Data density and trend reversals in auditory graphs: Effects on point-estimation and trend-identification tasks

ACM Transactions on Applied Perception

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2008, Pages

  Nees, Michael A ^a   Walker, Bruce N ^a  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditory display; Auditory graphs; Sonification

Indexed keywords

AUDITORY DISPLAY; AUDITORY GRAPHS; DATA DENSITIES; DATA POINTS; DATA SONIFICATION; DISCRETE DATA; MAIN EFFECTS; QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION; SONIFICATION;

CHLORINE COMPOUNDS; ESTIMATION; GRAPH THEORY;

POPULATION STATISTICS;

EID: 52249087549     PISSN: 15443558     EISSN: 15443965     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1402236.1402237     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION. 2001. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
2. BONEBRIGHT, T. L., NEES, M. A., CONNERLEY, T. T., AND MCCAIN, G. R. 2001. Testing the effectiveness of sonified graphs for education: A programmatic research project. Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD2001), Espoo, Finland. 62-66.
3. BREGMAN, A. S. 1990. Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound. Cambridge, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
4. BREWSTER, S. 1997. Using non-speech sound to overcome information overload. Displays, 27, 179-189.
5. BREWSTER, S. 2002. Overcoming the lack of screen space on mobile computers. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 3, 188-205.
6. BREWSTER, S. AND MURRAY, R. 2000. Presenting dynamic information on mobile computers. Personal Technologies, 4, 4, 209-212.
7. BROWN, L. M. AND BREWSTER, S. A. 2003. Drawing by ear: Interpreting sonified line graphs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD2003), Boston, MA. 152-156.
8. BROWN, L. M., BREWSTER, S. A., RAMLOLL, R., BURTON, M., AND RIEDEL, B. 2003. Design guidelines for audio presentation of graphs and tables. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD2003), Boston, MA. 284-287.
9. BROWN, L. M., BREWSTER, S., AND RIEDEL, B. 2002. Browsing modes for exploring sonified line graphs. In Proceedings of the 16th Britich HCI Conference, London, UK.
10. BROWN, M. L., NEWSOME, S. L., AND GLINERT, E. P. 1989. An experiment into the use of auditory cues to reduce visual workload. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI 89 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference (CHI 89). 339-346.
11. BUTLER, D. L. 1993. Graphics in psychology: Pictures, data, and especially concepts. Behau. Res. Methods Instruments Comput. 26, 2, 81-92.
12. CARPENTER, P. A., AND SHAH, P. 1998. A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. J. Exp. Psych. Appl. 4, 2, 75-100.
13. CARSWELL, C. M. AND RAMZY, C. 1997. Graphing small data sets: Should we bother? Behav. Inform. Technol. 16, 2, 61-71.
14. CARSWELL, C. M. 1992. Reading graphs: Interactions of processing requirements and stimulus structure. In Percepts, Concepts and Categories: The Representation and Processing of Information, B. Burns, Ed., North-Holland (Elsevier) Boston, MA. 605-645.
15. CARSWELL, C. M., EMERY, C., AND LONON, A. M. 1993. Stimulus complexity and information integration in the spontaneous interpretation of line graphs. Appl. Cognitive Psych. 7, 341-357.
16. CHILDS, E. 2005. Auditory graphs of real-time data. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD 2005), Limerick, Ireland.
17. DEUTSCH, D., AND FEROE, J. 1981. The internal representation of pitch sequences in tonal music. Psych. Rev. 88, 6, 503-522.
18. DOWLING, W. J. 1978. Scale and contour: Two components of a theory of memory for melodies. Psych. Rev. 85, 4, 341-354.
19. DRAKE, C. AND BOTTE, M. C. 1993. Tempo sensitivity in auditory sequences: Evidence for a multiple look model. Perception Psychophysics 54, 3, 277-286.
20. FLOWERS, J. H. AND HAUER, T. A. 1992. The ear's versus the eye's potential to assess characteristics of numeric data: Are we too visuocentric? Behav. Res. Methods Instruments Comput. 24, 2, 258-264.
21. FLOWERS, J. H. AND HAUER, T. A. 1993. "Sound" alternatives to visual graphics for exploratory data analysis. Behav. Res. Methods Instruments Comput. 25, 2, 242-249.
22. FLOWERS, J. H. AND HAUER, T. A. 1995. Musical versus visual graphs: Cross-modal equivalence in perception of time series data. Human Factors 37, 3, 553-569.
23. FLOWERS, J. H., BUHMAN, D. C., AND TURNAGE, K. D. 1997. Cross-modal equivalence of visual and auditory scatterplots for exploring bivariate data samples. Human Factors 39, 3, 341-351.
