This paper provides a summary of the development and evaluation of a componential model of graph reading called the Mixed Arithmetic-Perceptual (MA-P) model. A review of the history underlying the development of the model begins the paper. The second section describes the research used to test the predictions from the model and to further develop it. The third section integrates the research to produce a single omnibus version of the MA-P model. Finally, the fourth section projects the future of the MA-P modeling approach, for specific versions of the model, additional research, as well as applications.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BiedermannI. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image processing. Psychological Review, 94, 115–147.
2.
ChandrasekaranB.YovtchevY. (2007), A qualitative GOMS approach to evaluating diagrammatic interfaces. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling. Ann Arbor, MI.
3.
CooperL. (1979). Individual differences in visual comparison processes. Perception and Psychophysics, 19, 433–444.
4.
GillanD. J. (1995). Visual arithmetic, computational graphics, and the spatial metaphor. Human Factors, 37, 766–780.
5.
GillanD. J. (2000). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: V. Using pie graphs to make comparisons. In Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress (pp. 3–439–3–443). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
6.
GillanD. J. (2008). Visual representation of arithmetic properties. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 52nd Annual Meeting (pp. 1609–1613). Santa Monica: HFES.
7.
GillanD. J.CallahanA. B. (2000). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: VI. Cognitive engineering of pie graphs. Human Factors, 42, 566–591.
8.
GillanD.J.HarrisonC. (1999). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: IV. Holistic and analytical perception of star graphs. In Proceedings of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting (pp. 1304–1307). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
9.
GillanD.J.LasalleS.M. (1994). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: III. Spatial orientation. In Proceedings of Human Factors Society 38th Annual Meeting, 285–289. Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
10.
GillanD. J.LewisR. (1994). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: I. Linear regression modeling. Human Factors, 36, 419–440.
11.
GillanD.J.LewisR.RudisillM. (1989). Models of user interactions with graphical interfaces: I. Statistical graphs. In BiceK.LewisC. (Eds.). Human factors in computing systems: CHI1989 Conference Proceedings (pp 375–380). New York: ACM.
12.
GillanD. J.NearyM. (1992). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: II. Effects of distances among graphical elements. In Proceedings of Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 365–368). Santa Monica: HFES.
13.
GillanD.J.WickensC.D.HollandsJ.G.CarswellC.M. (1998). Guidelines for presenting quantitative data in HFES publications. Human Factors, 40, 28–41.
14.
GrayW. D.AltmannE.M (2000). Cognitive modeling in humancomputer interaction. In KarwowskiW. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors (pp. 387–391). New York: Taylor and Francis.
15.
SpenceI.LewandowskyS. (1990) Graphical perception. In FoxJ.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Modern methods of data analysis (pp 13–57). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16.
LohseG. L. (1997). Models of graphical perception. In HelanderM.LandauerT.K.PrabhuP. (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (2nd ed., pp. 107–135). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
17.
ShepardR. N.MetzlerJ. (1971). Mental rotation of three dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703.
18.
SpenceI.LewandowskyS. (1990), Graphical perception. In FoxJ.LongJ. S. (Eds.) Modern methods of data analysis (pp. 13–5). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
