Inferring cross-sections: When internal visualizations are more important than properties of external visualizations

Human-Computer Interaction

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 119-147

  Khooshabeh, Peter ^a   Hegarty, Mary ^b  

^a University of Southern California   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE ABILITY; DEPTH CUE; GENERAL INTELLIGENCE; INTERACTIVE ANIMATIONS; INTERACTIVITY; REASONING ABILITY; SPATIAL ABILITIES; SPATIAL TRANSFORMATION; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STEREOSCOPIC VIEWING; THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT; THREE-DIMENSIONAL STRUCTURE; VISUAL INFORMATION;

ANIMATION; THREE DIMENSIONAL; VISUAL COMMUNICATION; VISUALIZATION;

EXPERIMENTS;

EID: 77953723342     PISSN: 07370024     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07370020903586704     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Andre, A. D., & Wickens, C. D. (1995). When users want what's NOT best for them. Ergonomics in Design, 3, 10-14.
2. Balakrishnan, R., & Hinckley, K. (1999). The role of kinesthetic reference frames in two-handed input performance. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. New York: ACM.
3. Ballantyne, G. H., & Moll, F. (2003). The da Vinci telerobotic surgical system: the virtual operative field and telepresence surgery. Surgical Clinics of North America Robotic Surgery, 83, 1293-1304.
4. Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., Rodden, T., & Pycock, J. (2001). Collaborative virtual environments. Communications of the ACM, 44, 79-85.
5. Bennet, G. K., Seashore, H. G., & Wesman, A. G. (1981). Differential aptitude tests-space relations test. Sidcup, UK: The Psychological Corporation.
6. Betrancourt, M. (2005). The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 287-296). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7. Boyer, B., Campbell, M., May, P., Merwin, D., & Wickens, C. D. (1995). Three-dimensional displays for terrain and weather awareness in the National Airspace System. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
8. Brown, W. P., & Herbranson, E. (2004). 3D Interactive Tooth Atlas (Version 5.0) [Computer Software]. Palo Alto, CA: Brown and Herbranson Imaging.
9. Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. Atlantic Monthly, 176, 101-108.
10. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233-246.
11. Christou, C. G., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1999). View dependence in scene recognition after active learning. Memory & Cognition, 27, 996-1007.
12. Cohen, C. A., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Individual differences in use of an external visualization to perform an internal visualization task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 701-711.
13. Cohen, C. A., & Hegarty, M. (2008, June). Spatial visualization training using interactive animation. Paper presented at the Conference on Research and Training in Spatial Intelligence, Evanston, IL.
14. Dennehy, M. T., Nesbitt, D. T., & Sumey, R. A. (1994). Real-time three-dimensional graphics display for antiair warfare command and control. Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, 15, 110-119.
15. Eliot, J., & Macfarlane-Smith, I. (1983). An international directory of spatial tests. Windsor, Berks, UK: Nfer-Nelson.
16. Florance, V. (2002). Better health in 2010: Information technology in 21st century health care, education and research. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges.
17. Garg, A. X., Norman, G. R., Spero, L., & Maheshwari, P. (1999). Do virtual computer models hinder anatomy learning? Academic Medicine, 74, S87-S89.
18. Garg, A. X., Norman, G. R., & Sperotable, L. (2001). How medical students learn spatial anatomy. The Lancet, 357, 363-364.
19. Harman, K. L., Humphrey, G. K., & Goodale, M. (1999). Active manual control of object views facilitates visual recognition. Current Biology, 9, 1315-1318.
20. Heer, J., & Robertson, G. G. (2007). Animated transitions in statistical data graphics. Proceedings of IEEE Information Visualization. Washington, DC: IEEE.
21. Hegarty, M. (2004). Diagrams in the mind and in the world: Relations between internal and external visualizations. Proceedings of Diagrams 2004. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Berlin.
22. Hegarty, M., Keehner, M., Khooshabeh, P., & Montello, D. R. (2009). How spatial abilities enhance, and are enhanced by, dental education. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 61-70.
23. Hegarty, M., Smallman, H. S., Stull, A. T., & Canham, M. (2009). How intuitions about display configuration can hurt performance. Cartographica, 4, 171-186.
24. Hegedus, C., Flora-Nagy, E., Martos, R., Juhasz, A., Fulop, I., Pomahazi, S., et al. (2000). 3D reconstruction based on hard tissue microtome cross-section pictures in dentistry. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 63, 77-84.
25. Hoffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722-738.
26. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7, 174-196.
27. James, K. H., Humphrey, G. K., Vilis, T., Corrie, B., Baddour, R., & Goodale, M. A. (2002). "Active" and "passive" learning of three-dimensional object structure within an immersive virtual reality environment. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 34, 383-390.
