The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: Implications for design

Topics in Cognitive Science

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 446-474

  Hegarty, Mary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Design; Graphics; Iconic displays; Relational displays; Visual displays; Visualization

Indexed keywords

AUDIOVISUAL AID; COGNITION; DEVICES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMAN; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; VISION;

AUDIOVISUAL AIDS; COGNITION; COGNITIVE SCIENCE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 79960210557     PISSN: 17568757     EISSN: 17568765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01150.x     Document Type: Article

References (102)

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198.
2. Bennett, K. B., & Flach, J. M. (1992). Graphical displays: Implications for divided attention, focused attention, and problem solving. Human Factors, 34, 513-533.
3. Bertin, J. (1983). Semiology of graphics: Diagrams networks maps (W. Berg, Trans.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
4. Breslow, L. A., Trafton, G. J., & Ratwani, R. M. (2009). A perceptual process approach to selecting color scales for complex visualizations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 25-34.
5. Brown, L. (1979). The story of maps. New York: Dover.
6. Card, S. K., Mackinlay, J. D., & Schneiderman, B. (1999). Readings in information visualization: Using vision to think. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
7. Carpenter, P. A., & Shah, P. (1998). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 75-100.
8. Carswell, M. (1992). Choosing specifiers: An evaluation of the basic tasks model of graphical perception. Human Factors, 34, 535-554.
9. Cheng, P. C.-H. (2002). Electrifying diagrams for learning: Principles for effective representational systems. Cognitive Science, 26, 685-736.
10. Cheng, P. C.-H., & Barone, R. (2004). Representing rosters: Conceptual integration counteracts visual complexity. In A. Blackwell, K. Mariott, & A. Shimojima (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference: Third international diagrams conference (pp. 385-387). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
11. Cheng, P. C.-H., & Barone, R. (2007). Representing complex problems: A representational epistemic approach. In D. H. Johanssen (Ed.), Learning to solve complex scientific problems (pp. 97-130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Cleveland, W. S. (1984). Graphs in scientific publications. American Statistician, 38, 261-269.
13. Cleveland, W. S. (1985). The elements of graphing data. Monterey, CA: Wadsworth.
14. Cleveland, W. S., & McGill, R. (1984). Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 531-554.
15. Dent, B. D. (1999). Cartography: Thematic map design. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
16. DiSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293-331.
17. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58, (Whole No 270).
18. Durding, B. M., Becker, C. A., & Gould, J. D. (1977). Data organization. Human Factors, 19, 1-14.
19. Fabrikant, S. I., & Boughman, A. (2006). Communicating data quality through realism. Proceedings of GIScience, Münster, Germany, September 20-23.
20. Fabrikant, S. I., & Lobben, A. (2009). Guest editor's introduction. Special issue: Cognitive issues in geographic information visualization. Cartographica, 44, 129-144.
21. Fabrikant, S. I., Rebich-Hespanha, S., & Hegarty, M. (2010). Cognitively inspired and perceptually salient graphic displays for efficient inference making. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100, 13-29.
22. Ferguson, E. S. (2001). Engineering and the mind's eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Freedman, E. G., & Shah, P. (2002). Toward a model of knowledge-based graph comprehension. In M. Hegarty, B. Meyer, & N. H. Naryanan (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (pp. 8-31). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
24. Furnas, G. (1986). Generalized fisheye views. In M. Mantei & P. Orbeton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1986 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 16-23). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
25. Gattis, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). Mapping conceptual to spatial relations in visual reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 22, 231-239.
26. Gillan, D. J., & Callahan, A. B. (2000). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: VI. Cognitive engineering of pie graphs. Human Factors, 42, 566-591.
27. Gillan, D. J., & Lewis, R. (1994). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: 1. Linear regression modeling. Human Factors, 36, 419-440.
28. Gillan, D. J., & Richman, E. H. (1994). Minimalism and the syntax of graphs. Human Factors, 36, 619-644.
29. Gillan, D. J., Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., & Carswell, C. M. (1998). Guidelines for presenting quantitative data in HFES publications. Human Factors, 40, 28-41.
30. van Gog, T., & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 95-99.
