The visual system evolved and develops to process the scenes, faces, and objects of the natural world, but people adapt this powerful system to process data within an artificial world of visualizations. To extract patterns in data from these artificial displays, viewers appear to use at least three perceptual tools, including a tool that extracts global statistics, one that extracts shapes within the data, and one that produces sentence-like comparisons. A better understanding of the power, limits, and deployment of these tools would lead to better guidelines for designing effective data displays.
AjaniK.LeeE.XiongC.KnaflicC. N.KemperW.FranconeriS. (2021). Declutter and focus: Empirically evaluating design guidelines for effective data communication. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2021.3068337
2.
AlbersD.CorrellM.GleicherM. (2014). Task-driven evaluation of aggregation in time series visualization. In CHI’14: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 551–560). Association for Computing Machinery.
3.
AlvarezG. A. (2011). Representing multiple objects as an ensemble enhances visual cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(3), 122–131.
4.
BirchS. A.BloomP. (2007). The curse of knowledge in reasoning about false beliefs. Psychological Science, 18(5), 382–386.
5.
BörnerK.BueckleA.GindaM. (2019). Data visualization literacy: Definitions, conceptual frameworks, exercises, and assessments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 116(6), 1857–1864.
BrooksJ. L. (2015). Traditional and new principles of perceptual grouping. In WagemansJ. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of perceptual organization (pp. 57–87). Oxford University Press.
8.
CairoA. (2016). The truthful art: Data, charts, and maps for communication. New Riders.
9.
ClevelandW. S.McGillR. (1985). Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science, 229(4716), 828–833.
10.
FranconeriS. L.PadillaL. M.ShahP. D.Zacks.J. M.HullmanJ. (in press). The science of visual data communication: What works. Psychological Science in the Public Interest.
11.
FranconeriS. L.ScimecaJ. M.RothJ. C.HelsethS. A.KahnL. E. (2012). Flexible visual processing of spatial relationships. Cognition, 122(2), 210–227.
HummelJ. E.BiedermanI. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99(3), 480–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.480
14.
JacobS. N.VallentinD.NiederA. (2012). Relating magnitudes: The brain’s code for proportions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(3), 157–166.
15.
KozhevnikovM.HegartyM.MayerR. E. (2002). Revising the visualizer–verbalizer dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction, 20(1), 47–77. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2001_3
16.
LiuL.PadillaL.Creem-RegehrS. H.HouseD. H. (2018). Visualizing uncertain tropical cyclone predictions using representative samples from ensembles of forecast tracks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1), 882–891. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2865193
17.
MichalA. L.FranconeriS. L. (2017). Visual routines are associated with specific graph interpretations. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 1–10.
18.
MichalA. L.UttalD.ShahP.FranconeriS. L. (2016). Visual routines for extracting magnitude relations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(6), 1802–1809. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1047-0
19.
MillerG. A.Johnson-LairdP. N. (1976). Language and perception. Belknap Press.
20.
MunznerT. (2014). Visualization analysis and design. CRC Press.
21.
NothelferC.FranconeriS. (2019). Measures of the benefit of direct encoding of data deltas for data pair relation perception. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(1), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934801
RothJ. C.FranconeriS. L. (2012). Asymmetric coding of categorical spatial relations in both language and vision. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 464. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00464
24.
ShahP.HoeffnerJ. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 47–69.
25.
SzafirD. A.HarozS.GleicherM.FranconeriS. (2016). Four types of ensemble encoding in data visualizations. Journal of Vision, 16(5), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1167/16.5.11
26.
TverskyB. (2001). Spatial schemas in depictions. In GattisM. (Ed.), Spatial schemas and abstract thought (pp. 79–111). MIT Press.
27.
Van EssenD. C.AndersonC. H.FellemanD. J. (1992). Information processing in the primate visual system: An integrated systems perspective. Science, 255(5043), 419–423.
28.
WolfeJ. M.HorowitzT. S. (2017). Five factors that guide attention in visual search. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(3), Article 0058. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0058
29.
XiongC.Van WeeldenL.FranconeriS. (2020). The curse of knowledge in visual data communication. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(10), 3051–3062. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2019.2917689
30.
YangF.HarrisonL. T.RensinkR. A.FranconeriS. L.ChangR. (2019). Correlation judgment and visualization features: A comparative study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(3), 1474–1488. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2810918
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
