Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33682034›Full record

ReviewCognitive processing2021

Landmarks in wayfinding: a review of the existing literature.

Demet Yesiltepe, Ruth Conroy Dalton, Ayse Ozbil Torun

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cognitive processing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. VisiMark: Characterizing and Augmenting Landmarks for People with Low Vision in Augmented Reality to Support Indoor Navigation.Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Demet YesiltepeDepartment of Architecture and Built Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. demet.yesiltepe@northumbria.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2409-6687
Ruth Conroy DaltonSchool of Architecture, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Ayse Ozbil TorunDepartment of Architecture and Built Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Landmarks are accepted as one of the vital elements in both virtual and real environments during wayfinding tasks. This paper provides an overview of the existing literature on the selection of landmarks in wayfinding mostly in large-scale urban environments and outdoors by discussing two main aspects of landmarks: visibility and salience. Environments and layouts used in previous studies, different tasks given to people and the main findings are explained and compared. Summary tables are created from these findings. The review concludes that there is mostly a consensus on the selection of landmarks, when considering their location. Accordingly, landmarks on route and also at decision points (with a turn) are more effective during wayfinding tasks. However, visibility of landmarks as well as visual and cognitive saliency need to be further investigated using different environments, tasks or different levels of familiarity with environments.

Indexed as

Recognition, PsychologyHumansLandmarkLiteratureNavigationWayfinding

Identifiers

PMID33682034
PMCPMC8324579

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.