## 3 Results
### The Effect of Map Orientation on Spatial Knowledge Development
#### 3.2.2 Sketch Map Test by Cognitive Style  
The participants' sketch map accuracy data were collected and analyzed in the Gardony Map Drawing Analyzer [60]. Three participants produced low-quality map drawings, which were difficult to analyze. These data points were excluded from the analysis, resulting in 37 sketch map data points in each map orientation condition. The sketch maps were analyzed according to two factors in the Gardony Map Drawing Analyzer: canonical organization and angle accuracy. The canonical organization score (ranging from 0 to 1) indicates the accuracy of the canonical relationships (N/S/E/W) for each landmark in the sketch map compared to the target environment (i.e., maze). A larger score indicates a more accurate representation of the environment. Angle accuracy indicates the accuracy of the angles among the landmarks on the sketch map. The score ranges from 0 to 1, with larger scores indicating more accurate inter-landmark angle representation [60]. The results of descriptive analysis for canonical organization and angle accuracy according to cognitive style are given in Table 5. For the canonical organization, the mean of participants classified as FD was lower (M = 0.568, SD = 0.205) than the mean score of FI participants (M = 0.631, SD = 0.2) under the north-up map condition. The same trend was observed in the forward-up map condition, where FD individuals showed lower performance (M = 0.5, SD = 0.249) than FI individuals (M = 0.543, SD = 0.223). As Table 6 shows, for the angle accuracy scores in the north-up map condition, participants classified as FD showed lower performance (M = 0.596, SD = 0.175) than participants classified as FI (M = 0.640, SD = 0.206). On the contrary, in the forward-up map condition, FD participants achieved higher scores (M = 0.575, SD = 0.126) than FI ones (M = 0.508, SD = 0.201). One notable finding was that the mean difference between map orientation among the FI group showed a larger discrepancy when compared to the mean difference among the FD group (see Figure 9). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Map** & **GEFT** & **Mean** & **Standard Deviation** & **Min** & **Max** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{North-up} & FD & 0.6 & 0.18 & 0.34 & 0.89 \\ \cline{2-6}  & FI & 0.64 & 0.21 & 0.37 & 0.99 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Forward-up} & FD & 0.58 & 0.13 & 0.35 & 0.84 \\ \cline{2-6}  & FI & 0.51 & 0.2 & 0.09 & 0.92 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Descriptive statistics for angle accuracy according to cognitive style. Note: “FD” stands for field dependence and “FI” stands for field independence. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Map** & **GEFT** & **Mean** & **Standard Deviation** & **Min** & **Max** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{North-up} & FD & 0.57 & 0.21 & 0.22 & 0.77 \\ \cline{2-6}  & FI & 0.63 & 0.2 & 0 & 0.99 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Forward-up} & FD & 0.5 & 0.25 & 0 & 0.82 \\ \cline{2-6}  & FI & 0.54 & 0.22 & 0.22 & 0.99 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Descriptive statistics for the canonical organization according to cognitive style. Note: “FD” stands for field dependence and “FI” stands for field independence. A further analysis was performed to investigate the effect of map orientation on survey knowledge regarding cognitive style. Another repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on each factor of sketch map data with map orientation (North-Up vs. Forward-Up) as a within-subject variable and cognitive style (FD vs. FI) as a between-subject variable. Tables S3 and S4 in the Supplementary Materials show the analysis results on canonical organization and angle accuracy, respectively. The results revealed no significant effect of map orientation on canonical organization (\(p>0.05\)). There was no statistically significant effect for the angle accuracy score, but a trend toward significance was found: F (1, 34) = 4.056, \(p=0.052\).