Featured Post from Aston University

New research shines a light on how expert mapmakers at Ordnance Survey see the world differently

Apr 19, 2024

3 min


OS Remote Sensing Services survey team updating OS MasterMap using the latest aerial imagery (Image credit: OS)


  • Aston University psychologists worked with Ordnance Survey to assess how surveyors use 3D aerial images when making maps
  • Humans naturally assume light comes from above, but experienced surveyors can interpret visual cues to assess topography regardless of the light direction
  • It is the first time it has been shown that experience can radically alter natural human assumptions about lighting and could improve surveyor training.


Researchers at Aston University have found differences between experienced Ordnance Survey (OS) mapmakers and novices in the way that they interpret aerial images for mapmaking, which could lead to improved training processes for new recruits.


OS is well known for its travel and walking maps, but is also responsible for maintaining Great Britain’s national geographic database. Every time a building is demolished or developed, or a new road and path built, the map must be updated.


Aerial photographs are taken of the area that has changed, either from a plane or using drones, and expert mapmakers, known as remote sensing surveyors, will examine the images to identify change and accurately redraw the map of the area.


Image pairs are presented stereoscopically, one to each eye, allowing the remote sensing surveyors to see in 3D and correctly assess the topography, such as ditches, hills and hedges.


Led by Professor Andrew Schofield, a team from Aston University’s College of Health and Life Sciences, together with Dr Isabel Sargent, previously at OS, carried out a study to understand how remote sensing surveyors interpret the shadows and highlights in images.


The researchers asked six trained remote sensing surveyors and six novices to assess 10,000 stereoscopic aerial images of hedges and ditches, which had been heavily masked with image distortions.


The stereoscopic images the aerial surveyors use for mapmaking are usually taken on sunny days. The human brain is naturally wired to interpret light as coming from above. However, the light does not come from above in the OS aerial images, it depends on the position of the sun. In the UK, north of the equator, light comes slightly from the south, thus appearing to come from below in images viewed by the surveyors.


The researchers wanted to see how manipulating the direction of the light would affect the surveyors.


Professor Schofield and the team swapped the image pairs between the eyes in half of the trials, so that hedges might look like ditches, and ditches look like hedges. The images were also flipped vertically on half the trials, changing the direction of the light source.


Expert surveyors were found to rely on the stereoscopic cues – the difference in images seen by the two eyes – when performing the task.


Novices were more likely to rely on lighting cues – highlights and shadows – to judge the shape and relief of an object, and assumed, as is natural, that the lighting came from above.


With the manipulated images, this meant that novices frequently made mistakes. Experts were more accurate, even when the images had been turned upside down, and some had learnt to assume that the light source came from the south, or below.


This is the first time anyone has shown that the natural assumption that light comes from above, which is common amongst many animal species, can be changed through long term experience. The researchers say that it could be used to develop new visual training techniques for remote sensing surveyors. For example, intensive exposure to repeated, difficult images can improve performance via a process called perceptual learning.


Professor Schofield said:


“This is a very exciting result. Others have shown that the light-from-above assumption can be altered by a few degrees, but no one has ever found complete reversals following long term experience.


Dr Sargent said:


“This result will help Ordnance Survey to understand the expertise of their staff and improve surveyor training and procedures.”


Remote sensing surveyor Andy Ormerod, who worked on the study, said:


“This research proves that experienced remote sensing surveyors can see the world differently. Whereas non-surveyors are used to seeing the world from one perspective, our brains have learned to view the world as seen from aerial imagery.”


Journal of Vision DOI:10.1167/jov.24.4.11

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

4 min

People still trust scientists: Aston University psychologists contribute to largest post-pandemic study on public trust

