Memorability of Visual Features in Network Diagrams

We investigate the cognitive impact of various layout features-symmetry, alignment, collinearity, axis alignment and orthogonality - on the recall of network diagrams (graphs). This provides insight into how people internalize these diagrams and what features should or shouldn't be utilised when designing static and interactive network-based visualisations. Participants were asked to study, remember, and draw a series of small network diagrams, each drawn to emphasise a particular visual feature. The visual features were based on existing theories of perception, and the task enabled visual processing at the visceral level only. Our results strongly support the importance of visual features such as symmetry, collinearity and orthogonality, while not showing any significant impact for node-alignment or parallel edges.

[1]  Paul Brna,et al.  Supporting the use of external representation in problem solving: the need for flexible learning environments , 1995 .

[2]  Atsushi Shimojima,et al.  Thinking with Diagrams , 2001, Springer Netherlands.

[3]  Bernice E. Rogowitz,et al.  Perceptual Organization in User-Generated Graph Layouts , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[4]  A. D. D. Groot.  Thought and Choice in Chess , 1978 .

[5]  Judith Good,et al.  Learning to Think and Communicate with Diagrams: 14 Questions to Consider , 2001, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[6]  Beryl Plimmer,et al.  SketchNode: intelligent sketching support and formal diagramming , 2010, OZCHI '10.

[7]  Helen C. Purchase,et al.  Extremes Are Better: Investigating Mental Map Preservation in Dynamic Graphs , 2008, Diagrams.

[8]  Yaniv Frishmany,et al.  Online dynamic graph drawing , 2007 .

[9]  M. M. Schnore,et al.  Immediate memory for visual patterns: Symmetry and amount of information , 1967 .

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

[11]  K. Holyoak,et al.  The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning , 2005 .

[12]  D. Norman.  Emotional design : why we love (or hate) everyday things , 2004 .

[13]  Robert F. Cohen,et al.  Validating Graph Drawing Aesthetics , 1995, GD.

[14]  M. Kenward,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 2007 .

[15]  Weidong Huang,et al.  Using eye tracking to investigate graph layout effects , 2007, 2007 6th International Asia-Pacific Symposium on Visualization.

[16]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Amnesia and the distinction between long- and short-term memory. , 1970 .

[17]  Beryl Plimmer,et al.  Graph Drawing Aesthetics—Created by Users, Not Algorithms , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[18]  Allen Newell,et al.  The model human processor: An engineering model of human performance. , 1986 .

[19]  L. R. Peterson,et al.  Short-term retention of individual verbal items. , 1959, Journal of experimental psychology.

[20]  Chris North,et al.  A Comparison of User-Generated and Automatic Graph Layouts , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[21]  Carsten Friedrich,et al.  Applying Gestalt principles to animated visualizations of network data , 2002, Proceedings Sixth International Conference on Information Visualisation.

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

[23]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking: Functional Significance of Visuospatial Representations , 2005 .

[24]  Kim Marriott,et al.  Topology Preserving Constrained Graph Layout , 2009, GD.

[25]  Roberto Tamassia,et al.  InteractiveGiotto: An Algorithm for Interactive Orthogonal Graph Drawing , 1997, GD.

[26]  S. Ainsworth.  DeFT: A Conceptual Framework for Considering Learning with Multiple Representations. , 2006 .

[27]  Ayellet Tal,et al.  Online Dynamic Graph Drawing , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[28]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness , 1985 .

[29]  Amy L. Parsons,et al.  Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things , 2006 .

[30]  Helen C. Purchase,et al.  Which Aesthetic has the Greatest Effect on Human Understanding? , 1997, GD.

[31]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Visuospatial Reasoning , 2004 .

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

[33]  Weidong Huang,et al.  Effects of Sociogram Drawing Conventions and Edge Crossings in Social Network Visualization , 2007, J. Graph Algorithms Appl..

[34]  Han-Chang Lai,et al.  Visual short-term memory for abstract patterns: Effects of symmetry, element connectedness, and probe quadrant , 2010 .

[35]  Stephen C. North,et al.  Online Hierarchical Graph Drawing , 2001, GD.

[36]  Martin Lepage,et al.  Symmetry brings an impression of familiarity but does not improve recognition memory. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

[37]  Colin Ware,et al.  Cognitive Measurements of Graph Aesthetics , 2002, Inf. Vis..

[38]  N. Hari Narayanan,et al.  Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives , 1995 .

[39]  M. Land.  Visual Perception: Physiology, Psychology and Ecology, Vicki Bruce, Patrick Green. Lawrence Erlbaum, London (1985), xiii, +369. Price £8.95 (paperback) , 1986 .

[40]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Imagery, propositions, and the form of internal representations , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[41]  K. Stenning.  Seeing Reason: Image and language in learning to think , 2002 .

[42]  S. Appelle.  Perception and discrimination as a function of stimulus orientation: the "oblique effect" in man and animals. , 1972, Psychological bulletin.

[43]  Douglas Stott Parker.  Aesthetics-Based Graph Layout for Human Consumption , 1996, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[44]  D E Egan,et al.  Chunking in recall of symbolic drawings , 1979, Memory & cognition.

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

[46]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects , 1971, Science.