ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluating route preview as an alternative to turn-by-turn navigation in pedestrian mobility.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mobile navigation apps like Google Maps and Apple Maps predominantly use turn-by-turn (TBT) instructions for pedestrians, a paradigm originally designed for vehicular navigation. However, many users actively choose the simpler route preview (RP) mode, which displays only the mapped route without real-time guidance features. This research employs a three-study mixed-methods approach to investigate whether RP could serve as an effective alternative to TBT for pedestrian navigation. Study 1 surveyed user preferences (n = 222), revealing that 44% prefer RP despite its limited features, rising to 76% in familiar environments. Study 2 compared actual navigation performance (n = 195), finding no significant differences between modes across key metrics: navigation errors, phone glances, and spatial learning, with RP on par and even better for some key metrics. Study 3 was a co-design workshop (n = 5) to identify priority enhancements, including landmark integration, intention-based routing, and subtle orientation aids. Overall, these findings challenge the assumption that TBT represents optimal pedestrian navigation design. Instead, they demonstrate that RP, with its cognitive engagement benefits and user autonomy, performs comparably to TBT despite fewer features. When enhanced with targeted improvements, RP could better serve diverse pedestrian needs than current TBT-dominant interfaces. This work provides evidence-based guidance for developing more versatile, cognitively engaging pedestrian navigation systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.