Complex visual data analysis, uncertainty, and representation

Thinking with Data

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 27-63

  Schunn, Christian D ^a   Saner, Lelyn D ^a   Kirschenbaum, Susan K ^b   Gregory Trafton, J ^c   Littleton, Eliza B ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b Naval Undersea Warfare Center   (United States)

^c NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

^d NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892252244     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203810057     Document Type: Chapter

References (51)

1. Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2002). Memory for goals: An activation-based model. Cognitive Science, 26, 39–83.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., & LeBiere, C. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036–1060.
4. Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). Atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660.
6. Broadbent, D. E. (1957). A mechanical model for human attention and immediate memory. Psychological Review, 64, 205–215.
7. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.
8. Dietrich, E., & Markman, A. B. (2000). Cognitive dynamics: Computation and representation regained. In E. Dietrich & A. B. Markman (Eds.), Cognitive dynamics(pp. 5–30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Ehret, B. D., Gray, W. D., & Kirschenbaum, S. S. (2000). Contending with complexity: Developing and using a scaled world in applied cognitive research. Human Factors, 42(1), 8–23.
10. Fu, W.-T., & Gray, W. D. (2004). Resolving the paradox of the active user: Stable suboptimal performance in interactive tasks. Cognitive Science, 28(6).
11. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
12. Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Recall of random and distorted chess positions: Implications for the theory of expertise. Memory & Cognition,24(4), 493–503.
13. Gould, S. J., & Vrba, E. S. (1982). Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8, 4–15.
14. Gray, W. D., John, B. E., & Atwood, M. E. (1993). Project ernestine: Validating goms for predicting and explaining real-world task performance. Human Computer Interaction, 8(3), 237–309.
15. Harrison, A. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2002, August). ACT-R/S: A computational and neurologically inspired model of spatial reasoning. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Fairfax, VA.
16. Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1962). Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex. Journal of Physiology,160, 106–154.
17. Hutchins, E. (1995a). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Hutchins, E. (1995b). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265–288.
19. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976a). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology,8(4), 441–480.
20. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976b). The role of eye-fixation research in cognitive psychology. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 8(2), 139–143.
21. Kaplan, C. A., & Simon, H. A. (1990). In search of insight. Cognitive Psychology,22, 374–419.
22. Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (1997). An overview of the epic architecture for cognition and performance with application to human–computer interaction. Human–Computer Interaction, 12(4), 391–438.
23. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48.
24. Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
25. Kosslyn, S. M., Ball, T. M., & Reiser, B. J. (1978). Visual images preserve metric spatial information: Evidence from studies of image scanning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 46–60.
26. Kosslyn, S. M., Pascual-Leone, A., Felican, O., Camposano, S., Keenan, J. P., Thompson, W. L., et al. (1999). The role of area 17 in visual imagery: Convergent evidence from pet and RTMS. Science, 284(April 2), 167–170.
27. Kosslyn, S. M., Pinker, S., Smith, G., & Shwartz, S. P. (1979). On the demystification of mental imagery. Behavioral and Brain Science, 2, 535–548.
28. Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., Kim, I. J., & Alpert, N. M. (1995). Topographical representations of mental images in primary visual cortex. Nature, 378(Nov 30), 496–498.
29. Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard? Evidence from tower of hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17(2), 248–294.
30. Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D., & Simon, H. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 140–156.
31. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth 10,000 words. Cognitive Science, 4, 317–345.
32. Lovett, M. C., & Schunn, C. D. (1999). Task representations, strategy variability and baserate neglect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(2), 107–130.
33. Markman, A. B. (1999). Knowledge representation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
36. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37. Perkins, D. N. (1994). Insight in minds and genes. In R. S. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Previc, F. H. (1998). The neuropsychology of 3-d space. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 123–164.
39. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1973). What the mind’s eye tells the mind’s brain: A critique of mental imagery. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 1–24.
40. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1981). The imagery debate: Analogue media versus tacit knowledge. Psychological Review, 88, 16–45.
41. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1994). Some primitive mechanisms of spatial attention. Cognition, 50(1–3), 363–384.
42. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2002). Mental imagery: In search of a theory. Behavioral and Brain Science, 25(2), 157–182.
43. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 45(2), 185–213.
44. Schunn, C. D., & Klahr, D. (1996). The problem of problem spaces: When and how to go beyond a 2-space model of scientific discovery. Paper presented at the The 18th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, San Diego, CA.
45. Schunn, C. D., & Klahr, D. (2000). Discovery processes in a more complex task. In D. Klahr (Ed.), Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.
47. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated action: The problem of human–machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
48. Tabachneck-Schijf, H. J. M., Leonardo, A. M., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Camera: A computational model of multiple representations. Cognitive Science, 21(3), 305–350.
49. Treisman, A. M. (1969). Strategies and models of selective attention. Psychological Review, 76(3), 282–299.
50. Ungerleider, L. G., & Mishkin, M. (1982). Two cortical visual systems. In D. J. Ingle, M. A. Goodale & R. J. W. Mansfield (Eds.), Analysis of visual behavior(pp. 549–586). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1(2), 202–238.