28. Jastrow, H., & Vollrath, L. (2002). Teaching and learning gross anatomy using modern electronic media based on the visible human project. Clinical Anatomy, 16, 44-54.
29. Kali, Y., & Orion, N. (1996). Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geologic structures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 369-391.
30. Kalyuga, S. (2008). Relative effectiveness of animated and static diagrams: An effect of learner prior knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 852-861.
31. Keehner, M., Hegarty, M., Cohen, C., Khooshabeh, P., & Montello, D. R. (2008). Spatial reasoning with external visualizations: what matters is what you see, not whether you interact. Cognitive Science, 32, 1099-1132.
32. Khooshabeh, P., Hegarty, M., Keehner, M., & Cohen, C. A. (2008). Benefits of constrained interactivity in using a three-dimensional diagram. Proceedings of Diagrams 2008, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5223. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Berlin.
33. Kirsh, D. (1997). Interactivity and multimedia interfaces. Instructional Science, 25, 76-96.
34. Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18, 513-549.
35. Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479-1498.
36. Lohman, D. F. (1996). Spatial ability and g. In P. Tapsfield (Ed.), Human abilities: Their nature and measurement (pp. 97-116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Luursema, J. M., Verwey, W. B., Kommets, P. A. M., Geelkerken, R. H., & Vos, H. J. (2006). Computer-assisted Anatomical Learning. Interacting with Computers, 18, 1123-1138.
38. Marchak, F. M., & Marchak, L. C. (1991). Interactive versus passive dynamics and the exploratory analysis of multivariate data. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 23, 296-300.
39. Marchak, F. M., & Zulager, D. D. (1992). The effectiveness of dynamic graphics in revealing structure in multivariate data. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 24, 253-257.
40. Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 49-63.
41. Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 256-265.
42. Melanson, B., Kelso, J., & Bowman, D. (2002). Effects of active exploration and passive observation on spatial learning in a CAVE. Retrieved October 2005 from http://eprints.cs.vt.edu/ar-chive/00000602/
43. Pallant, J. F. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS. New South Wales, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
44. Palmer, S. E. (1999). Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45. Proffitt, D. R., & Kaiser, M. K. (1991). Perceiving environmental properties from motion information: Minimal conditions. In A. J. Grunwald (Ed.), Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments, pp. 47-60. London: Taylor & Francis.
46. Provo, J., Lamar, C., & Newby, T. (2002). Using a cross section to train veterinary students to visualize anatomical structures in three dimensions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 10-34.
47. Robertson, G. G., Cameron, K., Czerwinski, M., & Robbins, D. (2002). Animated visualization of multiple intersecting hierarchies. Journal of Information Visualization, 1, 50-65.
48. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: how do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 185-213. (Pubitemid 126360243)
49. Shah, P., Freedman, E. G., & Vekiri, I. (2005). The comprehension of quantitative information in graphical displays. In A. Miyake (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 426-477). New York: Cambridge University Press.
50. Smallman, H. S., & St. John, M. (2005). Naive realism: misplaced faith in realistic displays. Ergonomics in Design, pp. 6-13.
51. Smallman, H. S., St. John, M., Oonk, H. M., & Cowen, M. B. (2001). Information availability in 2D and 3D displays. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 21, 51-57.
52. St. John, M., Cowen, M. B., Smallman, H. S., & Oonk, H. M. (2001). The use of 2-D and 3-D displays for shape understanding versus relative position tasks. Human Factors, 43, 79-98.
53. Tory, M. (2003). Mental registration of 2D and 3D visualizations (an empirical study). Proceedings of IEEE Visualization. Washington, DC: IEEE
54. Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
55. Tversky, B., Morrison, J., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
56. Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 47, 599-604.
57. Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 177, 250-270.
58. Waller, D., Knapp, D., & Hunt, E. (2001). Spatial representations of virtual mazes: The role of visual fidelity and individual differences. Human Factors, 43, 147-158.
59. Wexler, M., Kosslyn, S. M., & Berthoz, A. (1998). Motor processes in mental rotation. Cognition, 68, 77-94.
60. Wickens, C. D., Merwin, D., & Lin, E. L. (1994). Implications of graphics enhancement for the visualization of scientific data: Dimensional integrality, stereopsis, motion, and mesh. Human Factors, 36, 44-61.
61. Wilson, P. N. (1999). Active exploration of a virtual environment does not promote orientation or memory for objects. Environment and Behavior, 31, 752-763.
62. Wohlschlager, A., & Wohlschlager, A. (1998). Mental and manual rotation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 397-412.
63. Wong, A., Marcus, N., Ayres, P., Smith, L., Cooper, G. A., Paas, F., et al. (2009). Instructional animations can be superior to statics when learning motor skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 339-347.