802683734
OpenAlexW2151631713
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas20
Referências citadas36

For global-scale geographic information, there are relatively few sources that can be used to form or structure a cognitive map. One of the most common sources for this information is maps, the only reference that permits an individual a comprehensive view of the world without having to integrate information from multiple views (e.g., stitching together the two halves of a globe or assembling the pages of an atlas). It has been frequently stated that visual experience with the map projections used for global-scale mapping, specifically the Mercator projection, has a strong influence on the shape and structure of an individual's global-scale cognitive map. In this article, we examine this belief by conducting two studies on the relationship between memory- and inference-derived estimates of land area and the actual land areas of regions on the Earth. Numerical and graphical estimation techniques were used to obtain area estimates. We examined the results for relationships between distortion in estimated area and area as displayed in common map projections such as the Mercator projection, as well as for general trends in the estimation patterns. Nonequal area projections, particularly the Mercator projection, were found not to have much if any influence on the shape of participants' cognitive maps. Instead, we found estimates to be fairly accurate relative to actual area, and that the estimation pattern most clearly reflected standard trends in psychophysical estimation. En términos de información geográfica a escala global, relativamente pocas son las fuentes utilizables que hay para formar o estructurar un mapa cognoscitivo. Una de las fuentes más comunes para esta información son los mapas, única referencia que facilita a un individuo la visión comprensiva del mundo sin que sea necesario integrar información a partir de múltiples vistas (por ejemplo, pegando las dos mitades de un globo o ensamblando las páginas de un atlas). Con frecuencia se ha sostenido que la experiencia visual lograda con las proyecciones usadas en cartografía a escala global, específicamente la proyección de Mercator, ejerce gran influencia sobre la forma y estructura del mapa cognoscitivo de un individuo a escala global. En este artículo examinamos este creencia con base en dos estudios centrados en la relación existente entre los estimativos de área derivados de la memoria e inferencia, y las áreas reales que tienen las regiones de la Tierra. Para obtener los estimativos de área se utilizaron técnicas de cálculo numéricas y gráficas. Examinamos los resultados para las relaciones entre distorsión en área estimada y el área como es desplegada en proyecciones cartogtráficas tan comunes como la Mercator, lo mismo que por la tendencia general observada en los patrones de estimativos. Se encontró que las proyecciones conformes o de área desigual, en particular la proyección Mercator, tenían poca o ninguna influencia sobre la forma de los mapas cognoscitivos de los participantes. En cambio, encontramos que los estimativos fueron bastante exactos en términos de área real, y que el patrón de estimativos reflejaba muy claramente las tendencias estándar en cálculo psicofísico. Key Words: area psychophysicscognitive mapMercator projectionspatial memory关键词: 面积心物学认知地图麦卡托投影空间记忆Palabras clave: área psicofísicamapa cognoscitivoProyección Mercatormemoria espacial Acknowledgments Portions of this research were presented in talks by the authors at the Association of American Geographers meetings in 2004 and 2005. We would like to express our thanks to Reginald G. Golledge and Mary Hegarty at the University of California, Santa Barbara, for their invaluable feedback. We would also like to express our thanks to the students who participated in our studies. Notes ∗ p < 0.05. ∗∗ p < 0.01. ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. ∗∗∗∗ p < 0.0001. 1. We note that this approach to calculating correlations across the twenty-six regions—calculating individual correlations for each participant and then averaging over participants—more accurately reflects the expression of relationships for each participant than would aggregating variables across participants and then correlating (i.e., averaging estimated areas for each region and correlating the mean estimates with variables such as modulus area). The approach of averaging across participants before correlating can produce strongly misleading correlations, including artifactually weak or strong relationships, or even relationships in the opposite direction (this is convincingly demonstrated by CitationEwing 1981)

Algorithm · Atlas (anatomy) · Cartography · Cognition · Cognitive map · Estimation · Geography · Map projection · Mercator projection · Projection (relational algebra) · Scale (ratio) · Computer Science · Geographic Information Systems Studies · Geology · Historical Geography and Cartography · Spatial Cognition and Navigation