Comparing Dot and Landscape Spatializations for Visual Memory Differences

Spatialization displays use a geographic metaphor to arrange non-spatial data. For example, spatializations are commonly applied to document collections so that document themes appear as geographic features such as hills. Many common spatialization interfaces use a 3-D landscape metaphor to present data. However, it is not clear whether 3-D spatializations afford improved speed and accuracy for user tasks compared to similar 2-D spatializations. We describe a user study comparing users' ability to remember dot displays, 2-D landscapes, and 3-D landscapes for two different data densities (500 vs. 1000 points). Participants' visual memory was statistically more accurate when viewing dot displays and 3-D landscapes compared to 2-D landscapes. Furthermore, accuracy remembering a spatialization was significantly better overall for denser spatializations. Theseresults are of benefit to visualization designers who are contemplating the best ways to present data using spatialization techniques.

[1]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  Improving revisitation in fisheye views with visit wear , 2005, CHI.

[2]  Kozo Sugiyama,et al.  Layout Adjustment and the Mental Map , 1995, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[3]  Barbara P. Buttenfield,et al.  Spatial metaphors for browsing large data archives , 2000 .

[4]  Tamara Munzner,et al.  Spatialization Design: Comparing Points and Landscapes , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[5]  N. Diakopoulos,et al.  ThemeExplorer : A Tool for Understanding the History of the Field of Information Visualization , 2004 .

[6]  Ganesh S. Oak.  Information Visualization Introduction , 2022 .

[7]  David M. Mark,et al.  The distance-similarity metaphor in region-display spatializations , 2006, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[8]  S. Ishihara.  TESTS FOR COLOUR BLINDNESS , 1952 .

[9]  Andy Cockburn,et al.  3D or not 3D?: evaluating the effect of the third dimension in a document management system , 2001, CHI.

[10]  Kasper Hornbæk,et al.  Do Thematic Maps Improve Information Retrieval? , 1999, INTERACT.

[11]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  Data mountain: using spatial memory for document management , 1998, UIST '98.

[12]  Matthew Chalmers,et al.  Using a Landscape Methaphor to Represent a Corpus of Documents , 1993, COSIT.

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

[14]  Gregory B. Newby,et al.  Empirical Study of a 3D Visualization for Information Retrieval Tasks , 2004, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems.

[15]  James J. Thomas,et al.  Visualizing the non-visual: spatial analysis and interaction with information from text documents , 1995, Proceedings of Visualization 1995 Conference.

[16]  William J. Schroeder,et al.  The Visualization Toolkit , 2005, The Visualization Handbook.

[17]  Heinrich H Bülthoff,et al.  Extrinsic cues aid shape recognition from novel viewpoints. , 2003, Journal of vision.

[18]  Tamara Munzner,et al.  Steerable, Progressive Multidimensional Scaling , 2004, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization.

[19]  Timothy Cribbin,et al.  Visual-spatial exploration of thematic spaces: a comparative study of three visualization models , 2001, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[20]  F. edridge-green.  Tests for Colour-Blindness , 1895, Nature.

[21]  Tamara Munzner,et al.  Effects of 2D geometric transformations on visual memory , 2006, APGV '06.

[22]  Andy Cockburn,et al.  Evaluating the effectiveness of spatial memory in 2D and 3D physical and virtual environments , 2002, CHI.

[23]  Timothy Cribbin,et al.  Mapping semantic information in virtual space: dimensions, variance and individual differences , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[24]  D. R. Montello,et al.  The Distance–Similarity Metaphor in Network-Display Spatializations , 2004 .

[25]  Lucy T. Nowell,et al.  Change blindness in information visualization: a case study , 2001, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2001. INFOVIS 2001..

[26]  Jonathan C. Roberts,et al.  Visual Data Exploration and Analysis VIII , 2001 .

[27]  Elizabeth G. Hetzler,et al.  Analysis experiences using information visualization , 2004, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[28]  Daniel R. Montello,et al.  Testing the First Law of Cognitive Geography on Point-Display Spatializations , 2003, COSIT.

[29]  Ulrik Brandes,et al.  Visualization of Bibliographic Networks with a Reshaped Landscape Metaphor , 2002, VisSym.

[30]  Deborah Hix,et al.  Graphical encoding for information visualization: an empirical study , 2002, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2002. INFOVIS 2002..

[31]  Wolfgang Kienreich,et al.  Evaluating a System for Interactive Exploration of Large, Hierarchically Structured Document Repositories , 2004 .

[32]  Mats Lind,et al.  2D vs 3D, implications on spatial memory , 2001, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2001. INFOVIS 2001..

[33]  Andy Cockburn,et al.  Revisiting 2D vs 3D Implications on Spatial Memory , 2004, AUIC.