Researchers looked at trust in scientists in 68 countries and found relatively high levels of trust everywhere The TISP Many Labs study of 71,922 people included those living in under-researched nations of the Global South The majority of survey participants believe that scientists should be more involved in society and policymaking. Public trust in scientists is still high, according to a survey carried out in 68 countries by an international team of 241 researchers, led by Dr Viktoria Cologna (Harvard University, ETH Zurich) and Dr Niels Mede (University of Zurich). The study found no evidence of the oft-repeated claim of a crisis of trust in science. The team, which included Aston University School of Psychology’s Dr James Reynolds and Dr Charlotte Pennington, also found that the majority of survey participants believed that scientists should be more involved in society and policymaking. This study is the result of the Trust in Science and Science-Related Populism (TISP) Many Labs study, a collaborative effort that allowed the authors to survey 71,922 people in 68 countries, including many under-researched countries in the ‘Global South’. For the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic, the study provides global, representative survey data on the populations and regions of the world in which researchers are perceived to be most trustworthy, the extent to which they should engage with the public and whether science is prioritising important research issues. Dr Mede said: “The study is the most comprehensive post-pandemic snapshot of trust in scientists, societal expectations of their involvement in society and policymaking and public views on research priorities.” Across 68 countries, the study finds that the majority of the public has a relatively high level of trust in scientists (mean trust level = 3.62, on a scale of 1 = very low trust to 5 = very high trust). The majority of respondents also perceive scientists as qualified (78%), honest (57%) and concerned about people’s wellbeing (56%). However, the results also reveal some areas of concern. Globally, less than half of respondents (42%) believe that scientists pay attention to the views of others. Additionally, many people felt that the priorities of science are not always well-aligned with their own priorities. The researchers call upon scientists to take the results seriously and find ways to be more receptive to feedback and more open to dialogue. The findings confirm the results of previous studies that show significant differences between countries and population groups. In particular, people with right-wing political views in Western countries tend to have less trust in scientists than those with left-wing views. This suggests that attitudes toward science tend to polarise along political lines. In most countries, however, political orientation and trust in scientists were not related. A majority of respondents want science to play an active role in society and policymaking. Globally, 83% of respondents believe that scientists should communicate with the public about science, providing an impetus for increased science communication efforts. Only a minority (23%) believe that scientists should not actively advocate for specific policies. 52% believe that scientists should be more involved in the policymaking process. Participants gave high priority to research to improve public health, solve energy problems and reduce poverty. On the other hand, research to develop defence and military technology was given a lower priority. In fact, participants explicitly believe that science is prioritising the development of defence and military technology more than they would like, highlighting a potential misalignment between public and scientific priorities. Dr Cologna said: “Our results show that most people in most countries have relatively high trust in scientists and want them to play an active role in society and policymaking”. Dr Reynolds, a senior lecturer at Aston University School of Psychology, said: “This research demonstrates that people from all around the globe still have high trust in science and want scientists involved in policymaking. When we face great challenges, such as threats to public health or energy crises, the public recognise the importance that scientists can play and want us involved. This is also true of the UK where levels of public trust in science is one of the highest globally.” Dr Pennington, a senior lecturer at Aston University School of Psychology, said: “This project showcases the importance and power of big team science to answer fundamental questions about human behaviour. By pooling our expertise and resources, we were able to reach over 70,000 people and improve sample diversity and representation by recruiting from 68 countries. Overall, the study resulted in an optimistic finding – that people generally trust scientists and agree that they should engage more in society and policymaking. Such trust is important because it allows people to make research-informed decisions about their own lives.” Find out more about the research in Nature Human Behaviour by visiting https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02090-5.

4 min

Aston University-led project finds simple ways to improve the wellbeing of paediatric critical care staff

