A Model of the Cognitive and Perceptual Processes in Graphical Display Comprehension

AAAI Fall Symposium - Technical Report

Volumn FS-97-03, Issue , 1997, Pages 94-101

  Shah, Priti ^a  

^a University of Memphis   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BOTTOM UP; GRAPH COMPREHENSIONS; GRAPHICAL DISPLAYS; INTERACTIVE PROCESS; LARGE AMOUNTS; NATURAL PROPERTIES; QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION; RECOGNITION PROCESS; TEXT COMPREHENSIONS; VISUAL SYSTEMS;

CHARACTER RECOGNITION;

EID: 80054813560     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (28)

1. Bertin, I. (1983). Semiology of graphics: Diagrams networks maps (W. Berg, Trans.). Madison, WI: The University of WisconsinPress.
2. Carpenter, P. A., & Shah, P. (1997). A Model of the Perceptual and Conceptual Processes in Graph Comprehension, under review.
3. Carswell, C. M., Emery, C., & Lonon, A. M. (1993). Stimulus complexity and information integration in the spontaneous interpretation of line graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 341-357.
4. Carswell, C. M., &Wickens, C. D. (1987). Information integration andthe object display: Aninteraction of task demandsand display superiority, Ergonomics, 30, 511-527.
5. Casner, S. M. (1990). Task-analytic design of graphic presentations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
6. Casner, S. M., & Larkin, 1. H. (1989). Cognitive efficiency considerations for good graphic design. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Socie~.. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Cleveland W. S., & McGill, R. (1984). Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods, Journal of the AmericanStatistical Association, 77, 541-547.
8. Cleveland, W. S., & McGill, R. (1985). Graphical perception and graphical methodsfor analyzing scientific data. Science, 229, 828-833.
9. Culbertson, H.M., & Powers, R. D. (1959). A study graph comprehension difficulties, Audio Visual CommunicationReview, 7, 97-100.
10. Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin Books.
11. Guthrie, J. T., Weber, S., & Kimmerly, N. (1993). Searchingdocuments:Cognitive processes and deficits in understanding graphs, tables, and illustrations. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 18, 186-221.
12. Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P.A., &Just, M. A. (1991). Diagramsin the comprehension of scientific texts. In R. Ban', M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, &P.D. Pearson (F_, ds.) Handbook of reading research volume 2. New York: Longman.
13. Larkin, J., & Simon, H.(1987). Why a diagram (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
14. Legge, G. E., Gu, Y., & Luebker, A. (19890. Efficiency of graphical perception, Perception and Psychophysics, 46, 365-374
15. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., &Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, a-d teaching. Review of EducationalResearch, 60, 1-64.
16. Lewandowsky, S., & Spence, I. (1989). The perception statistical graphs, Sociological Methodsand Research, 18, 200-242.
17. Lohse, G. L. (1993). Acognitive model of understanding graphical perception. Hwnan-Computer Interaction, 8, 353-388.
18. MacDonald-Ross, M.(1977). Graphics in Texts. Review of Researchin Education, 5, 49-85.
19. Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. IL Freedle, (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence andthe Future of Testing, (pp. 73-126). Hilt~dale, NI: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.
20. Roth, S. F. and Hefley, W. E. (1993). Intelligent Multimedia Presentation Systems: Research and Principles. In M.Maybury(Ed), Intelligent Multi-media Interfaces, pp. 13-58.
21. Schiano, I. D., & Tversky, B. (1992). Structure and strategy in encoding simplified graphs. Memoryand Cognition, 20, 12-20
22. Shah, P. (1995). Cognitive Processes in Graph Comprehension.UnpublishedDoctoral Dissertation.
23. Shah, P. & Carpenter, P. A. (1995). Conceptual Limitations in comprehendingline graphs, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 43-62
24. Shah, P., Mayer, R., & Hegarty, M. (1997). Which Graphs are Better? Textbook Graphs as Aids to KnowledgeConstruction. To be presented at the 1997 Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
25. Tversky, B., & Schiano, D. J. (1989). Perceptual and conceptual factors in distortions in memoryfor graphs and maps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 387-398.
26. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension, NewYork: AcademicPress.
27. Wainer, H., & Thissen, D. (1981). Graphical data analysis, AnnualReview of Psychology, 32, 191-241.
28. Winn, B. (1987). Charts, graphs, and diagrams educational materials. In D. Willows and H. A. Houghton(eds.), The Psychology of Illustration. New York: Springer-Verlag.