Is embodied interaction beneficial? A study on navigating network visualizations

Abstract

Network visualizations are commonly used to analyze relationships in various contexts, such as social, biological, and geographical interactions. To efficiently explore a network visualization, the user needs to quickly navigate to different parts of the network and analyze local details. Recent advancements in display and interaction technologies inspire new visions for improved visualization and interaction design. Past research into network design has identified some key benefits to visualizing networks in 3D versus 2D. However, little work has been done to study the impact of varying levels of embodied interaction on network analysis. We present a controlled user study that compared four network visualization environments featuring conditions and hardware that leveraged different amounts of embodiment and visual perception ranging from a 2D visualization desktop environment with a standard mouse to a 3D visualization virtual reality environment. We measured the accuracy, speed, perceived workload, and preferences of 20 participants as they completed three network analytic tasks, each of which required unique navigation and substantial effort to complete. For the task that required participants to iterate over the entire visualization rather than focus on a specific area, we found that participants were more accurate using a VR HMD and a trackball mouse than conventional desktop settings. From a workload perspective, VR was generally considered the least mentally demanding and least frustrating to use in two of our three tasks. It was also preferred and ranked as the most effective and visually appealing condition overall. However, using VR to compare two side-by-side networks was difficult, and it was similar to or slower than other conditions in two of the three tasks. Overall, the accuracy and workload advantages of conditions with greater embodiment in specific tasks suggest promising opportunities to create more effective environments in which to analyze network visualizations.

Keywords

Virtual reality immersive analytics interaction navigation embodiment node-link diagram network visualization

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Keim

Andrienko

Fekete

, et al. Visual analytics: definition, process, and challenges. In: Kerren

Stasko

Fekete

(eds) Information visualization. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2008, pp.154–175, Vol. 4950.

Cockburn

Karlson

Bederson

BB.

A review of overview+detail, zooming, and focus+context interfaces. ACM Comput Surv 2009; 41(1): 1–31.

Dourish

Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press, 2004.

Marai

Forbes

Johnson

Interdisciplinary immersive analytics at the electronic visualization laboratory: Lessons learned and upcoming challenges. In: 2016 Workshop on immersive analytics (IA), 2016, pp.54–59. New York, NY: IEEE.

Ens

Bach

Cordeil

, et al. Grand challenges in immersive analytics. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2021, pp.1–17. New York, NY: ACM.

Ware

Franck

Viewing a graph in a virtual reality display is three times as good as a 2d diagram. In: Proceedings of 1994 IEEE symposium on visual languages, 1994, pp.182–183. New York, NY: IEEE.

Ware

Mitchell

Reevaluating stereo and motion cues for visualizing graphs in three dimensions. In: Proceedings of the 2nd symposium on applied perception in graphics and visualization, APGV ’05, 2005, pp.51–58. New York, NY: ACM.

Ware

Mitchell

Visualizing graphs in three dimensions. ACM Trans Appl Percept 2008; 5(1): 1–15.

Kwon

Muelder

Lee

, et al. A study of layout, rendering, and interaction methods for immersive graph visualization. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 2016; 22(7): 1802–1815.

10.

Kraus

Weiler

Oelke

, et al. The impact of immersion on cluster identification tasks. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 2020; 26(1): 525–535.

11.

Bach

Sicat

Beyer

, et al. The hologram in my hand: How effective is interactive exploration of 3d visualizations in immersive tangible augmented reality? IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 2018; 24: 457–467.

12.

Yang

Dwyer

Marriott

, et al. Tilt map: interactive transitions between choropleth map, prism map and bar chart in immersive environments. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 2020; 27(12): 4507–4519.

13.

Filho

JAW

Stuerzlinger

Nedel

Evaluating an immersive space-time cube geovisualization for intuitive trajectory data exploration. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 2020; 26(1): 514–524.

14.

Lages

Bowman

DA.

Move the object or move myself? Walking vs. Manipulation for the examination of 3D scientific data. Front ICT 2018; 5: 15.