31. Grant, E. R., & Spivey, M. J. (2003). Eye movements and problem solving: Guiding attention guides thought. Psychological Science, 14(5), 462-466.
32. Hegarty, M., Canham, M., & Fabrikant, S. I. (2010). Thinking about the weather: How display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 36, 37-53.
33. Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (2004). Scene perception for psycholinguists. In J. M. Henderson & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of language, vision and action (pp. 1-58). New York: Psychology Press.
34. Hollands, J. G., & Spence, I. (1998). Judging proportion with graphs: The summation model. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 173-190.
35. Itti, L., & Koch, C. (2000). A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Vision Research, 40, 1489-1506.
36. Keehner, M., Hegarty, M., Cohen, C. A., 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.
37. Kirsh, D. (1997). Interactivity and multimedia interfaces. Instructional Science, 25, 76-96.
38. Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18, 513-549.
39. Kosslyn, S. M. (1989). Understanding charts & graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3, 185-226.
40. Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Elements of graph design. New York: W. H. Freeman.
41. Kosslyn, S. M. (2006). Graph design for the eye and mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
42. Kriz, S., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 911-930.
43. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44. Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
45. Lewandowsky, S., & Behrens, J. T. (1999). Statistical graphs and maps. In F. T. Durso, R. S. Nickerson, R. W. Schvaneveldt, S. T. Dumais, D. S. Lindsay, & M. T. H. Chi (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition (pp. 513-549). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
46. Liben, L. S. (2001). Thinking through maps. In M. Gattis (Ed.), Spatial schemas and abstract thought (pp. 45-77). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47. Lohrenz, M. C., Trafton, J. G., Beck, M. R., & Gendron, M. L. (2009). A model of clutter for complex, multivariate, geospatial displays. Human Factors, 51, 90-101.
48. Lohse, G. L. (1993). A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception. Human Computer Interaction, 8, 353-388.
49. Loomis, J. M., & Knapp, J. M. (2003). Visual perception of egocentric distance in real and virtual environments. In L. J. Hettinger & M. W. Hass (Eds.), Virtual and adaptive environments (pp. 21-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
50. Lowe, R. K. (1996). Background knowledge and the construction of a situational representation from a diagram. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11, 377-397.
51. MacEachren, A. (1995). How maps work. Representation, visualization and design. New York: The Guilford Press.
52. MacEachren, A. M., & Kraak, M.-J. (2000). Research challenges in geovisualization. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 28, 3-12.
53. Mackinlay, J. D. (1986). Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 5, 110-141.
54. Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S. Y., & Campbell, J. (2005). When passive media promote active learning: Static diagrams versus animation in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 256-265.
55. McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107, 343-352.
56. McCormick, B. H., DeFanti, T., & Brown, M. D. (1987). Visualization and scientific computing. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
57. Montello, D. R. (1993). Scale and multiple psychologies of space. In A. U. Frank & I. Campari (Eds.), Spatial information theory: A theoretical basis for GIS (pp. 312-321). Proceedings of COSIT '93. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, Lecture notes in Computer Science 716.
58. Myles-Worsley, M., Johnston, W. A., & Simons, M. A. (1988). The influence of expertise on X-ray image processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 553-557.
59. Norman, D. (1994). Things that make us smart. New York: Addison-Wesley.
60. Novick, L. R., & Catley, K. M. (2007). Understanding phylogenies in biology: The influence of a Gestalt perceptual principle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13, 197-223.
61. Novick, L. R., & Hurley, S. M. (2001). To matrix, network, or hierarchy: That is the question. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 158-216.
62. Palmer, S. E. (1978). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representations. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 259-303). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
63. Panofsky, E. (1960). Renaissance and renascences in western art. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
64. Peebles, D., & Cheng, P. C.-H. (2003). Modeling the effect of task and graphical representation on response latency in a graph-reading task. Human Factors, 45, 28-46.
65. Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (pp. 73-126). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
