This study examines the effectiveness of four techniques to assist scientists in evaluating multidimensional data. Subjects viewed a series of complex 3D data sets, each representing an underlying complex surface, from which a set of discrete points or observations were sampled. From each sample they answered questions that required focus of attention on certain data points or integration across varying numbers of data points and dimensions. After a number of samples were viewed from each surface, subjects were tested for their retention of the surface characteristics. In Experiment 1, 3D (perspective) representations were found to support superior performance to 2D (planar) representations, but only for more integrative questions. Animated motion provided no benefits. In Experiment 2, stereoptic views of a 3D display were also found to support performance, particularly for integrative questions, but the ability to rotate the data space (motion parallax)and the presence of a mesh surface connecting the points did not. The posttests revealed some evidence that 3D representations improved the ability to visualize the surface, but neither 3D renderings nor stereopsis led to a better abstract representation of the data.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andre, A. D., Wickens, C. D., Moorman, L., and Boschelli, M. M. (1991). Display formatting techniques for improving situation awareness in the aircraft cockpit. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1(3), 205–218.
2.
Barnett, B. J., and Wickens, C. D. (1988). Display proximity in multicue information integration: The benefit of boxes. Human Factors, 30, 15–24.
3.
Bennett, K. B., and Flach, J. M. (1992). Graphical displays; Implications for divided attention, focused attention, and problem solving. Human Factors34(5), 513–533.
4.
Bennett, K. B., Toms, J. L., and Woods, D. D. (1993). Emergent features and graphical elements; Designing more effective configural displays. Human Factors, 35, 71–98.
5.
Carswell, C. M. (1990). Graphical information processing: The effects of proximity compatibility. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society (pp. 1494-–1498). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
6.
Carswell, C. M. (1992). Reading graphs: Interactions of processing requirements and stimulus structure. In B. Burns (Ed.), Percepts, concepts, and categories (pp. 605–647). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
7.
Carswell, C. M., and Wickens, C. D. (1990). The perceptual interaction of graphical attributes; Configurality, stimulus homogeneity, and object integration. Perception and Psychophysics, 47, 157–168.
8.
Cleveland, W. S. (1985). The elements of graphing data.Monterey, CA: Wadsworth.
9.
Cleveland, W. S., and McGill, R. (1985). Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science, 229, 828–833.
10.
Cleveland, W. S., and McGill, R. (1988). Dynamic graphics for statistics.Monterey, CA: Wadsworth.
11.
Eksrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., and Dermen, D. (1992). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
12.
Ezekiel, M., and Fox, K. A. (1959). Methods of correlation and regression analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
13.
Gamer, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure.Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
Gillan, D. J., and Neary, M. (1992). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: II. Effects of the distances among graphical elements. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 365–368). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
15.
Goettl, B. P., Wickens, C. D., and Kramer, A. F. (1991). Integrated displays and the perception of graphical data. Ergonomics, 34, 1047–1063.
16.
Gregory, R. L. (1977). Eye and brain. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
17.
Haskell, I. D., and Wickens, C. D. (1993). A theoretical and empirical comparison of two- and three-dimensional displays for aviation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 87–109.
18.
Hollands, J. (1992). Ergonomic data display. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 35(7), 4–5.
19.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
20.
Kinney, J. S., and Huey, B. M. (Eds.), (1990). Application principles for multicolored displays: A workshop report.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21.
Langley, P., Simon, H. A., Bradshaw, G. L., and Zytkow, J. M. (1987). Scientific discovery: Computational explorations of the creative processes.Cambridge: MIT Press.
22.
Liu, Y., and Wickens, C. D. (1992). Use of computer graphics and cluster analysis in aiding relational judgment. Human Factors, 34, 165–178.
23.
Lohse, J. (1991). A cognitive model for the perception and understanding of graphs. In Human Factors in Computing Systems-Reaching Through Technology, CHI 1991 Conference Proceedings (pp. 137–144). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
24.
