Results have application to real-world decision making, implications for basic decision theory, and lessons for how shrewd visualization can help reduce bias.

Often implicit in visual display design and development is a gold standard of photorealism. By approximating direct perception, photorealism appeals to users and designers by being both attractive and apparently effortless. The vexing result from numerous performance evaluations, though, is that increasing realism often impairs performance. Smallman and St. John (2005) labeled misplaced faith in realistic information display Naı¨ve Realism and theorized it resulted from a triplet of folk fallacies about perception. Here, we illustrate issues associated with the wider trend towards realism by focusing on a specific current trend for high-fidelity perspective view (3D) geospatial displays. In two experiments, we validated Naïve Realism for different terrain understanding tasks, explored whether certain individuals are particularly prone to Naïve Realism, and determined the ability of task feedback to mitigate Naïve Realism. Performance was measured for laying and judging a concealed route across realistic terrain shown in different display formats. Task feedback was either implicit, in Experiment 1, or explicit in Experiment 2. Prospective and retrospective intuitions about the best display formats for the tasks were recorded and then related to task performance and participant spatial ability. Participants generally intuited they would perform tasks better with more realism than they actually required. For example, counter to intuitions, lowering fidelity of the terrain display revealed the gross scene layout needed to lay a well-concealed route. Individuals of high spatial ability calibrated their intuitions with only implicit task feedback, whereas those of low spatial ability required salient, explicit feedback to calibrate their intuitions about display realism. Results are discussed in the wider context of applying perceptual science to display design, and combating folk fallacies.

No abstract

No abstract

Previously, we have shown that shaded perspective view ("3-D") displays are better for understanding the shape and rough layout of terrain than conventional 2-D views. We have coined the term Naïve Realism for users' misplaced, blanket faith in these 3-D displays (Smallman & St. John, 2005). There are hints in the individual difference literature that those of low spatial ability may be particularly prone to Naïve Realism. Here, we integrate these notions to test several theoretical predictions and to develop a new terrain simplification concept. Thirty-three participants had their spatial ability and problemsolving style measured. Then participants predicted which displays would, and then did, best support them in performing a task of threading a concealed route through realistic terrain. Depth relief (shading vs. topographic lines), viewing angle (90° vs. 45°) and terrain fidelity (high/unfiltered sharp vs. low/spatially smoothed) were all varied. Of the eight display combinations, Naïve Realism correctly predicted the greatest preference for the highest fidelity, realistic 3-D view (sharp, shaded, 45°). Yet the routing task was best performed with lower fidelity views. Spatially filtering terrain unmasks canyons and other gross terrain features, enabling them to pop-out more easily. Individuals of high spatial ability had better task performance and better calibrated their post-task display preferences, suggesting they are generally more savvy about the ways that display format affects their performance.