Global Impositioning Systems

Is GPS technology actually harming our sense of direction?
Illustration by Clayton Hanmer
When Alison Kendall’s boss told her in 2007 that her civil service job was being transferred to a different building in another part of Vancouver, she panicked. Commuting to a new office would be no big deal for most people, she knew. But Kendall might well have the worst sense of direction in the world. For as long as she can remember, she has been unable to perform even the simplest navigational tasks. She needed a family member to escort her to and from school right through the end of grade twelve, and is still able to produce only a highly distorted, detail-free sketch map of her own house. After five years of careful training, she had mastered the bus trip to and from her office, but the slightest deviation left her hopelessly lost. When that happened, the forty-three-year-old had to phone her father to come and pick her up, even if she was just a few blocks from home, in the neighbourhood where she had lived most of her life.

Kendall (not her real name) decided to ask a neuropsychologist if she had medical grounds for turning down the transfer. He referred her to a neuro-ophthalmology clinic at the University of British Columbia, where a young post-doc from Italy named Giuseppe Iaria was studying the neuroscience of orientation and navigation. After a battery of tests, Iaria concluded that Kendall was perfectly normal. She had average intelligence, memory, and mental imaging abilities, and her brain was completely undamaged. She was simply unable to form a “cognitive map,” the mind’s way of representing spatial relationships. When he put her in a brain scanner and asked her to explore the streets of a computer-generated virtual town, her hippocampus — the brain region responsible for cognitive maps — remained inactive, even though basic memory tests had shown that it was functional. Earlier this year, a paper by Iaria, neuro-ophthalmologist Jason Barton, and their colleagues appeared in the journal Neuropsychologia, describing a new disorder called “developmental topographical disorientation,” or dtd. Kendall was “Patient 1.”

Like any other human trait, navigational skill varies widely — some people crow about their abilities, while others lament their ineptitude. So in a way, Kendall’s condition came as no surprise. (“I was expecting to find someone like that eventually,” Iaria says.) But the brain’s navigational wiring doesn’t just reflect our talent at getting from A to B; it also reflects the ways in which we perceive and interact with the world around us. As our surroundings have evolved over the centuries, so too have our navigational strategies and conceptions, shaped most recently by urbanization and the advent of high-speed travel.

We’re now on the cusp of an even more dramatic change, as we enter the age of the global positioning system, which is well on its way to being a standard feature in every car and on every cellphone. At the same time, neuroscientists are starting to uncover a two-way street: our brains determine how we navigate, but our navigational efforts also shape our brains. The experts are picking up some worrying signs about the changes that will occur as we grow accustomed to the brain-free navigation of the gps era. Once we lose the habit of forming cognitive maps, we may find ourselves becoming more and more like Patient 1.

It was the flower shop that messed me up. I was navigating through the virtual town Iaria had built within a video game platform, trying to learn the locations of four landmarks: a Wendy’s, a Days Inn, a flower shop, and a movie theatre showing Hugh Grant’s Love Actually. It took me three tries to place all of them in the correct positions on a map; typical scores range from two to five. “You’re average,” Iaria (who has since taken a faculty position at the University of Calgary) said cheerfully, crushing my hopes of being a super-outlier. That morning, as I’d walked the three kilometres from my downtown hotel to Vancouver General Hospital, I’d oriented myself by marking the cues provided by an unfamiliar city: glancing at a few key street names I’d jotted on a piece of paper; keeping the mountains on my left once I’d crossed the Granville Street Bridge; and more or less ignoring the shorelines, which seemed to point in different directions every time I looked at the water.

Iaria and McGill University researcher Véronique Bohbot demonstrated in a widely cited 2003 study that our mapping strategies fall into two basic categories. One is a spatial strategy that involves learning the relationships between various landmarks — creating a cognitive map in your head, in other words, that shows where the flower shop and other destinations sit on the street grid. The other is a stimulus-response approach that encodes specific routes by memorizing a series of cues, as in: get off the bus when you see the glass skyscraper, then walk toward the big park. For their study, Iaria and Bohbot created a virtual maze that tested both methods; they found that about half of us prefer spatial strategies, while the other half prefer stimulus-response.

Most of us can use both, depending on the circumstances, but we have a bias toward one or the other. (Kendall was relying solely on cues, in the absence of cognitive mapping skills.) Stimulus-response navigators tend to complete the task more quickly and make fewer errors. “Cognitive mapping is difficult, it’s complicated, it’s tedious,” Bohbot says. The spatial approach does have one major advantage, though: versatility. If I memorize the routes from the flower shop to the movie theatre, and from the movie theatre to the Wendy’s, I can whip back and forth along those routes very quickly. But what if I want to go from the flower shop straight to the Wendy’s? Without a cognitive map, I have no way of figuring out shortcuts or exploring new routes to different destinations. I can only go where my stimulus-driven mind has already left a trail of bread crumbs.

