The proximity compatibility principle (PCP) proposes that visually unitary configurations of data values, such as object displays, will support information integration better than will more separable formats. In the present study formats were created by either mixing or matching pairs of lower-level codes (i.e., linear extent, angle, and color). Performance with object and separable configurations of these codes was compared for two integration tasks: system state classifications requiring either (1) comparisons of values or (2) identification of conjunctions of values. Object displays formed with matched codes were more likely to facilitate comparisons, whereas object displays formed from mixed codes were more likely to facilitate conjunction identification. These data suggest that two mechanisms may underlie object display advantages for integration-one based on relational properties or emergent features and one based on the efficient processing of the lowerlevel codes themselves .
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, E. (1960). A semigraphical method for the analysis of complex problems. Technometrics,2, 387–391.
2.
Barnett, B. J., & Wickens, C. D. (1988). Display proximity in multicue information judgments: The benefit of boxes. Human Factors,30, 15–24.
3.
Beniger, J. R., & Robyn, D. L. (1978). Quantitative graphics in statistics: A brief history. American Statistician,32, 1–11.
4.
Bennett, K. B., & Flach, J. M. (1992), Graphical decision support for process control: A critical review. Human Factors,34, 513–534.
5.
Bennett, K. B., Toms, M. L., & Woods, D. D. (1993). Emergent features and configural elements: Designing more effective configural displays. Human Factors,35, 71–98.
6.
Boles, D., & Wickens, C. D. (1987). Display formatting in information integration and nonintegration tasks. Human Factors,20, 395–406.
7.
Buttigieg, M. A., & Sanderson, P. M. (1991). Emergent features in visual display design for two types of failure detection tasks. Human Factors,33, 631–651.
8.
Carswell, C. M. (1992a). Choosing specifiers: An evaluation of the basic tasks model of graphical perception. Human Factors,34, 535–554.
9.
Carswell, C. M. (1992b). Reading graphs: Interactions of processing requirements and stimulus structure. In B. Bums, (Ed.), Percepts, concepts, and categories (pp. 605–645. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
10.
Carswell, C. M., & Wickens, C. D. (1987). Information integration and the object display: An interaction of task demands and display superiority. Ergonomics,30, 511–528.
11.
Carswell, C. M., & Wickens, C. D. (1990). The perceptual interaction of graphical attributes: Configurality, stimulus homogeneity, and object integration. Perception & Psychophysics,47, 157–168.
12.
Chambers, J. M., Cleveland, W. S., Kleiner, B., & Tukey, P. A. (1983). Graphical methods for data analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
13.
Chernoff, H. (1973). The use of faces to represent points in K-dimensional space graphically. Journal of the American Statistical Association,68, 361–368.
14.
Cleveland, W. S. (1985). The elements of graphing data.. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
15.
Cleveland, W. S., & McGill, R. (1984). Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphic methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association,70, 531–554.
16.
Cleveland, W. S., & McGill, R. (1985). Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science,229, 828–833.
17.
Cleveland, W. S., & McGill, R. (1986). An experiment in graphical perception. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies,25, 491–500.
18.
Coury, B. G., & Boulette, M. D. (1992). Time stress and the processing of visual displays. Human Factors,34, 707–726.
19.
Coury, B. G., Boulette, M. D., & Smith, R. A. (1989). Effect of uncertainty and diagnosticity on classification of multidimensional data with integral and separable displays of system status. Human Factors,31, 551–569.
20.
Coury, B. G., & Purcell, J. A. (1988). The bar graph as a configural and separated display. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 1361–1365). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
21.
Duncan, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 501–517.
22.
Edgell, S. E., & Morrissey, J. M. (1992). Separable and unitary stimuli in nonmetric multiple-cue probability learning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,51, 118–132.
23.
Eriksen, C. W., & Yeh, Y. Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,11, 583–597.
24.
Fienberg, S. E. (1979). Graphical methods in statistics. American Statistician,33, 165–178.
25.
Goldsmith, T., & Schvaneveldt, R. (1984). Facilitating multicue judgments with integral information displays. In J. Thomas and M. Schneider, (Eds.), Human factors in computer systems (pp. 243–270. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
26.
Hollands, J. G., & Spence, I. (1992). Judgments of change and proportion in graphical perception. Human Factors,34, 313–334.
27.
Jacob, R. J. K., Egeth, H. E., & Bevan, W. (1976). The face as a data display. Human Factors,18, 189–200.
28.
Kahneman, D., & Treisman, A. M. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In R. Parasuraman, R. Davies, and J. Beatty, (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 29–61). New York: Academic.
29.
Liu, Y., & Wickens, C. D. (1992). Use of computer graphics and cluster analysis in aiding relational judgments. Human Factors,34, 165–178.
30.
Mersey, J. E. (1990). Color and thematic map design.Cartographica,27 (monograph 41), 1–182.
31.
Merwin, D. H., & Wickens, C. D. (1991). Two-d vs. 3-d displays for multidimensional data visualization: The relationship between task integrality and display proximity. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp. 388–392). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
32.
Munsell book of color. (1976). Baltimore, MD: Koll Morgan Corp., MacBeth Division.
33.
Pomerantz, J. R., & Kubovy, M. (1986). Theoretical approaches to perceptual organization. In K. Boff, L. Kaufmann, and J. Thomas, (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance (pp. 36.1–36.46). New York: Wiley.
34.
Pomerantz, J. R., & Pristach, E. A. (1989). Emergent features, attention, and perceptual glue in visual form perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,15, 635–649.
35.
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Metaanalytic procedures for social research.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36.
Sanderson, P. M., Flach, J. M., Buttigieg, M. A., & Casey, E. J. (1989). Object displays do not always support better integrated task performance. Human Factors,31, 183–198.
37.
Schutz, H. G. (1961). An evaluation of formats for graphic trend displays. Human Factors,3, 95–107.
38.
Seigel, J. H., Goldwyn, R. M., & Friedman, H. P. (1971). Pattern and process in the evolution of human septic shock. Surgery,70, 232–243.
39.
Treisman, A. M. (1986). Properties, parts, and objects. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, and J. P. Thomas, (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance (pp. 35.1–35.70). New York: Wiley.
40.
Wickens, C. D. (1986). The object display: Principles and a review of experimental findings (Tech. Report CPL-86–6). Champaign: University of Illinois, Cognitive Psychophysiology Laboratory.
41.
Wickens, C. D., & Andre, A. D. (1990). Proximity compatibility and information display: Effects of color, space, and objectness of information integration. Human Factors,32, 61–77.
42.
Wickens, C. D., & Carswell, C. M. (1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and its relevance to display design. Human Factors,37, 473–494.
43.
Woods, D. D., Wise, J. A., & Hanes, L. F. (1981). An evaluation of nuclear power plant safety parameter display systems. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 25th Annual Meeting (pp. 110–114). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
