Cognition, Metacognition, and the Design of Maps

Current Directions in Psychological Science

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 3-9

  Hegarty, Mary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

design; graphical displays; inference; maps; metacognition

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872799120     PISSN: 09637214     EISSN: 14678721     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963721412469395     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Andre A. D.,Wickens C. D.When users want what's not best for them.Ergonomics in Design. 1995;3:10-14.
2. Beck M. R.,Lohrenz M. C.,Trafton J. G.Measuring search efficiency in complex visual search tasks: Local and global clutter.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2010;16:238-250.
3. Bertin J.Semiology of graphics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press; 1983:.
4. Canham M.,Hegarty M.Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics.Learning and Instruction. 2010;20:155-166.
5. Carswell C. M.,Frankenberger S.,Bernhard D.Graphing in depth: Perspectives on the use of three-dimensional graphs to represent lower-dimensional data.Behavior & Information Technology. 1991;10:459-474.
6. Fabrikant S. I.,Rebich-Hespanha S.,Hegarty M.Cognitively inspired and perceptually salient graphic displays for efficient inference making.Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 2010;100:13-29.
7. Hegarty M.,Canham M.,Fabrikant S. I.Thinking about the weather: How display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2010;36:37-53.
8. Hegarty M.,Smallman H. S.,Stull A. T.Choosing and using geospatial displays: Effects of design on performance and metacognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2012;18:1-17.
9. Hegarty M.,Smallman H. S.,Stull A. T.,Canham M.Naïve cartography: How intuitions about display configuration can hurt performance.Cartographica. 2009;44:171-187.
10. Hullman J.,Adar E.,Shah P.Benefitting infovis with visual difficulties.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. 2011;17:2213-2222.
11. Kosslyn S.Graph design for the eye and mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2006:.
12. Lansdale M.,Underwood G.,Davies C.Something overlooked? How experts in change detection use visual saliency.Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2010;24:213-225.
13. Lloyd R.,Steinke T.Visual and statistical comparison of choropleth maps.Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 1977;67:429-436.
14. Lowe R. K.Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics.Learning and Instruction. 2003;13:157-176.
15. MacEachren A. M.How maps work. New York, NY: Guilford; 1995:.
16. Mackinlay J.,Hanrahan P.,Stolte C.Show me: Automatic presentation for visual analysis.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. 2007;5:110-141.
17. Newcombe N.A plea for spatial literacy.Chronicle of Higher Education. 2006;52:B20.
18. Peebles D.,Cheng P. C.Modeling the effect of task and graphical representation on response latency in a graph reading task.Human Factors. 2003;45:28-46.
19. Ratwani R. M.,Trafton J. G.,Boehm-Davis D. A.Thinking graphically: Connecting vision and cognition during graph comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2008;14:36-49.
20. Sanfey A.,Hastie R.Does evidence presentation format affect judgment? An experimental evaluation of displays of data for judgments.Psychological Science. 1998;9:99-103.
21. Scaife M.,Rogers Y.External cognition: How do graphical representations work?.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 1996;45:185-213.
22. Smallman H. S.,Hegarty M.Expertise, spatial ability and intuition in the use of complex displays. Proceedings of the 51st Annual Conference of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 2007Baltimore, MD; 2007. 200.
23. Smallman H. S.,St. John M.Naïve realism: Misplaced faith in realistic displays.Ergonomics in Design. 2005;13:14-19.
24. St. John M.,Cowen M. B.,Smallman H. S.,Oonk H. M.The use of 2-D and 3-D displays for shape understanding versus relative position tasks.Human Factors. 2001;43:79-98.
25. Tufte E. T.The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 1983:.
26. Wainer H.,Hambleton R. K.,Meara K.Alternative displays for communicating NAEP results: A redesign and validity study.Journal of Educational Measurement. 1999;36:301-335.
27. Wickens C. D.,Carswell M.The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design.Human Factors. 1995;37:473-494.
28. Yeh M.,Wickens C. D.Attentional filtering in the design of electronic map displays: A comparison of color coding, intensity coding, and decluttering techniques.Human Factors. 2001;43:543-562.
29. Zacks J.,Levy E.,Tversky B.,Schiano D. J.Reading bar graphs: Effects of extraneous depth cues and graphical context.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 1998;4:119-138.