The idea that we carry maps in our heads is relatively new. An experimental psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, Edward C. Tolman, coined the term “cognitive map” in a 1948 paper showing that rats in certain types of mazes were able to figure out shortcuts to a destination — a clear sign that they weren’t simply learning a sequence of left and right turns. Amazingly, a series of experiments in the 1970s suggested that cognitive maps are more than metaphorical. Certain neurons in the hippocampus, called “place cells,” were observed activating only when the rat was in a specific place. Let the animal wander through a maze, and you could watch a chain of neurons fire in a spatial pattern that exactly matched its path, at a smaller scale.

Whether the same picture can be extended to humans remains a matter of considerable controversy. We don’t know whether the firing patterns of neurons in our hippocampus would trace out the patterns of our neighbourhood, because researchers aren’t allowed to implant arrays of electrodes in our brains. We do know, though, that the human hippocampus stores the same kind of information as the rat hippocampus does, thanks in part to a remarkable series of experiments on a group of truly gifted navigators.

For those of us who have grown up in the reassuring embrace of grid-patterned streets that run straight and don’t change names every two blocks, Old World cities like London — recently declared the most confusing city in the world by a 12,500-person Nokia Maps survey — present huge challenges. So pity the cabbies. Before getting behind the wheel of a black cab, would-be drivers have to pass a test called the Knowledge, which requires them to memorize some 25,000 streets and thousands of landmarks, a task that takes two to four years.

Home · Page 1 of 4 · Next

14 comment(s)

EMOctober 19, 2009 19:13 EST

I am rather stunned that this article completely ignored a major factor in cognitive mapping: Gender differences.

It has long been held that men tend to navigate quite differently than women do. Indeed, you did begin to address the issue when you spoke of the 2 major categories of human mapping strategies. Males tend to favour the spatial strategy approach, while females favour the stimulus-response approach.

We all know this as rich fodder for the stand-up comedians who joke about the husband who refuses to ask directions. But, in fact, there is a solid scientific basis for this.

Early males hunted, while females remained at camps, tending to all the other business of life. That “tending” engendered considerable communication amongst each other, which could explain the propensity for females to adopt the stimulus-response approach.

Meanwhile, “back at the ranch” (literally), men were out chasing game; those who couldn’t use an adaptive spatial strategy to find their way home, tended to be naturally selected-out of the reproductively lucky by hungry predators …

Ergo, female tendencies towards stimulus-response, males towards spatial techniques.

It’s certainly something that seems to prevail amongst most primates. In those ape species that are gregarious, males who reach young adulthood are kicked out of the tribe, while females tend to remain. Young bachelors, then, are predisposed to wander and essentially become geographers, while female primates may never in their entire lives leave the sanctity of the tiny zone they were born in.

However, the other possibility is that stimulus-response was natural for both males and females, but tended to be selected out for males due to their overwhelming need to develop the spatial strategy.

In any event, evolution has had its merry way and we end up with the oh-so-common scenario of the gal insisting on stopping to ask directions while the guy insists on trusting his instincts.

And if it weren’t for that, half the stand-up comics today would be out of business!

Mark HarrisonOctober 21, 2009 17:15 EST

Great article and thanks EM for the comments. U really nailed the source of the gender differences. From my experience, it appears quite true that people who rely on their GPS NAV units to tell them where to drive don't properly learn the city they're in. It's similar to how we didn't really learn our city when our parents drove us around.. we were just passive observers, which isn't conducive to retention. As a former cab-driver, I relied exclusively on my map-book, vs. memorizing streets. I've read that in certain Central-American cities, street addresses aren't really used and everyone memorizes places with a stimulus-response style. I would be lost. In any case, here's a useful tip for travel to those fun but confusing non-grid cities: rent a bike if U can. U learn so much more and it's so easy to pull over to look at a map, or ask directions. (U don't even need to know the language.. just say excuse me and the placename you're looking for and and point to where U think it may be.)

Alex HutchinsonOctober 26, 2009 16:13 EST

"Males tend to favour the spatial strategy approach, while females favour the stimulus-response approach."