The Staff Wellbeing (SWell) project was carried out in conjunction with Birmingham Children’s Hospital and NHS England Paediatric critical care (PCC) staff experience high levels of moral distress, post-traumatic stress disorder and burnout Two simple, low-resource wellbeing sessions can be delivered by staff for staff without specialist training. The Staff Wellbeing (SWell) project, led by Aston University researchers in collaboration with Birmingham Children’s Hospital and NHS England, has developed two simple, easy-to-deliver sessions to improve the wellbeing of staff in paediatric critical care (PCC) units in UK hospitals. PCC staff are known to experience high levels of moral distress, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and burnout, but often feel little is offered to help them with their mental health. The SWell team at Aston University, led by Professor Rachel Shaw from the Institute of Health and Neurodevelopment, realised following a literature review that there are no existing, evidence-based interventions specifically designed to improve PCC staff wellbeing. Initial work by SWell identified the ‘active ingredients’ likely to create successful intervention designs. Together with a team from NHS England, the Aston University researchers set up the SWell Collaborative Project: Interventions for Staff Wellbeing in Paediatric Critical Care, in PCC units across England and Scotland. The aim of the project was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of implementing wellbeing interventions for staff working in PCC in UK hospitals. In total, 14 of the 28 UK PCC units were involved. One hundred and four intervention sessions were run, attended by 573 individuals. Professor Shaw said: “The significance of healthcare staff wellbeing was brought to the surface during the COVID-19 pandemic, but it’s a problem that has existed far longer than that. As far as we could see researchers had focused on measuring the extent of the problem rather than coming up with possible solutions. The SWell project was initiated to understand the challenges to wellbeing when working in paediatric critical care, to determine what staff in that high-pressure environment need, and what could actually work day-to-day to make a difference. Seeing PCC staff across half the paediatric critical care units in the UK show such enthusiasm and commitment to make the SWell interventions a success has been one of the proudest experiences in my academic career to date.” The two wellbeing sessions tested are low-resource and low-intensity, and can be delivered by staff for staff without any specialist qualifications. In the session ‘Wellbeing Images’, a small group of staff is shown images representing wellbeing, with a facilitated discussion using appreciative inquiry - a way of structuring discussions to create positive change in a system or situation by focusing on what works well, rather than what is wrong. In the ‘Mad-Sad-Glad’ session, another small group reflective session, participants explore what makes them feel mad, sad and glad, and identify positive actions to resolve any issues raised. The key ingredients in both sessions are social support – providing a psychologically safe space where staff can share their sensitive experiences and emotions without judgement, providing support for each other; self-belief – boosting staff’s self-confidence and ability to identify and express their emotions in response to work; and feedback and monitoring – encouraging staff to monitor what increases their stress, when they experience challenging emotions, and what might help boost their wellbeing in those scenarios. Feedback from staff both running and participating in the SWell interventions was very positive, with high satisfaction and feasibility ratings. Participants like that the session facilitated open and honest discussions, provided opportunities to connect with colleagues and offered opportunities for generating solutions and support. One hospital staff member responsible for delivering the sessions said: “Our staff engaged really well, and it created a buzz around the unit with members of the team asking if they could be ‘swelled' on shift. A really positive experience and we are keeping it as part of our staff wellbeing package.” The team concluded that even on busy PCC units, it is feasible to deliver SWell sessions. In addition, following the sessions, staff wellbeing and depression scores improved, indicating their likely positive impact on staff. Further evaluations are needed to determine whether positive changes can be sustained over time following the SWell sessions. The work was funded by Aston University Proof of Concept Fund and NHS England. Donna Austin, an advanced critical care practitioner at University Hospital Southampton paediatric intensive care unit, said: “We were relatively new to implementing wellbeing initiatives, but we recognised the need for measures to be put in place for an improvement in staff wellbeing, as staff had described burnout, stress and poor mood. SWell has enabled our unit to become more acutely aware of the needs of the workforce and adapt what we deliver to suit the needs of the staff where possible. Staff morale and retention has been the greatest outcomes from us participating in the SWell study and ongoing SWell related interventions.” Read the paper about the SWell interventions in the journal Nursing in Critical Care at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nicc.13228. For more information about SWell, visit the website.

2 min

Expert comment available - the Government's announcement for the AI Opportunities Action Plan

Expert comment is available on the the Government's announcement for the AI Opportunities Action Plan in which it is aims to roll out AI across the UK. In a speech setting out the government's plans to use AI across the UK to boost growth and deliver services more efficiently, the Prime Minister said the government had a responsibility to make AI "work for working people". The government claims that the AI Opportunities Action Plan is backed by leading tech firms, some of which have committed £14bn towards various projects, creating 13,250 jobs. It includes plans for growth zones where development will be focused, and the technology will be used to help tackle issues such as potholes. Expert comment: "The plan is a necessary step in the right direction with appropriate investment. It should be coupled with a major training programme at business and public levels to bridge the skill gap and develop essential capabilities. "It is important to specify the role that the higher education sector will play in the delivery of such a plan particularly with regards to innovation and knowledge transfer partnerships. "The government used stated that the technology will be used to help tackle issues such as potholes, however AI should be used not only in the detection of potholes, but also in their prediction. Using predictive analytics would significantly reduce the number of cameras that must be deployed to monitor road surface conditions up and down the country." Professor Abdul Hamid Sadka, Professor of Visual Media Technologies, Director, The Sir Peter Rigby Digital Futures Institute, Aston University For further details contact Nicola Jones, Head of Press & Communications (interim) on (+44) 7825 342091 or email: n.jones6@aston.ac.uk

View all posts
Powered by