Toward a Model of Knowledge-Based Graph Comprehension

Research on graph comprehension has been concerned with relatively low-level information extraction. However, laboratory studies often produce conflicting findings because real-world graph interpretation requires going beyond the data presentation to make inferences and solve problems. Furthermore, in real-world settings, graphical information is presented in the context of relevant prior knowledge. According to our model, knowledge-based graph comprehension involves an interaction of top-down and bottom up processes. Several types of knowledge are brought to bear on graphs: domain knowledge, graphical skills, and explanatory skills. During the initial processing, people chunk the visual features in the graphs. Nevertheless, prior knowledge guides the processing of visual features. We outline the key assumptions of this model and show how this model explains the extant data and generates testable predictions.

[1]  Uwe Oestermeier,et al.  Verbal and visual causal arguments , 2000, Cognition.

[2]  Roy O. Freedle,et al.  Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Testing , 1990 .

[3]  Priti Shah,et al.  Graph Comprehension: The Role of Format, Content and Individual Differences , 2002, Diagrammatic Representation and Reasoning.

[4]  M. Hegarty,et al.  Graphs as aids to knowledge construction: Signaling techniques for guiding the process of graph comprehension. , 1999 .

[5]  Dennis S. Gouran,et al.  Understanding the Sources of Faulty Group Decision Making , 1988 .

[6]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Judgment under uncertainty: Informal covariation assessment: Data-based versus theory-based judgments , 1982 .

[7]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  CaMeRa: A Computational Model of Multiple Representations , 1997, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  Priti Shah,et al.  A Model of the Perceptual and Conceptual Processes in Graph Comprehension , 1998 .

[9]  W. Kintsch.  The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. , 1988, Psychological review.

[10]  B. Marx.  The Visual Display of Quantitative Information , 1985 .

[11]  Diane J. Schiano,et al.  Structure and strategy in encoding simplified graphs , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[12]  L. J. Chapman,et al.  Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs. , 1969, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[13]  Stephan Lewandowsky,et al.  Statistical graphs and maps , 1999 .

[14]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[15]  S. Kosslyn.  Understanding charts and graphs , 1989 .

[16]  Stephen M. Casner,et al.  Task-analytic design of graphic presentations , 1990 .

[17]  Jill H. Larkin,et al.  Cognitive Efficiency Considerations for Good Graphic Design , 1989 .

[18]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Mapping conceptual to spatial relations in visual reasoning. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[19]  U. Maichle.  Chapter 13 Cognitive Processes in Understanding Line Graphs , 1994 .

[20]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Conceptual limitations in comprehending line graphs. , 1995 .

[21]  Susan Bell Trickett,et al.  A New Model of Graph and Visualization Usage , 2001 .

[22]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[23]  D. Hamilton,et al.  Variables influencing judgments of correlational relations. , 1986 .

[24]  Jeffery. M. Zacks,et al.  Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[25]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Information integration and the object display An interaction of task demands and display superiority , 1987 .

[26]  L. Ross,et al.  Perseverance of Social Theories: The Role of Explanation in the Persistence of Discredited Information , 1980 .

[27]  Richard D. Powers,et al.  A study of graph comprehension difficulties , 1959 .

[28]  Craig A. Anderson,et al.  Abstract and concrete data in the perseverance of social theories: When weak data lead to unshakeable beliefs☆ , 1983 .

[29]  K. Stanovich,et al.  The domain specificity and generality of belief bias: Searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. , 1999 .

[30]  Eric G. Freedman,et al.  The role of data and theory in covariation assessment: Implications for the theory-ladenness of observation , 1996 .

[31]  S. Dumais,et al.  Handbook of applied cognition , 2007 .

[32]  L. Alloy,et al.  Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. , 1984 .

[33]  P. Shah,et al.  Review of Graph Comprehension Research: Implications for Instruction , 2002 .

[34]  Gerald L. Lohse,et al.  A Cognitive Model for Understanding Graphical Perception , 1993, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[35]  Steven Pinker,et al.  A theory of graph comprehension. , 1990 .

[36]  G. Murphy,et al.  The utility of theories in intuitive statistics: The robustness of theory-based judgments. , 1984 .

[37]  C. Melody Carswell,et al.  Stimulus complexity and information integration in the spontaneous interpretations of line graphs , 1993 .

[38]  Edward R. Tufte,et al.  The Visual Display of Quantitative Information , 1986 .

[39]  Diane J. Schiano,et al.  Perceptual and conceptual factors in distortions in memory for graphs and maps. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[40]  Joseph W. Alba,et al.  Theory versus data in prediction and correlation tasks , 1994 .