15.

Cordeil

Dwyer

Klein

, et al. Immersive collaborative analysis of network connectivity: CAVE-style or head-mounted display? IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 2017; 23(1): 441–450.

16.

Drogemuller

Cunningham

Walsh

, et al. Examining virtual reality navigation techniques for 3D network visualisations. J Comput Lang 2020; 56: 100937.

17.

Kotlarek

Kwon

, et al. A study of mental maps in immersive network visualization. In: 2020 IEEE Pacific visualization symposium (PacificVis), Tianjin, China, 2020, pp.1–10. New York, NY: IEEE. DOI:10.1109/PacificVis48177.2020.4722.

18.

Besançon

Ynnerman

Keefe

, et al. The state of the art of spatial interfaces for 3D visualization. Comput Graph Forum 2021; 40(1): 293–326.

19.

Hand

A survey of 3D interaction techniques. Comput Graph Forum 1997; 16(5): 269–281.

20.

Tominski

Gladisch

Kister

, et al. A survey on interactive lenses in visualization. In: EuroVis (STARs), 2014, pp.1–20. DOI: 10.2312/EUROVISSTAR.20141172.

21.

Tominski

Gladisch

Kister

, et al. Interactive lenses for visualization: an extended survey. Comput Graph Forum 2017; 36(6): 173–200.

22.

Yang

Cordeil

Beyer

, et al. Embodied navigation in immersive abstract data visualization: is overview+detail or zooming better for 3D scatterplots? IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 2021; 27(2): 1214–1224.

23.

LaViola

Jr Kruijff

McMahan

, et al. 3D user interfaces: theory and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley Professional, 2017.

24.

Díaz

Petit

Serna

A survey of graph layout problems. ACM Comput Surv 2002; 34(3): 313–356.

25.

Tamassia

Handbook of graph drawing and visualization. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2013.

26.

Greffard

Picarougne

Kuntz

Visual community detection: An evaluation of 2d, 3d perspective and 3d stereoscopic displays. In: International symposium on graph drawing, 2011, pp.215–225. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

27.

Greffard

Picarougne

Kuntz

Beyond the classical monoscopic 3d in graph analytics: an experimental study of the impact of stereoscopy. In: 2014 IEEE VIS International Workshop on 3DVis (3DVis), 2014, pp.19–24. New York, NY: IEEE.

28.

Alper

Höllerer

Kuchera-Morin

, et al. Stereoscopic highlighting: 2d graph visualization on stereo displays. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 2011; 17(12): 2325–2333.

29.

Cordeil

Cunningham

Dwyer

, et al. Imaxes: Immersive axes as embodied affordances for interactive multivariate data visualisation. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’17, 2017, p.71–83. New York, NY: ACM.

30.

Kraus

Fuchs

Sommer

, et al. Immersive analytics with abstract 3d visualizations: A survey. Comput Graph Forum 2022; 41: 201–229.

31.

Chen

Mountford

Sellen

A study in interactive 3-D rotation using 2-D control devices. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 1988; 22(4): 121–129.

32.

Feick

Bateman

Tang

, et al. Tangi: tangible proxies for embodied object exploration and manipulation in virtual reality. In: 2020 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR), 2010, pp.195–206. New York: IEEE.

33.

Dinh

Walker

Hodges

, et al. Evaluating the importance of multi-sensory input on memory and the sense of presence in virtual environments. In: Proceedings IEEE virtual reality (Cat. No. 99CB36316), 1999, pp. 222–228. New York: IEEE.

34.

Hoffman

HG.

Physically touching virtual objects using tactile augmentation enhances the realism of virtual environments. In: IEEE VR annual international symposium, 1998, pp.59–63. New York: IEEE.

35.

Reinhardt

Hurtienne

The impact of tangible props on gaming performance and experience in gestural interaction. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, 2018, pp.638–646.

36.

