Implications of Graphics Enhancements for the Visualization of Scientific Data: Dimensional Integrality, Stereopsis, Motion, and Mesh

This study examines the effectiveness of four techniques to assist scientists in evaluating multidimensional data. Subjects viewed a series of complex 3D data sets, each representing an underlying complex surface, from which a set of discrete points or observations were sampled. From each sample they answered questions that required focus of attention on certain data points or integration across varying numbers of data points and dimensions. After a number of samples were viewed from each surface, subjects were tested for their retention of the surface characteristics. In Experiment 1, 3D (perspective) representations were found to support superior performance to 2D (planar) representations, but only for more integrative questions. Animated motion provided no benefits. In Experiment 2, stereoptic views of a 3D display were also found to support performance, particularly for integrative questions, but the ability to rotate the data space (motion parallax)and the presence of a mesh surface connecting the points did not. The posttests revealed some evidence that 3D representations improved the ability to visualize the surface, but neither 3D renderings nor stereopsis led to a better abstract representation of the data.

[1]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Display Proximity in Multicue Information Integration: The Benefits of Boxes , 1988 .

[2]  JoAnn S. Kinney,et al.  Application Principles for Multicolored Displays: A Workshop Report , 1990 .

[3]  C. Carswell,et al.  16 Reading Graphs: Interactions of Processing Requirements and Stimulus Structure , 1992 .

[4]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Two- and Three-Dimensional Displays for Aviation: A Theoretical and Empirical Comparison , 1993 .

[5]  M. E. McGill,et al.  Dynamic Graphics for Statistics , 1988 .

[6]  I. Spence Visual psychophysics of simple graphical elements. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Ruth B. Ekstrom,et al.  Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests , 1976 .

[8]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Three Dimensional Display Technology for Aerospace and Visualization , 1990 .

[9]  L D Silverstein,et al.  Spatial Judgments with Monoscopic and Stereoscopic Presentation of Perspective Displays , 1992, Human factors.

[10]  David D. Woods,et al.  Visual Momentum: A Concept to Improve the Cognitive Coupling of Person and Computer , 1984, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[11]  W. R. Garner The Processing of Information and Structure , 1974 .

[12]  B. Goettl,et al.  Integrated displays and the perception of graphical data. , 1991, Ergonomics.

[13]  Mary Anne Buttigieg,et al.  Object Displays Do Not Always Support Better Integrated Task Performance , 1989 .

[14]  Martin Stacey,et al.  Scientific Discovery: Computational Explorations of the Creative Processes , 1988 .

[15]  Karl A. Fox,et al.  Methods of Correlation and Regression Analysis. , 1930 .

[16]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Ecological interface design: theoretical foundations , 1992, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[17]  R. Patterson,et al.  Human Stereopsis , 1992, Human factors.

[18]  Yili Liu,et al.  Use of Computer Graphics and Cluster Analysis in Aiding Relational Judgment , 1989 .

[19]  Douglas J. Gillan,et al.  A Componential Model of Human Interaction with Graphs. H. Effects of the Distances among Graphical Elements , 1992 .

[20]  Kevin B. Bennett,et al.  Emergent Features and Graphical Elements: Designing More Effective Configural Displays , 1993 .

[21]  K B Bennett,et al.  Graphical Displays: Implications for Divided Attention, Focused Attention, and Problem Solving , 1992, Human factors.

[22]  Yili Liu,et al.  Use of Computer Graphics and Cluster Analysis in Aiding Relational Judgment , 1992 .

[23]  Jerry Lohse,et al.  A cognitive model for the perception and understanding of graphs , 1991, CHI.

[24]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The Proximity Compatibility Principle: Its Psychological Foundation and Relevance to Display Design , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[25]  H. Ridley Eye and Brain , 1973 .

[26]  D. Kahneman Attention and Effort , 1973 .

[27]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Display Formatting Techniques for Improving Situation Awareness in the Aircraft Cockpit , 1991 .

[28]  R McGill,et al.  Graphical Perception and Graphical Methods for Analyzing Scientific Data , 1985, Science.

[29]  P Milgram,et al.  Effects of Stereoscopic and Rotational Displays in a Three-Dimensional Path- Tracing Task , 1993, Human factors.

[30]  Jock D. Mackinlay,et al.  Information visualization using 3D interactive animation , 1991, CHI.

[31]  Carl Machover,et al.  Virtual reality , 1994, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[32]  Mark Nataupsky,et al.  Stereo 3-D and non-stereo presentations of a computer-generated pictorial primary flight display with pathway augmentation , 1988 .

[33]  Larry F. Hodges,et al.  Comparison of 3-D display formats for CAD applications , 1991, Electronic Imaging.

[34]  William Playfair,et al.  The commercial and political atlas , 1976 .

[35]  C. Osgood The similarity paradox in human learning; a resolution. , 1949, Psychological review.

[36]  Edward Rolf Tufte,et al.  The visual display of quantitative information , 1985 .

[37]  Philip K. Robertson,et al.  A methodology for choosing data representations , 1991, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[38]  C D Wickens,et al.  The perceptual interaction of graphical attributes: Configurality, stimulus homogeneity, and object integration , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[39]  Howard G. Schutz,et al.  An Evaluation of Formats for Graphic Trend Displays—Experiment II1 , 1961 .

[40]  J. Rassmusen,et al.  Information Processing and Human - Machine Interaction: An Approach to Cognitive Engineering , 1986 .

[41]  Wayne Zachary,et al.  Tools for Communicating with Chemical Information: A Cognitive Engineering Analysis , 1992 .

[42]  C. Melody Carswell Graphical Information Processing: The Effects of Proximity Compatibility , 1990 .