Thanks for the comments — interesting stuff. I just wanted to point out, though, that the above statement is incorrect. Here's what McGill's Veronique Bohbot had to say on the topic:

"There are sex differences in navigation; however, women and men use spatial and response strategies in equal proportions. In fact, there are many studies that show that women are better than men on spatial tasks that require knowledge about the relative position of objects in an environment. Studies of hippocampal volume in men and women support this: women have bigger hippocampi than men!

So women navigate using objects/landmarks more than men. We showed, in one of our experiments, that if you remove landmarks, women become impaired relative to men. This study suggests that men are better at using non-spatial strategies than women to compensate for the lack of landmarks. Many other studies in the literature suggest that men use Euclidian and polar coordinates (e.g. Go 2 miles north, then head west for 1.5 miles). So sex differences in navigation show a male advantage or a female advantage depending on the nature of the task."

CNOctober 29, 2009 06:37 EST

The atrophy of certain skills is a normal part of technological development, e.g. handwriting before introduction of the typewriter; thinking when writing before intro of the word processor; carrying out simple calculation in one's head before the calculator; knowledge of medicinal plants before pills, and many others. Even using maps as opposed to navigating from memory involves loss of certain environmental awareness. As a result, a person today may be less likely to survive on a desert island than Robinson Crusoe. Yet, all of those technologies clearly benefit society. GPS is no different, and the benefits are countless. I only wish that GPS devices could have larger, high-resolution screens so that one could simultaneously see a larger portion of a city's map in order to develop a general idea of the relationships between various landmarks. GPS displays force us to look through a keyhole, and that is why we cannot develop a good knowledge of a new city when using them.

JanisOctober 29, 2009 11:33 EST

I'm constantly skeptical about gender differences, mostly because I'm constantly the one little blip that blows the theory away, and I've been like this my whole life. Perfectly female, and scarily able to form nonlinear visual structures in my head — all those "find your way" and "rotate this in your mind" tests? There's always a little glob of women in the so-so area, a glob of men in the "pretty good" area, and then me sitting there as the lone little data point up in the "incapable of getting lost" area. I've flawlessly driven places that I haven't been to in twenty years; and even if I didn't know where I was headed while I was behind the wheel, just turning where it felt right got me there.

Oddly enough considering the mention of faceblindness, I'm also one of those people who never forgets a face. I took those faceblindness tests online and scored 100%. Most people only score 75% or so. So either I'm a guy and haven't know it for 43 years, or else there's a lot more to these skills than just "girls can't boys can."

Nick PiercyNovember 01, 2009 08:54 EST

It occurred to me after reading this article that there are potential parallels to be drawn with people's ability to employ tactical or strategic thinking, albeit an abstract form of spatial mapping.

To be able to think strategically someone essentially has to have a cognitive map of both the underlying theory, and how various issues and the desired outcome interlink with each other. This takes a large amount of effort and time relative to a tactic of working through an immediate solution that would seem to suit best, and changing if this doesn't work.

Does this feel right to other people?

Nick PiercyNovember 01, 2009 08:55 EST

It occurred to me after reading this article that there are potential parallels to be drawn with people's ability to employ tactical or strategic thinking, albeit an abstract form of spatial mapping.

To be able to think strategically someone essentially has to have a cognitive map of both the underlying theory, and how various issues and the desired outcome interlink with each other. This takes a large amount of effort and time relative to a tactic of working through an immediate solution that would seem to suit best, and changing if this doesn't work.

Does this feel right to other people?

Don BrownNovember 11, 2009 11:05 EST

I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed the article. It touches so many areas of my life.

Ex-air traffic controller and safety rep. I've shared it with every pilot and controller I know.

Current hot-air balloon chaser. The pilot and I go round-and-round with (mostly) good-natured humor about this subject. I use a map. He uses GPS.

I have a daughter that has never been "lost". She's gone a long way out of her way...but she's never been "lost". She has GPS and refuses to look at a map.

Excellent article.

Don Brown

Jeff RobbinsNovember 17, 2009 13:02 EST

I'm currently writing a paper on the flip side of GPS navigation ("GPS Navigation...But What is it Doing To Us?") and intend to cite "Global Impositioning Systems" (great title)in the paper. I also hope to use it in the Research Writing Course I'm teaching at Rutgers University as a reference for my students.

Viz a viz research, I've dredged up most of the sources cited by Hutchinson. The research source by Claudio Aporta and Eric Higgs (I've had contact with Higgs many years ago)on Inuit wayfinding before and after GPS is especially interesting.

Re CN's comment on the countless benefits of technology, including GPS, while that's true - each and every successful product does something for us mainly by eliminating some kind of effort - the problem is that the mental, physical, and social atrophy resulting from each and every losing it for not using it sums. From my perspective, the sum of all good things doing it all for us, is also doing it to us and what it's doing is not so good.