McWhorter, S. W., Hodges, L. F., and Rodriguez, W. E. (1991). Comparison of 3D display formats for CAD applications (Tech. Report GIT-GVU-91-04). Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, Graphics, Visualization, and Usability Center.
25.
Nataupsky, M., and Crittendon, L. (1988). Stereo 3D and non-stereo presentations of a computer-generated pictorial primary flight display with pathway augmentation. In Proceedings of the AIAA/IEEE 8th Digital Avionics System Conference (pp. 552-–557). New York: IEEE.
26.
Osgood, C. E. (1949). The similarity paradox in human learning: A resolution. Psychological Review, 56, 132–143.
27.
Patterson, R., and Martin, W. L. (1992). Human stereopsis. Human Factors, 34, 669–692.
28.
Playfair, W. (1786). Commercial and political atlas.London: Corry.
29.
Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information processing and human machine interaction: An approach to cognitive engineering.New York: North-Holland.
30.
Robbins, W. C., and Fisher, S. S. (1989). Threedimensional visualization and display technologies. In Proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineering. Bellingham, WA: SPIE.
31.
Robertson, P. K. (1991). A methodology for choosing data representations. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.New York: IEEE.
32.
Robertson, G. G., Mackinlay, J. D., and Card, S. K. (1991). Information visualization using 3D interactive animation. In Proceedings of CHI 91. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
33.
Sanderson, P. M., Flach, J. M., Buttigieg, M. A., and Casey, E. J. (1989). Object displays do not always support better integrated task performance. Human Factors, 31, 183–198.
34.
Schutz, H. G. (1961). An evaluation of formats for graphic trend displays---Experiment II. Human Factors, 3, 99–107.
35.
Senay, H., and Ignatius, E. (1990). Rules and principles of scientific data visualization (Tech. Report GWU-IIST-90-13). Washington, DC: Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, George Washington University.
36.
Sollenberger, R. L., and Milgram, P. (1993). Effects of stereoscopic and rotational displays in a threedimensional path-tracing task. Human Factors, 35, 483–499.
37.
Spence, I. (1990). Visual psychophysics of simple graphical elements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 683–692.
38.
Todd, S., and Wickens, C. D. (1990). Scientific visualization and object displays. In Proceedings of the 5th Mid-Central Human Factors/Ergonomics Conference. Dayton, Ohio.
39.
Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information.Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
40.
Vicente, K., and Rasmussen, J. (1992). Ecological interface design: Theoretical foundations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 22, 589–606.
41.
Wells, M. (1992). Virtual reality. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 35(9), 1–3.
42.
Wickens, C. D. (1992a). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and its relevance to display design (Tech. Report ARL-92-5/NASA-92-3). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois Institute of Aviation, Aviation Research Lab.
43.
Wickens, C. D. (1992b). Virtual reality and education. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp. 842–847) Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
44.
Wickens, C. D., and Todd, S. (1990). Three-dimensional display technology for aerospace and visualization. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 1479-–1483). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
45.
Wickens, C. D., Todd, S., and Seidler, K. (1989). Threedimensional displays: Perception, implementation, and applications (Tech Report ARL-89-11/CSERIAC-89-1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois Institute of Aviation, Aviation Research Laboratory.
46.
Woods, D. D. (1984). Visual momentum: A concept to improve the cognitive coupling of person and computer. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 21, 229–244.
47.
Woods, D. D., and Roth, E. M. (1988). Aiding human performance: II. From cognitive analysis to support systems. Le Travail Humain, 51, 139–172.
48.
Yeh, Y.-Y. and Silverstein, L. D. (1992). Spatial judgments with monoscopic and stereoscopic presentation of perspective displays. Human Factors34, 583–600.
49.
Zachary, W. W., and Hicinbothom, J. H. (1992). Tools for communicating with chemical information: A cognitive engineering analysis. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 193-–197). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
