The Impact of Color Zoning and Guidance Sign Spacing on Wayfinding in Underground Spaces: A VR-Based Study

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2026.04.014

Abstract

Abstract:

To address the issues of low wayfinding efficiency and negative user experience in underground spaces, Study 1 conducted on-site investigations of existing underground parking garages to assess current conditions, while Study 2 employed VR technology to experimentally examine the impact of color zoning and guidance sign spacing on wayfinding performance and user experience. The results demonstrated that employing color zoning combined with a sign spacing of 20m significantly reduced wayfinding time and decreased the number of pauses and observations. User evaluations of the wayfinding process were also significantly improved. This positive effect was found to be more pronounced during journeys involving longer wayfinding distances. The findings indicate that this approach (color zoning with 20m sign spacing) facilitates the acquisition of spatial knowledge and is effective in enhancing both wayfinding performance and user experience within underground environments.

Key words: wayfinding, underground spaces, guidance signs, VR, spatial knowledge

摘要：

为改善地下空间存在的寻路效率低、体验差等问题，研究1对现有地下车库进行实地调研以了解地下空间寻路现状，研究2借助VR技术开展实验探究颜色分区和导向标识间距对寻路绩效和寻路体验的影响。结果发现，使用颜色分区和20 m的标识间距能显著缩短寻路时间，减少停止与观望次数，用户寻路评价也显著提升，在寻路距离较长时这种积极作用更为明显。表明该方案有助于空间知识的获取，对提升地下空间寻路绩效和体验有积极作用。

关键词: 寻路, 地下空间, 导向标识, VR技术, 空间知识

CLC Number:

B849

Binbin LUO, Yixue JING, Xiaolei SONG. The Impact of Color Zoning and Guidance Sign Spacing on Wayfinding in Underground Spaces: A VR-Based Study[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2026, 24(4): 542-550.

罗彬彬, 荆怡雪, 宋晓蕾. 颜色分区与导向标识间距对地下空间寻路的影响—一项VR研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2026, 24(4): 542-550.