66. Pomerantz, J. R., & Pristach, E. A. (1989). Emergent features, attention, and perceptual glue in visual form perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(4), 635-649.
67. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2003). Seeing and visualizing: It's not what you think. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
68. Ratwani, R. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2008). Shedding light on the graph schema: Perceptual features versus invariant structure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 757-762.
69. Ratwani, R. M., Trafton, J. G., & Boehm-Davis, D. A. (2008). Thinking graphically: Connecting vision and cognition during graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 36-49.
70. Robertson, G., Czerwinski, M., Fisher, D., & Lee, B. (2009). Selected human factors issues in information visualization. Reviews of Human Factors and Engineering, 5, 41-81.
71. Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y., & Nakano, L. (2007). Measuring visual clutter. Journal of Vision, 7, 1-22.
72. Sanfey, A., & Hastie, R. (1998). Does evidence presentation format affect judgment? An experimental evaluation of displays of data for judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 99-103.
73. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 115-143.
74. Schneiderman, B. (1994). Dynamic queries for visual information seeking. IEEE Software, 11, 70-77.
75. Schwartz, D. L. (1995). Reasoning about the referent of a picture versus reasoning about the picture as the referent: An effect of visual realism. Memory & Cognition, 23, 709-722.
76. Shah, P., & Carpenter, P. (1995). Conceptual limitations in comprehending line graphs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 337-370.
77. Shah, P., Freedman, E. G., & Vekiri, I. (2005). The comprehension of quantitative information in graphical displays. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visual spatial thinking (pp. 426-476). New York: Cambridge University Press.
78. Simkin, D. K., & Hastie, R. (1987). An information-processing analysis of graph perception. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 454-465.
79. Smallman, H. S., & St. John, M. (2005). Naïve realism: Misplaced faith in realistic displays. Ergonomics in Design, 13, 14-19.
80. Smith, P. J., Bennett, K. B., & Stone, B. R. (2006). Representation aiding to support performance on problem solving tasks. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2, 74-108.
81. Smith, L. D., Best, L. A., Stubbs, A. D., Archibald, A. B., & Roberson-Nay, R. (2002). Constructing knowledge: The role of graphs and tables in hard and soft psychology. American Psychologist, 57, 749-761.
82. Spence, I., & Lewandowsky, S. (1991). Displaying proportions and percentages. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 61-77.
83. Stenning, K., & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19, 97-140.
84. Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677-680.
85. Thomas, J. J., & Cook, K. A. (2005). Illuminating the path: Research and development agenda for visual analytics. Richland, WA: IEEE Press.
86. Tobler, W. R. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46, 234-240.
87. Trafton, J. G., Kirschenbaum, S. S., Tsui, T. L., Miyamoto, R. T., Ballas, J. A., & Raymond, P. D. (2000). Turning pictures into numbers: Extracting and generating information from complex visualizations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 827-850.
88. Tufte, E. T. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information (2nd ed.). Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
89. Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
90. Tversky, B. (2001). Spatial schemas in depictions. In M. Gattis (Ed.), Spatial schemas and abstract thought (pp. 79-112). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
91. Tversky, B., Kugelmass, S., & Winter, A. (1991). Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 515-557.
92. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
93. Vicente, K. (2002). Ecological interface design: Progress and challenges. Human Factors, 44, 62-78.
94. Wainer, H. (2005). Graphic discovery: A trout in the milk and other visual adventures. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
95. White, B. Y. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 1-100.
96. Wickens, C. D., & Carswell, M. (1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors, 37, 473-494.
97. Wickens, C. D., & Hollands, J. G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.
98. Woods, D. D. (1984). Visual momentum: A concept to improve the cognitive coupling of person and computer. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 21, 229-244.
99. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842.
100. Yeh, M., & Wickens, C. D. (2001). Attentional filtering in the design of electronic map displays: A comparison of color coding, intensity coding, and decluttering techniques. Human Factors, 43, 543-562.
101. Zhang, J. (1996). A representational analysis of relational information displays. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 45, 59-74.
102. Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18, 87-122.