Geologists as a group have and use above-average spatial thinking skills to interpret and communicate complex geologic structures. Interpretation challenges, especially with industry subsurface targets, come from abundant but still ambiguous data volumes, challenging geologic forms, powerful but difficult-to-learn software, and under-prepared staff. In June of 2013, 70 participants met in Reno to discuss these and related issues, and to explore how spatial cognitive science can help us better understand and develop geologic interpretation skills, software tools, and education strategies. Industry interpreters and trainers, academic structural geologists, software developers, and cognitive scientists brought complementary perspectives to three days of presentations, posters, and discussions, plus a field day with interactive interpretation modules. This Hedberg conference provided new shared insights to the interpretation process, ideas for improving skill development, and abundant opportunities for further collaboration.

The Value of Multidisciplinary Perspectives
Academic geologists have long sought, and continue to seek, the best methods to educate future geologists. In recent decades, these efforts have included rigorous, quantitative classroom-based research on effective pedagogies. The development of students' spatial thinking skills is an emerging focus of this research, as educators have articulated its vital importance throughout the geoscience workforce, including the petroleum industry.

Cognitive scientists explore how people develop and apply spatial thinking skills to accurately perceive, understand, and communicate 3D (and 4D) relationships, and how these skills impact success in tasks ranging from navigation to laproscopic surgery. It is clear from this research that spatial skills are malleable, though how best to train these skills remains an area of active research. Some academic geologists are engaged in investigating the application of spatial cognitive concepts to improve teaching and student performance.

Petroleum industry professionals, particularly those with significant interpretation experience, are uniquely qualified to describe the spatial cognition challenges inherent in 3D (and 4D) interpretation. Collaborating with academic geologists allows industry to inform educators about the kinds of tasks new hires face. Collaborating with cognitive scientists provides industry professionals an opportunity to better understand the cognitive challenges of subsurface interpretation, and to develop training strategies and tools informed by cognitive science. Conversely, working with professional geologists provides cognitive scientists a window into the minds of spatial thinking experts.

Software (and hardware) developers and users strive for effective 3D visualization and interpretation software which is widely used in the petroleum industry. Beyond the notion of a software product being solely to achieve a technical outcome, software routinely represents the subsurface in a 3D viewer or 3D interpretation environment. To a large degree subsurface geology is an obvious application for 3D visualization where the benefits of cognitive off-loading (i.e. the geologist is freed from the mental process of imagining in 3D because it's manifest on the screen) are implicit. However, toolkits and visualization systems can actually overload the interpreter with the enormous amount of information that is available. Techniques for interactive visual culling and intuitive object hiding and retrieval are seen as a way forward to simplify both user experience and productivity.

Key Findings
By the end of the conference, many of the participants expressed significant new insights. These included a new appreciation for the complexity of the interpretation mission, both geologically and cognitively; a deeper understanding of the distance between novice and expert geoscientists, exemplified by the complexity of 3D interpretation; a developing understanding of the benefits of understanding the cognitive processes and cognitive challenges of our work; and a desire to learn and apply research-proven strategies to help move people from novice to expert more efficiently.

Most academic geologists were impressed with the complexity and intellectually stimulating geology in typical industry subsurface projects. They were further impressed by the power of industry software to display and manipulate 3D data. Geologists, both in academia and industry, also recognized the key difference between traditional surface geologic mapping and interpreting subsurface 3D structural frameworks. This difference emerged when academic and industry participants compared interpretations during the field exercises, and highlights contrasting strategies for spatial thinking. The cognitive scientists, while struggling to follow the nuances of geological interpretations, were quite impressed by the speed and facility with which geologists developed and discussed mental models of complex stratigraphic and structural systems. In addition, industry geologists developed a greater appreciation for the cognitive challenges inherent in 3D interpretation.

Novices and experts clearly interpret structures with different skills and strategies. Novices can be overwhelmed with information (and software), and struggle to build a 3D mental model. Experts are more likely to rely on mental representations, but may be misled by experience bias. Training methods must account for novice vs. expert abilities.

For the majority of the conference participants, the cognitive science perspective on what we do, how we do it, and how we can teach/train people to do what we do was completely new. A few key ideas generated a high level of interest. First among these is that spatial cognition improves with practice, and also degenerates with disuse. Furthermore, whatever we can do to reduce the cognitive demands of visualizing spatially complex datasets frees our minds to analyze and interpret the data. Strategies that are known to help with cognitive off-loading include gesturing, sketching, and, of course, working with computerized visualizations of the data. There are obvious implications in this for teaching and training the next generation of interpreters.

Opportunities and Actions
Several key opportunities emerged during the conference, with strong support and commitments from participants. These include:

Increase awareness of the subsurface interpretation mission and methods across the academic geologic world. Participants recognized opportunities for collaboration in the design of teaching activities for undergraduates, including the use of simplified software that mimics some of the features of industry software. These collaborations will improve undergraduate geoscience education, introducing students to real 3D data and real-world problems, and will also lead to better-prepared industry recruits.

Encourage industry interpreters to use 3D interpretation environments as their default tools. Conference presentations illustrated how the use of 2D environments creates cognitive challenges that inevitably lead to geologically implausible (or impossible) interpretations. But it was recognized that some of the obstacles to wider adoption lay with a desire for manageable corporate policy rather than always using the best tools for the job.

Apply spatial cognitive science and informed pedagogy for interpretation tools, strategies, and training methods. For example:

As one outcome of the Hedberg conference, the new AAPG Petroleum Structure and Geomechanics Division has sponsored a new Committee for Structural Interpretation. Initial enrollment includes many of the conference participants.