Figures/Tables 12

References 0

	董波, 王成瑜, 张秀玲, 张天阳. 地面参照框架形成的连续表面整合加工假说. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28 (12): 2000- 2007.
	房慧聪, 周琳. 性别、寻路策略与导航方式对寻路行为的影响. 心理学报, 2012, 44 (8): 1058- 1065. DOI
	郝亚睿, 雷斌, 张源, 孙盈娅. 基于行人认知规律的地铁引导标识信息优化. 交通信息与安全, 2021, 39 (4): 99- 107.
	雷升祥, 申艳军, 肖清华, 奚家米, 顾霖骏. 城市地下空间开发利用现状及未来发展理念. 地下空间与工程学报, 2019, 15 (4): 965- 979.
	刘胧, 于瑞盟, 李伟岭. 指向标识设置间距及设置位置对寻路效率影响的虚拟研究. 人类工效学, 2011, 17 (3): 23- 26.
	鲁娥. 地铁车站导向标识设置科学性评价与改进建议. 无锡商业职业技术学院学报, 2022, 22 (2): 54- 58.
	米佳. (2007). 地下公共空间的认知和寻路实验研究——以上海市人民广场为例(硕士学位论文). 同济大学, 上海.
	米佳, 徐磊青, 汤众. 地下公共空间的寻路实验和空间导向研究——以上海市人民广场为例. 建筑学报, 2007 (12): 66- 70.
	王磊. 提高寻路绩效的导向标识系统连贯性设计研究. 包装工程, 2013, 34 (20): 8- 10,76.
	吴健波, 岳伟涛, 王恩元. 2001—2023年中国城市地下空间开发利用研究特征与趋势——基于CiteSpace和VOSviewer知识图谱分析. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2025, 21 (2): 83- 89. DOI
	徐磊青, 张玮娜, 汤众. 地铁站中标识布置特征对寻路效率影响的虚拟研究. 建筑学报, 2010 (增刊): 1- 4.
	禹丹丹, 韩宝明, 李得伟. 北京南站静态导向标识布局评估研究. 铁道运输与经济, 2014, 36 (3): 65- 70. DOI
	张凤翔, 陈美璇, 蒲艺, 孔祥祯. 空间导航能力个体差异的多层次形成机制. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31 (9): 1642- 1664.
	张越, 葛贤亮, 田志强, 葛列众. 基于空间的一级和二级视角转换的行为研究及理论综述. 心理科学, 2018, 41 (2): 504- 510.
	Backs, R. W., & Walrath, L. C. Eye movement and pupillary response indices of mental workload during visual search of symbolic displays. Applied Ergonomics, 1992, 23 (4): 243- 254. DOI
	Balaban, C. Z., Karimpur, H., RöSer, F., & Hamburger, K. Turn left where you felt unhappy: How affect influences landmark-based wayfinding. Cognitive Processing, 2017, 18 (2): 135- 144. DOI
	Chu, J. C., & Yeh, C. Y. Emergency evacuation guidance design for complex building geometries. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 2012, 18 (4): 288- 296. DOI
	Dong, W. H., Qin, T., Yang, T. Y., Liao, H., Liu, B., Meng, L. Q., & Liu, Y. Wayfinding behavior and spatial knowledge acquisition: Are they the same in virtual reality and in real-world environments. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 2022, 112 (1): 226- 246. DOI
	Feng, Y., Duives, D. C., & Hoogendoorn, S. P. Wayfinding behaviour in a multi-level building: A comparative study of HMD VR and Desktop VR. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 2022a, 51, 101475. DOI
	Feng, Y., Duives, D. C., & Hoogendoorn, S. P. Development and evaluation of a VR research tool to study wayfinding behaviour in a multi-story building. Safety Science, 2022b, 147, 105573. DOI
	Gehl, J., & Gemzøe, L. (1996). Public space, public life. Copenhagen, Denmark: The Danish Architectural Press.
	Hamburger, K., & Röser, F. The role of landmark modality and familiarity in human wayfinding. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 2014, 73 (4): 205- 213. DOI
	Hegarty, M., Richardson, A. E., Montello, D. R., Lovelace, K., & Subbiah, I. Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability. Intelligence, 2002, 30 (5): 425- 447. DOI
	Huang, H. J., Xia, T., Tian, Q., Liu, T. L., Wang, C. L., & Li, D. Q. Transportation issues in developing China’s urban agglomerations. Transport Policy, 2020, 85, A1- A22. DOI
	Irshad, S., Perkis, A., & Azam, W. Wayfinding in virtual reality serious game: An exploratory study in the context of user perceived experiences. Applied Sciences, 2021, 11 (17): 7822. DOI
	Jansen-Osmann, P., & Wiedenbauer, G. Wayfinding performance in and the spatial knowledge of a color-coded building for adults and children. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 2004, 4 (4): 337- 358. DOI
	Kim, J. Y., Choi, J. K., Han, W. H., & Kim, J. H. The influence of users’ spatial familiarity on their emotional perception of space and wayfinding movement patterns. Sensors, 2021, 21 (8): 2583. DOI
	Lin, J., Cao, L. J., & Li, N. How the completeness of spatial knowledge influences the evacuation behavior of passengers in metro stations: A VR-based experimental study. Automation in Construction, 2020, 113, 103136. DOI
	Ohtsu, K. Spatial learning by egocentric updating during wayfinding in a real middle-scale environment: Effects of differences in route planning and following. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2017, 50, 51- 59. DOI
	Pazzaglia, F., & De Beni, R. Strategies of processing spatial information in survey and landmark-centred individuals. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2001, 13 (4): 493- 508. DOI
	Siegel, A. W., & White, S. H. The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 1975, 10, 9- 55. DOI
	Tolman, E. C. Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 1948, 55 (4): 189- 208. DOI
	Viaene, P., De Wulf, A., & De Maeyer, P. Indoor landmark-based path-finding utilising the expanded connectivity of an endpoint partition. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 2018, 45 (2): 233- 252. DOI
	Vilar, E., Rebelo, F., & Noriega, P. Indoor human wayfinding performance using vertical and horizontal signage in virtual reality. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 2014, 24 (6): 601- 615. DOI
	Vilar, E., Rebelo, F., Noriega, P., Teles, J., & Mayhorn, C. The influence of environmental features on route selection in an emergency situation. Applied Ergonomics, 2013, 44 (4): 618- 627. DOI
	Wang, D. C., Liang, S., Chen, B. B., & Wu, C. L. Investigation on the impacts of natural lighting on occupants’ wayfinding behavior during emergency evacuation in underground space. Energy and Buildings, 2022, 255, 111613. DOI
	Wiener, J. M., Büchner, S. J., & Hölscher, C. Taxonomy of human wayfinding tasks: A knowledge-based approach. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 2009, 9 (2): 152- 165. DOI
	Yang, Y. Y., Merrill, E. C., Robinson, T., & Wang, Q. The impact of moving entities on wayfinding performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2018, 56, 20- 29. DOI
	Zhong, J. Y., & Kozhevnikov, M. Relating allocentric and egocentric survey-based representations to the self-reported use of a navigation strategy of egocentric spatial updating. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2016, 46, 154- 175. DOI

