The effectiveness of dynamic graphics in revealing structure in multivariate data

Marchak, Frank M.; Zulager, Dana D.

doi:10.3758/bf03203503

Cited by 19 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…N. Wilson, Foreman, Gillett, & Stanton, 1997) have found no difference between active and passive participants. Finally, in studies on searching for structure in 3D data (Marchak & Zulager, 1992) and tactile maze learning (Richardson, Wuillemin, & MacKintosh, 1981), participants who were given active control were found to perform worse than passive participants. Even within a single study, different comparisons of active and passive conditions have sometimes produced apparently contradictory results (Attree et al, 1996;Christou & Bülthoff, 1999;P.…”

Section: Previous Findings On Interactivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Reasoning With External Visualizations: What Matters Is What You See, Not Whether You Interact

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examined the effects of interactive visualizations and spatial abilities on a task requiring participants to infer and draw cross sections of a three-dimensional (3D) object. The experiments manipulated whether participants could interactively control a virtual 3D visualization of the object while performing the task, and compared participants who were allowed interactive control of the visualization to those who were not allowed control. In Experiment 1, interactivity produced better performance than passive viewing, but the advantage of interactivity disappeared in Experiment 2 when visual input for the two conditions in a yoked design was equalized. In Experiments 2 and 3, differences in how interactive participants manipulated the visualization were large and related to performance. In Experiment 3, non-interactive participants who watched optimal movements of the display performed as well as interactive participants who manipulated the visualization effectively and better than interactive participants who manipulated the visualization ineffectively. Spatial ability made an independent contribution to performance on the spatial reasoning task, but did not predict patterns of interactive behavior. These experiments indicate that providing participants with active control of a computer visualization does not necessarily enhance task performance, whereas seeing the most task-relevant information does, and this is true regardless of whether the task-relevant information is obtained actively or passively.

show abstract

Section: Previous Findings On Interactivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Reasoning With External Visualizations: What Matters Is What You See, Not Whether You Interact

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, for smaller scale spatial tasks, although some evidence has shown a benefit for interactivity in tasks such as object recognition (Harman et al, 1999), other tasks such as inferring the structure of 3D shapes (Keehner et al, 2008) and data visualisation (Marchak and Marchak, 1991) have shown no advantage over passive viewing. Notably, in some contexts of spatial knowledge (Wilson and Pe´ruch, 2002), data visualisation (Marchak and Zulager, 1992) and tactile maze learning (Richardson et al, 1981), active navigation actually resulted in worse performance than passive navigation.…”

Section: Memorymentioning

confidence: 98%

The Immersive Virtual Environment of the digital fulldome: Considerations of relevant psychological processes

Schnall

Hedge

Weaver

2012

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most recent additions to the range of Immersive Virtual Environments has been the digital fulldome. However, not much empirical research has been conducted to explore its potential and benefits over other types of presentation formats. In this review we provide a framework within which to examine the properties of fulldome environments and compare them to those of other existing immersive digital environments. We review the state-of-the-art of virtual reality technology, and then survey core areas of psychology relevant to experiences in the fulldome, including visual perception, attention, memory, social factors and individual differences. Building on the existing research within these domains, we propose potential directions for empirical investigation that highlight the great potential of the fulldome in teaching, learning and research.

show abstract

“…While studies on visual object recognition (Harman et al 1999;James et al 2002), or on the acquisition of spatial knowledge in a virtual environment (Peruch et al, 1995) have found significant advantages to providing interactivity to users, other studies were not able to detect any benefits of interactivity for navigating in desktop and virtual environments (Foreman et al 2004;Melanson et al 2002). There are even examples of studies showing that participants who were searching for structure in 3D data performed worse when provided with possibilities to interact (Marchak and Zulager 1992). In a study on user interaction with a 3D visualization for inferring and drawing cross sections, Keehner et al (2008) have demonstrated that providing participants with active controls of the 3D display did not necessarily enhance people's task performance.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

How users interact with a 3D geo-browser under time pressure

Wilkening¹,

Fabrikant

2013

Cartography and Geographic Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interactive 3D geo-browsers, also known as globe viewers, are popular, because they are easy and fun to use. However, it is still an open question whether highly interactive, 3D geographic data browsing, and visualization displays support effective and efficient spatio-temporal decision making. Moreover, little is known about the role of time constraints for spatio-temporal decision-making in an interactive, 3D context. In this article, we present an empirical approach to assess the effect of decision-time constraints on the quality of spatio-temporal decision-making when using 3D geo-browsers, such as GoogleEarth, in 3D task contexts of varying complexity. Our experimental results suggest that while, overall, people interact more with interactive geo-browsers when not under time pressure, this does not mean that they are also more accurate or more confident in their decisions when solving typical 3D cartometric tasks. Surprisingly, we also find that 2D interaction capabilities (i.e., zooming and panning) are more frequently used for 3D tasks than 3D interaction tools (i.e., rotating and tilting), regardless of time pressure. Finally, we find that background and training of tested users do not seem to influence 3D task performance. In summary, our study does not provide any evidence for the added value of using interactive 3D globe viewers when needing to solve 3D cartometric tasks with or without time pressure. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLETaylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the "Content") contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions Interactive 3D geo-browsers, also known as globe viewers, are popular, because they are easy and fun to use. However, it is still an open question whether highly interactive, 3D geographic data browsing, and visualization displays support effective and efficient spatio-temporal decision making. Moreover, little is known about the role o...

show abstract

The effectiveness of dynamic graphics in revealing structure in multivariate data

Cited by 19 publications

References 12 publications

Spatial Reasoning With External Visualizations: What Matters Is What You See, Not Whether You Interact

Spatial Reasoning With External Visualizations: What Matters Is What You See, Not Whether You Interact

The Immersive Virtual Environment of the digital fulldome: Considerations of relevant psychological processes

How users interact with a 3D geo-browser under time pressure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About