Open vs. Closed Shapes: New Perceptual Categories?

Effective communication using visualization relies in part on the use of viable encoding strategies. For example, a viewer's ability to rapidly and accurately discern between two or more categorical variables in a chart or figure is contingent upon the distinctiveness of the encodings applied to each variable. Research in perception suggests that color is a more salient visual feature when compared to shape and although that finding is supported by visualization studies, characteristics of shape also yield meaningful differences in distinctiveness. We propose that open or closed shapes (that is, whether shapes are composed of line segments that are bounded across a region of space or not) represent a salient characteristic that influences perceptual processing. Three experiments were performed to test the reliability of the open/closed category; the first two from the perspective of attentional allocation, and the third experiment in the context of multi-class scatterplot displays. In the first, a flanker paradigm was used to test whether perceptual load and open/closed feature category would modulate the effect of the flanker on target processing. Results showed an influence of both variables. The second experiment used a Same/Different reaction time task to replicate and extend those findings. Results from both show that responses are faster and more accurate when closed rather than open shapes are processed as targets, and there is more processing interference when two competing shapes come from the same rather than different open or closed feature categories. The third experiment employed three commonly used visual analytic tasks - perception of average value, numerosity, and linear relationships with both single and dual displays of open and closed symbols. Our findings show that for numerosity and trend judgments, in particular, that different symbols from the same open or closed feature category cause more perceptual interference when they are presented together in a plot than symbols from different categories. Moreover, the extent of the interference appears to depend upon whether the participant is focused on processing open or closed symbols.

[1]  Steven Franconeri,et al.  Perception of Average Value in Multiclass Scatterplots , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[2]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[3]  N. Lavie,et al.  High Perceptual Load Makes Everybody Equal , 2007, Psychological science.

[4]  Michael S. Bernstein,et al.  Learning Perceptual Kernels for Visualization Design , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[5]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  The Perception of Correlation in Scatterplots , 2010, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[6]  Steven Franconeri,et al.  Four types of ensemble coding in data visualizations. , 2016, Journal of vision.

[7]  C. Eriksen,et al.  The flankers task and response competition: A useful tool for investigating a variety of cognitive problems , 1995 .

[8]  Lin Chen The topological approach to perceptual organization , 2005 .

[9]  N. Lavie Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[10]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[11]  G. Alvarez,et al.  Number estimation relies on a set of segmented objects , 2009, Cognition.

[12]  N. Lavie Attention, Distraction, and Cognitive Control Under Load , 2010 .

[13]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[14]  S. Palmer,et al.  A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. , 2012, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  Jing Li,et al.  A model of symbol size discrimination in scatterplots , 2010, CHI.

[16]  L. Tremmel The Visual Separability of Plotting Symbols in Scatterplots , 1995 .

[17]  W. Marsden I and J , 2012 .

[18]  Dana K. Urribarri,et al.  Prediction of data visibility in two-dimensional scatterplots , 2017, Inf. Vis..

[19]  W. Cleveland,et al.  Graphical Perception: Theory, Experimentation, and Application to the Development of Graphical Methods , 1984 .

[20]  Alice Normand,et al.  Evaluative pressure overcomes perceptual load effects , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[21]  Jarke J. van Wijk,et al.  Evaluation of symbol contrast in scatterplots , 2009, 2009 IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium.

[22]  B. Julesz A brief outline of the texton theory of human vision , 1984, Trends in Neurosciences.

[23]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  L Chen,et al.  Topological structure in visual perception. , 1982, Science.

[25]  Lin Chen,et al.  Perceptual organization: To reverse back the inverted (upside-down) question of feature binding , 2001 .

[26]  S. Lewandowsky,et al.  Discriminating strata in scatterplots , 1989 .

[27]  Jeffrey Heer,et al.  Crowdsourcing graphical perception: using mechanical turk to assess visualization design , 2010, CHI.