Stimulus complexity and information integration in the spontaneous interpretations of line graphs

Viewers of a graph will readily interpret its contents, even when given no explicit instructions regarding what information to extract. However, little is known about the strategies that subjects adopt when making such spontaneous interpretations. In the present experiments, subjects studied single-function line graphs for self-determined periods. They provided written interpretations immediately following examination of each graph. The structural complexity of stimulus graphs was varied by eliminating symmetry, and by adding data points, departures from linearity, and trend reversals. Across two experiments, number of trend reversals was the main determinant of comprehension difficulty as measured by study times. An increased number of reversals also resulted in more local, detail-oriented content in interpretations. By contrast, the presence of such emergent features as symmetry and linearity led to increases in the amount of integrative, global content in interpretations, usually at the expense of local detail. Surprisingly, increases in the number of data points led to similar increases in the grain of subjects' interpretations. The last finding may reflect a shift from point-by-point to integrative study strategies necessitated by capacity limitations in working memory. Language: en

[1]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

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

[3]  Influence of six types of visual structure on complexity judgments in children and adults. , 1979 .

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

[5]  Michael Macdonald-Ross,et al.  How numbers are shown , 1977 .

[6]  Michael Macdonald-Ross How Numbers are Shown: A Review of Research on the Presentation of Quantitative Data in Texts. , 1977 .

[7]  Robert J. K. Jacob,et al.  The Face as a Data Display , 1976 .

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

[9]  John W. Tukey,et al.  Exploratory Data Analysis. , 1979 .

[10]  William S. Cleveland The elements of graphing data , 1980 .

[11]  John G. Casali,et al.  Selected graph design variables in four interpretation tasks: a microcomputer-based pilot study , 1988 .

[12]  J G Hollands,et al.  Judgments of Change and Proportion in Graphical Perception , 1992, Human factors.

[13]  J. R. Pomerantz,et al.  Grouping by proximity: Selective attention measures , 1975 .

[14]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  COMPUTER GRAPHICS AS DECISION AIDS: DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH* , 1984 .

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

[16]  David K. Simkin,et al.  An Information-Processing Analysis of Graph Perception , 1987 .

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

[18]  Mary Anne Buttigieg,et al.  Emergent Features in Visual Display Design for Two Types of Failure Detection Tasks , 1991, Human factors.

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

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

[21]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences , 1973 .