Eye movements reveal distinct search and reasoning processes in comprehension of complex graphs

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 893-905

  Körner, Christof ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPREHENSION; ECONOMICS; EYE FIXATION; EYE MOVEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LINGUISTICS; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TASK PERFORMANCE; THINKING;

EID: 82255186808     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1766     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Acarturk, C., Habel, C., Cagiltay, K., & Alacam, O. (2008). Multimodal comprehension of language and graphics: Graphs with and without annotations. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 1, 2, 1-15.
2. Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247-264.
3. Ballard, D. H. (1991). Animate vision: An evolutionary step in computational vision. Journal of the Institute of Electronics, Information, and Communication Engineers, 74, 343-348.
4. Barwise, J., & Etchemendy, J. (1991). Visual information and valid reasoning. W. Zimmermann, & S. Cunningham (Eds.), Visualization in teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 9-24). Washington: Mathematical Association of America.
5. Brooks, R. (1986). A robust layered control system for a mobile robot. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, 2, 14-22.
6. Butler, D. L. (1993). Graphics in psychology: Pictures, data, and especially concepts. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 25, 81-92.
7. Canham, M., & Hegarty, M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 155-166.
8. 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.
9. Czyzowicz, J., Pelc, A., & Rival, I. (1990). Drawing orders with few slopes. Discrete Mathematics, 82, 233-250.
10. Davey, B. A., & Priestley, H. A. (1990). Introduction to lattices and order. England: Cambridge University Press.
11. Findlay, J. M., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2003). Active vision: The psychology of seeing and looking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Gattis, M. (2002a). Reading pictures: Constraints on mapping conceptual and spatial schemas. M. Gattis (Ed.), Spatial Schemas and abstract thought (pp. 223-245). Cambridge: MIT Press.
13. Gattis, M. (2002b). Structure mapping in spatial reasoning. Cognitive Development, 17, 1157-1183.
14. Gibson, B. S., Li, L., Skow, E., Brown, K., & Cooke, L. (2000). Searching for one versus two identical targets: When visual search has a memory. Psychological Science, 11, 324-327.
15. Gilchrist, I. D., & Harvey, M. (2006). Evidence for a systematic component within scanpaths in visual search. Visual Cognition, 14, 704-715.
16. Goldin, G. A. (1985). Thinking scientifically and thinking mathematically: A discussion of the paper by Heller and Hungate. E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 113-142). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Grant, E. R., & Spivey, M. J. (2002). Guiding attention produces inferences in diagram-based problem solving. M. Hegarty, B. Meyer, & N. H. Narayanan (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (pp. 236-248). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
18. Grant, E. R., & Spivey, M. J. (2003). Eye movements and problem solving: Guiding attention guides thought. Psychological Science, 14, 462-466.
19. Guri-Rozenblit, S. (1988). The interrelations between diagrammatic representations and verbal explanations in learning from social science texts. Instructional Science, 17, 219-234.
20. Hayhoe, M. M., Bensinger, D. G., & Ballard, D. H. (1998). Task constraints in visual working memory. Vision Research, 38, 125-137.
21. Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717-742.
22. Huang, W. (2007). Using eye tracking to investigate graph layout effects. Apvis 2007, 6th International Asia-Pacific Symposium on Visualization, 97-100.
23. Huang, W., Eades, P., & Seok-Hee, H. (2009). A graph reading behaviour: Geodesic-path tendency. Visualization Symposium 2009. PacificVis '09, 137-144.
24. Huang, W., Seok-Hee, H., & Eades, P. (2007). Effects of sociogram drawing conventions and edge crossings in social network visualization. Journal of graph algorithms and applications, 11, 397-429.
25. Hurley, S. M., & Novick, L. R. (2006). Context and structure: The nature of students' knowledge about three spatial diagram representations. Thinking & Reasoning, 12, 281-308.
26. Körner, C. (2004). Sequential processing in comprehension of hierarchical graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 467-480.
27. Körner, C. (2005). Concepts and misconceptions in comprehension of hierarchical graphs. Learning and Instruction, 15, 281-296.
28. Körner, C., & Albert, D. (2002a). Comprehension of preference graphs. Psychologische Beiträge, 44, 504-511.
29. Körner, C., & Albert, D. (2002b). Speed of comprehension of visualized ordered sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 57-71.
30. Körner, C., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2004). Eye movements in a simple spatial reasoning task. Perception, 33, 485-494.
31. Körner, C., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2007). Finding a new target in an old display: Evidence for a memory recency effect in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 846-851.
32. Körner, C., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2008). Memory processes in multiple-target visual search. Psychological Research, 72, 99-105.
33. Lewis, J. R. (1989). Training students to represent arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 521-531.
34. Lohse, G. L. (1997). The role of working memory on graphical information processing. Behaviour and Information Technology, 16, 297-308.
35. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K., (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715-726.
36. Meneer, T., Barrett, D. J. K., Phillips, L., Donnelly, N., & Cave, K. R. (2007). Costs in searching for two targets: Dividing search across target types could improve airport security screening. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 915-932.
37. Novick, L. R. (2001). Spatial diagrams: Key instruments in the toolbox for thought. D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 279-325). San Diego: Academic Press.
38. Novick, L. R. (2006). Understanding spatial diagram structure: An analysis of hierarchies, matrices, and networks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1826-1856.
39. Novick, L. R., Hurley, S. M., & Francis, M. (1999). Evidence for abstract, schematic knowledge of three spatial diagram representations. Memory and Cognition, 27, 288-308.
40. 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, 28-45.
41. Pelc, A., & Rival, I. (1991). Orders with level diagrams. European Journal of Combinatorics, 12, 61-68.
42. Purchase, H., Carrington, D., & Allder, J.-O. (2002). Empirical evaluation of aesthetics-based graph layout. Empirical Software Engineering, 7, 233-255.
43. 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.
44. Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65-81.
45. Renshaw, J. A., Finlay, J. E., Tyfa, D., & Ward, R. D. (2004). Understanding visual influence in graph design through temporal and spatial eye movement characteristics. Interacting with Computers, 16, 557-578.
46. Rival, I. (1993). Reading, drawing, and order. I. G. Rosenberg, & G. Sabidussi (Eds.), Algebras and orders (pp. 359-404). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
47. Shah, P., & Carpenter, P. A. (1995). Conceptual limits in comprehending line graphs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 43-61.
48. Shah, P., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Graphs as aids to knowledge construction: Signaling techniques for guiding the process of graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 690-702.
49. Silver, E. A. (1982). Problem perception, problem schemata, and problem solving. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 3, 169-181.
50. Spivey, M. J., Richardson, D. C., & Fitneva, S. A. (2004). Thinking outside the brain: Spatial indices to visual and linguistic information. J. Henderson, & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of vision, language and action (pp. 161-189). New York: Psychology Press.
51. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176-192.
52. Triesch, J., Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., & Sullivan, B. T. (2003). What you see is what you need. Journal of Vision, 3, 86-94.