题目	年龄	空间能力	到访频率	迷路频率	迷路程度	寻路难度
空间能力	−0.050
到访频率	0.144*	0.313***
迷路频率	0.073	−0.305***	−0.295***
迷路程度	0.062	−0.195**	−0.374***	0.353***
寻路难度	0.074	0.269***	0.176**	−0.359***	−0.302***
寻路体验	−0.026	0.264***	0.247***	−0.259***	−0.318***	0.263***

题目	年龄	空间能力	到访频率	迷路频率	迷路程度	寻路难度
空间能力	−0.050
到访频率	0.144*	0.313***
迷路频率	0.073	−0.305***	−0.295***
迷路程度	0.062	−0.195**	−0.374***	0.353***
寻路难度	0.074	0.269***	0.176**	−0.359***	−0.302***
寻路体验	−0.026	0.264***	0.247***	−0.259***	−0.318***	0.263***

题目	男性	女性	t	p
空间能力	2.78±1.22	2.63±1.09	0.904	0.343
到访频率	2.94±1.16	2.69±1.10	1.713	0.088
迷路频率	1.82±0.67	2.10±0.73	−2.964	0.003
迷路程度	2.63±1.11	2.78±1.20	−0.993	0.322
寻路难度	2.74±1.98	2.61±1.06	0.934	0.352
寻路体验	2.42±1.16	2.41±1.18	0.069	0.945

题目	男性	女性	t	p
空间能力	2.78±1.22	2.63±1.09	0.904	0.343
到访频率	2.94±1.16	2.69±1.10	1.713	0.088
迷路频率	1.82±0.67	2.10±0.73	−2.964	0.003
迷路程度	2.63±1.11	2.78±1.20	−0.993	0.322
寻路难度	2.74±1.98	2.61±1.06	0.934	0.352
寻路体验	2.42±1.16	2.41±1.18	0.069	0.945

迷路原因	响应(n)	响应率(%)	普及率(%)
空间单一缺少参照物	138	22.3	60.3
道路复杂路口多	105	16.9	45.9
区域划分不清晰	93	15.0	40.6
很难找到导向标识	114	18.4	49.8
导向标识设置位置不合理	130	21.0	56.8
自身空间能力较弱	32	5.2	14.0
缺少对地下车库空间的整体认知	8	1.3	3.5
汇总	620	100.0	270.9
拟合优度检验：χ²=166.958，p<0.001