Toward a model of knowledge-based graph comprehension

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 2317, Issue , 2002, Pages 18-30

  Freedman, Eric G ^a   Shah, Priti ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN FLINT   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GRAPHIC METHODS; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS;

BOTTOM-UP PROCESS; DATA PRESENTATION; DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE; GRAPH COMPREHENSIONS; GRAPHICAL INFORMATION; LABORATORY STUDIES; REAL WORLD SETTING; REAL-WORLD GRAPHS; PRIOR KNOWLEDGE;

KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; GRAPHIC METHODS;

EID: 84893087985     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-46037-3_3     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (41)

1. Alloy, L. B., Tabachnik, N. (1984). Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. Psychological Review, 91, 112-149.
2. Anderson, C. A. (1983). Abstract and concrete data in the theory perseverance of social beliefs: When weak data lead to unshakable beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 93-108.
3. Anderson, C. A., Lepper, M. R., Ross, L. (1980). Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1037-1049.
4. Broniarczyk, S. M., Alba, J. W. (1994). Theory versus data in prediction and correlation tasks. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 117-139.
5. 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.
6. Carswell, C. M., Wickens, C. D. (1987). Information integration and the object display: An interaction of task demands and display superiority. Ergonomics, 30, 511-527.
7. 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.
8. Casner, S. M. (1990). Task-analytic design of graphic presentations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
9. Casner, S. M., Larkin, J. H. (1989). Cognitive efficiency considerations for good graphic design. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Chapman, L. J., Chapman, J. P. (1969). Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74, 271-280.
11. Chinn, C. A., Brewer, W. F. (1992). Psychological responses to anomalous data. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 165-170.
12. Culbertson, H. M., Powers, R. D. (1959). A study of graph comprehension difficulties, Audio Visual Communication Review, 7, 97-100.
13. Freedman, E. G., Shah, P. S. (November, 2001). Individual differences in domain knowledge, graph reading skills, and explanatory skills during graph comprehension. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Orlando, FL.
14. Freedman, E. G., Smith, L. D. (1996). The role of theory and data in covariation assessment: Implications for the theory-ladenness of observation. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 17, 321-343.
15. Gattis, M., Holyoak, K. J. (1996). Mapping conceptual to spatial relations in visual reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 231-239.
16. Hirokawa, R.Y., Gouran, D.S., Martz, A.E. (1988). Understanding the sources of faulty group decision making: A lesson from the Challenger disaster. Small Group Behavior, 19, 411-433.
17. Jennings, D. L., Amabile, T., Ross, L. (1982). Informal covariation assessment: Databased versus theory-based judgments. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension. A constructionintegration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
19. Kosslyn, S. (1989). Understanding charts and graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3, 185-225.
20. Larkin, J. H., Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
21. Lewandowsky, S., Behrens, J. T. (1999). Statistical graphs and maps. In F. T. Durson, R. S. Nickerson, R. W. Schvaneveldt, S. T. Dumais, D. S. Lindsay, and M. T. H. Chi (Eds.) Handbook of Applied Cognition (pp. 513-549). Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
22. Lohse, G. L. (1993). A cognitive model of understanding graphical perception. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 353-388.
23. Maichle, U. (1994). Cognitive processes in understanding line graphs. In W. Schnotz and R. W. Kulhavy (Eds.), Comprehension of Graphs (pp 207-226). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
24. Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In R. Freedle, (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Testing, (pp. 73-126). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Oestermeier, U., Hesse, F. W. (2000). Verbal and visual causal arguments. Cognition, 75, 65-104.
26. S, W. C., West, R. F., Stanovich, K. E. (1999). The domain specificity and generality of belief bias: Searching for a generalizable critical skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 497-510.
27. Schiano, J. D., & Tversky, B. (1992). Structure and strategy in encoding simplified graphs. Memory and Cognition, 20, 12-20.
28. Shah, P. (2000). Graph comprehension: The role of format, content, and individual differences. In M. Anderson, M., B. Meyer, & P. Olivier. (Ed) Diagrammatic Representation and Reasoning. Springer Verlag.
29. Shah, P., Carpenter, P. A. (1995). Conceptual limitations in comprehending line graphs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 43-61.
30. Shah, P., Hoeffner, J. (in press). Review of Graph Comprehension Research: Implications for Instruction. Educational Psychology Review.
31. Shah, P., & Shellhammer, D. (1999). The Role of Domain Knowledge and Graph Reading Skills in Graph Comprehension. Presented at the 1999 Meeting of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Boulder, CO.
32. Shah, P., Freedman, E. G., Vekiri, I. (forthcoming). Graph Comprehension. In A. Miyake and P. Shah (Eds.). Handbook of Visuospatial Cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
33. Shah, P., Mayer, R. E., & Hegarty, M. (1999). Graphs as aids to knowledge construction: Signaling techniques for guiding the process of graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 690-702.
34. Shah, P., Hoeffner, J., Gergle, D., Shellhammer, D., & Anderson, N. (2000). A construction-integration approach to graph comprehension. Poster presented at the 2000 annual meeting of the psychonomics society, New Orleans, LA
35. Tabachneck-Schijf, H. J. M., Leonardo, A. M., Simon, H. A. (1997). CaMeRa: A Computational Model of Multiple Representations. Cognitive Science, 21, 305-350.
36. Trafton, J. G., Trickett, S. B. (2001). A new model of graph and visualization usage. Unpublished manuscript.
37. Trolier, T. K., & Hamilton, D. L. (1986). Variables influencing judgments of correlational relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 879-888.
38. Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information, Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
39. Tversky, B., Schiano, D. J. (1989). Perceptual and conceptual factors in distortions in memory for graphs and maps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 387-398.
40. Wright, J. C., Murphy, G. L. (1984). The utility of theories in intuitive statistics: The robustness of theory-based judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 301-322.
41. Zacks, J., Tversky, B. (1999). Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication. Memory & Cognition, 27, 1073-1079.