24. FLOWERS, J. H., BUHMAN, D. C., AND TURNAGE, K. D. 2005. Data Bonification from the desktop: Should sound be part of standard data analysis software? ACM Trans. Appl. Perception 2, 4, 467-472.
25. FOLDS, D. J. 2006. The elevation illusion in virtual audio. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. 1576-1580.
26. FRAISSE, P. 1978. Time and rhythm perception. In Handbook of Perception. Volume VIII: Perceptual Coding, M. P. Friedman, Ed., Academic Press, New York. 203-254.
27. FRAISSE, P. 1982. Rhythm and tempo. In D. Deutsch (Ed.), The Psychology of Music. Academic Press, New York. 249-180.
28. FRIEL, S. N., CURCIO, F. R., AND BRIGHT, G. W. 2001. Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional applications [Electronic version]. J. Res. Math. 32, 2, 124-159.
29. FRYSINGER, S. P. 2005. A brief history of auditory data representation to the 1980s. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD 2005), Limerick, Ireland.
30. GILLAN, D. J. AND LEWIS, R. 1994. A componential model of human interaction with graphs: I. Linear regression modeling. Human Factors 36, 3, 419-440.
31. GILLAN, D. J., WICKENS, C. D., HOLLANDS, J. G., AND CARSWELL, C. M. 1998. Guidelines for presenting quantitative data in HFES publications. Human Factors 40, 1, 28-41.
32. GOBBO, C. 1994. On children's understanding of an economic concept: The role of graphics in evaluation. In W. Schnotz and R.W. Kulhavy (Eds.), Comprehension of Graphics. Elsevier Science, Boston, MA. 227-249.
33. GRUDIN, J. 2001. Partitioning digital worlds: Focal and peripheral awareness in multiple monitor use. In Proceedings of the 2001 SIGCHIconference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, WA. 458-465.
34. JONES, M. R. 1976. Time, our lost dimension: Toward a new theory of perception, attention, and memory. Psych. Rev. 83, 5, 323-355.
35. JONES, M. R., JOHNSTON, H. M., AND PUENTE, J. 2006. Effects of auditory pattern structure on anticipatory and reactive attending. Cognitive Psych. 53, 59-96.
36. JONES, R. W., AND CARERAS, I. E. 1996. The empirical investigation of factors affecting graphical visualizations. Behav. Res. Methods Instruments Comput. 28, 2, 265-269.
37. KEPPEL, G. AND WICKENS, T. D. 2004. Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook, 4th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
38. KOSSLYN, S. M. 1989. Understanding charts and graphs. Appl. Cognitive Psych. 3, 3, 185-225.
39. KRAMER, G. 1994. An introduction to auditory display. In Auditory Display: Sonification, Audification, and Auditory Interfaces. G. Kramer Ed., Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. 1-78.
40. KRAMER, G., WALKER, B. N., BONEBRIGHT, T., COOK, P., FLOWERS, J., MINER, N., ET AL. 1999. The Soniflcation Report: Status of the Field and Research Agenda. Report prepared for the National Science Foundation by members of the International Community for Auditory Display. International Community for Auditory Display (ICAD), Santa Fe, NM.
41. KUBOVY, M. 1981. Concurrent pitch segregation and the theory of indispensable attributes. In Perceptual Organization, M. Kubovy and J. Pomerantz, Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. 55-99.
42. LEE, J. C. K. AND GERBER, R. 1999. Hong Kong students' perceptions of graphs, charts, and maps. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 43, 1, 19-40.
43. LIU, B., SALVENDY, G., AND KUCZEK, T. 1999. The role of visualization in understanding graphics. Intern. J. Cognitive Ergon. 3, 4, 289-305.
44. MANSUR, D. L., BLATTNER, M. M., AND JOY, K. I. 1985. Sound graphs: A numerical data analysis method for the blind. J. Med. Syst. 9, 3, 163-174.
45. MARTIN, J. G. 1972. Rhythmic (hierarchical) versus serial structure in speech and other behavior. Psych. Rev. 79, 6, 487-509.
46. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OP TECHNOLOGY, n.d. MIT web accessibility guidelines. Retrieved April 10, 2006 from http://web.mit.edu/atic/www/accessibility/developweb.html
47. MEYER, J. 2000. Performance with tables and graphs: Effects of training and a visual search model. Ergonomics 43, 11, 1840-1865.
48. MEYER, J., SHINAR, D., AND LEISER, D. 1997. Multiple factors that determine performance with tables and graphs. Human Factors 39, 2, 268-286.
49. MOORE, P. J. 1993. Metacognitive processing of diagrams, maps, and graphs. Learning Instruction 3, 215-226.
50. NEES, M. A. AND WALKER, B. N. 2007. Listener, task, and auditory graph: Toward a conceptual model of auditory graph comprehension. In Proceedings of the ICAD07 - Thirteenth International Conference on Auditory Display, Montreal, Canada (26-29 June). 266-273.