Besançon

Issartel

Ammi

, et al. Mouse, tactile, and tangible input for 3D manipulation. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems, 2017, pp.4727–4740. New York: ACM.

37.

Englmeier

Schonewald

Butz

, et al. Feel the globe: enhancing the perception of immersive spherical visualizations with tangible proxies. In: 2019 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR), 2019, pp.1693–1698. New York: IEEE.

38.

Englmeier

Dorner

Butz

, et al. A tangible spherical proxy for object manipulation in augmented reality. In: 2020 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3d user interfaces (VR), 2020, pp.221–229. New York: IEEE.

39.

Satriadi

Smiley

Ens

, et al. Tangible globes for data visualisation in augmented reality. In: CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2022, pp.1–16. New York: ACM.

40.

Bowman

Coquillart

Froehlich

, et al. 3D user interfaces: new directions and perspectives. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 2008; 28(6): 20–36.

41.

Sorger

Waldner

Knecht

, et al. Immersive analytics of large dynamic networks via overview and detail navigation. In 2019 IEEE international conference on artificial intelligence and virtual reality (AIVR), 2019, pp.144–1447. New York: IEEE.

42.

Sorger

Arleo

Kán

, et al. Egocentric network exploration for immersive analytics. Comput Graph Forum 2021; 40: 241–252.

43.

Filho

JAW

Freitas

Nedel

VirtualDesk: A comfortable and efficient immersive information visualization approach. Comput Graph Forum 2018; 37(3): 415–426.

44.

Huang

Fujiwara

Lin

, et al. A gesture system for graph visualization in virtual reality environments. In: 2017 IEEE Pacific visualization symposium, 2017, pp.41–45. New York: IEEE.

45.

Whitlock

Smart

Szafir

DA.

Graphical perception for immersive analytics. In: 2020 IEEE conference on VR and 3D user interfaces, pp.616–625. New York: IEEE.

46.

Munzner

Visualization analysis and design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014.

47.

Marriott

Schreiber

Dwyer

, et al. Immersive analytics. Number 11190 in lecture notes in computer science. Cham: Springer, 2018.

48.

Microsoft. Mixed reality toolkit. 2021. github.com/microsoft/MixedRealityToolkit-Unity

49.

Hart

Staveland

LE.

Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Adva Psychol 1988; 52: 139–183.

50.

Lee

Plaisant

Parr

, et al. Task taxonomy for graph visualization. In: Proceedings of the 2006 AVI workshop on BEyond time and errors novel evaluation methods for information visualization -BELIV ’06, 2006, p.1. New York: ACM.

51.

Yoghourdjian

Archambault

Diehl

, et al. Exploring the limits of complexity: A survey of empirical studies on graph visualisation. Vis Inform 2018; 2(4): 264–282.

52.

Schulz

Nocke

Heitzler

, et al. A design space of visualization tasks. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 2013; 19(12): 2366–2375.

53.

Holland

Laskey

Leinhardt

Stochastic blockmodels: First steps. Soc Networks 1983; 5(2): 109–137.

54.

Yoghourdjian

Yang

Dwyer

, et al. Scalability of network visualisation from a cognitive load perspective. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 2021; 27(2): 1677–1687.

55.

Bates

Mächler

Bolker

, et al. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 2015; 67(1): 1–48. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01

56.

Field

Miles

Field

Discovering statistics using R. London: SAGE publications, 2012.

57.

Lenth

RV.

Least-squares means: The R package lsmeans. J Stat Softw 2016; 69(1): 1–33.

58.

Liu

Prouzeau

Ens

, et al. Design and evaluation of interactive small multiples data visualisation in immersive spaces. In: 2020 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR), 2020, pp.588–597. New York: IEEE.

59.

Zhou

Fitzmaurice

Anderson

In-depth mouse: Integrating desktop mouse into virtual reality. In: CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2022, pp.1–17. New York: ACM.

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.

0.00 MB

0.27 MB

0.03 MB

14.52 MB