ElcoFebruary 01, 2010 00:26 EST

Nice article....keep writing

FMJuly 11, 2011 08:05 EST

While I do agree that some people are "geograhically challenged" just as I am "technology challenged". I do have to disagree with "ED" who states that the difference is a "men v. women" problem, with that said why is it that men refuse to even admit they are "lost/misplaced" or "ask for directions"? My father when I was learning to drive would blindfold me, take me into a part of town I did not know, get out of the car, and tell me "find your way home" on the seat was something called "Arrow Street Guide (ASG)". Before I would even pick it up I would look at the position of the sun, if there was sun that day. I would begin by driving north, then seeking out a large intersection. Once there I would look at the ASG to figure out where I was. One time I made it home before he did, he knew then and there I would probably not get as lost as another. On the other hand, my brother still to this day has problems with dirctions, however rarely uses the GPS built into his phone, preferring a map or atlas. Before you ask, "yes I have been lost, yes I always have a map with me, yes I have used GPS which for me is a hindrance, because I use both the sight(s) of where I am, plus landmarks (GPS also many times takes us the "long way" instead of using a shorter distance route). While turn by turn directions is great when going someplace new, getting lost can be an adventure in itself especially when you find a new place to have coffe, shop, or a small park that you have never been to or heard of.

While I think GPS is a great tool, it has major drawbacks, siting the accidents in the article, also a recent accident on Onondaga Lake Parkway (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/megabus_driver_arraigned_on_cr.html), where a double-decker bus loaded with passengers from NYC slammed into a low bridge, due to the fact that the bus driver never saw the more than five "LOW BRIDGE" signs, btw there are more than four of these bridges, which are actually railroad trestles, in the Syracuse, NY area which have been hit because drivers do not read the posted signs. The problem is NOT the bridges, but the drivers who rely on GPS to get them there.

In my opinion, while we become more and more reliant on technology, I do think our brains become more atrophied, and we become more reliant on "what is easy".

JSAugust 03, 2011 09:08 EST

I think - if used correctly - that GPS could very well have the exact opposite effect. Like so many other tools, it is a good servant but poor master.

Many people seem to allow it to become the master, slavishly following each and every word of the gizmo. Don't do that.

The ENTIRE POINT of GPS is that, unlike written-down instructions, etc, it ALWAYS knows where you are and how to get from here to where you're going. If you miss a turn, it'll calculate a new route, if you ignore it, it'll calculate a new route when you eventually want it, allowing you to explore, roam about wherever you want building those spatial maps and whatnot without ever having to worry about getting truly lost.

Use the satnav as a backup, as a tool that allows you to familiarize your surroundings faster than you otherwise could and you become a better navigator for it. Let it take over your thinking, and, well duh, of course it hurts your sense of direction.

Emma CaronJune 04, 2012 18:36 EST

One point not mentioned is the effect of being ambidextrous on finding your way. I have a hard time remembering which is my right or my left side especially if I move my watch from my left where it usually is to my right. (I use both hands —sometimes one sometimes the other —except for writing). I was told that this lack of clear laterality was one of the reasons why I had trouble finding my way round.

Anything on that?

Keith SketchleyJune 13, 2012 16:57 EST

I suggest some people are overlooking the ability of the human mind to learn and train itself. A friend discovered that when she really had to she could do fine (not saying she’ll ever be as good as me, who grew up traipsing through bush).
Perhaps the ability of spatial navigation is related to understanding principles, which some people aren’t well trained in (they want to only use “concrete” details, which are also important in many cases).

I always want the address from people who are telling me where to go in the city, because – as noted in your article – if I miss a detail I can find the destination by spatial thinking (preferably with a map if the street grid is jumbled), but details can also be very useful (for example, one house has its entrance on a side street and its house number obscurely placed on the end wall facing the street the address is on).

“Situational awareness” is taught to pilots and mariners – be aware of the geometry of where you are. On land, the term “the lay of the land” may apply.
Sitting in the back of a cockpit, I observed a case where the runway wasn’t there for a trainee when the captain pulled away the board blocking the windshield. He’d made a mistake, despite the pilot in the third seat asking “where are you?” twice, probably trying to get him to look at the big picture.

Add a comment

  
I agree to walrusmagazine.com’s comments policy.

Canada & its place in the world. Published by
the non-profit charitable Walrus Foundation
TwitterFacebookTumblr
The Walrus SoapBox
The Walrus Laughs
Walrus TV