51. NEWELL, A. AND ROSENBLOOM, P. S. 1981. Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition, J. R. Anderson, Ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Mahwah, NJ.
52. OLIVER, F. 1998. How to present information in graphs and diagrams: Royal Statistical Society.
53. PALOMAKI, H. 2006. Meanings conveyed by simple auditory rhythms. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Auditory Display, London, UK.
54. PEDEN, B. F. AND HAUSMANN, S. E. 2000. Data graphs in introductory and upper psychology textbooks: A content analysis. Teaching Psychol. 27, 2, 93.
55. PERES, S. C. AND LANE, D. M. 2003. Sonification of statistical graphs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD2003), Boston, MA.
56. PERES, S. C. AND LANE, D. M. 2005. Auditory graphs: The effects of redundant dimensions and divided attention. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD 2005), Limerick, Ireland. 169-174.
57. PINKER, S. 1990. A theory of graph comprehension. In R. Freedle Ed., Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Testing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. 73-126.
58. POVEL, D. J. AND ESSENS, P. 1985. Perception of temporal patterns. Music Perception, 2, 4, 411-440.
59. QUESENBERY, W. 1999. Usability interface web accessibility inititative. Retrieved March 11, 2006, from http://www.stcsig.org/usability/ newsletter/9910-wai.html
60. ROTH, P., KAMEL, H., PETRUCCI, L., AND PUN, T. 2002. A comparison of three nonvisual methods for presenting scientific graphs. J. Visual Impairment Blindness, 96, 6, 420-428.
61. SANDERSON, P. M., FLACH, J. M., BUTTIGIEG, M. A., AND CASEY, E. J. 1989. Object displays do not always support better integrated task performance. Human Factors, 31, 2, 183-198.
62. SCHUTZ, H. G. 1961. An evaluation of formats for graphic trend displays-Experiment II. Human Factors 3, 99-107.
63. SHEPARD, R. N. 1982. Structural representation of musical pitch. In The Psychology of Music, D. Deutsch, Ed., Academic Press, New York.
64. SMITH, D. R. AND WALKER, B. N. 2002. Tick-marks, axes, and labels: The effects of adding context to auditory graphs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD2002), Kyoto, Japan. 362-367.
65. SMITH, D. R. AND WALKER, B. N. 2005. Effects of auditory context cues and training on performance of a point estimation Bonification task. Appl. Cognitive Psychol. 19, 8, 1065-1087.
66. STOCKMAN, T., HIND, G., AND FRAUENBERGER, C. 2005. Interactive soniflcation of spreadsheets. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD2005), Limerick, Ireland. 134-139.
67. TURNAGE, K. D., BONEBRIGHT, T. L., BUHMAN, D. C., AND FLOWERS, J. H. 1996. The effects of task demands on the equivalence of visual and auditory representations of periodic numerical data. Behav. Res. Methods Instruments Comput. 28, 2, 270-274.
68. TURNBULL, W. W. 1944. Pitch discrimination as a function of tonal duration. J. Exp. Psychol. 34, 302-316.
69. W3C. 2000. Core techniques for Web Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Retrieved March 12, 2006, from http://www.w3.org/TRAVCAG10-CORE-TECHS/#toc
70. WALKER, B. N. 2002. Magnitude estimation of conceptual data dimensions for use in sonification. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 8, 211-221.
71. WALKER, B. N. 2007. Consistency of magnitude estimations with conceptual data dimensions used for sonification. Appl. Cognitive Psychol. 21, 579-599.
72. WALKER, B. N. AND COTHRAN, J. T. 2003. Sonification Sandbox: A graphical toolkit for auditory graphs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD2003), Boston, MA. 161-163.
73. WALKER, B. N. AND LOWEY, M. 2004. Sonification Sandbox: A graphical toolkit for auditory graphs. In Proceedings of the Rehabilitation Engineering & Assistive Technology Society of America (RESNA) 27th International Conference, Orlando, FL.
74. WALKER, B. N. AND NEES, M. A. 2005a. An agenda for research and development of multimodal graphs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD2005), Limerick, Ireland. 428-432.
75. WALKER, B. N. AND NEES, M. A. 2005b. Conceptual versus perceptual training for auditory graphs. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL. 1598-1601.
76. WENZEL, E. M., ARRUDA, M., KISTLER, D. J., AND WIGHTMAN, F. L. 1993. Localization using nonindividualized head-related transfer functions. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 94, 1, 111-123.
77. WICKENS, C. D. 2002. Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 3, 2, 159-177.
78. ZACKS, J., LEVY, E., TVERSKY, B., AND SCHIANO, D. 2002. Graphs in print. In Diagrammatic Representation and Reasoning, M. Anderson, B. Meyer, and P. Olivier, Eds., Springer, New York. 187-206.