Mixing and Matching Lower-Level Codes for Object Displays: Evidence for Two Sources of Proximity Compatibility

The proximity compatibility principle (PCP) proposes that visually unitary configurations of data values, such as object displays, will support information integration better than will more separable formats. In the present study formats were created by either mixing or matching pairs of lower-level codes (i.e., linear extent, angle, and color). Performance with object and separable configurations of these codes was compared for two integration tasks: system state classifications requiring either (1) comparisons of values or (2) identification of conjunctions of values. Object displays formed with matched codes were more likely to facilitate comparisons, whereas object displays formed from mixed codes were more likely to facilitate conjunction identification. These data suggest that two mechanisms may underlie object display advantages for integration-one based on relational properties or emergent features and one based on the efficient processing of the lowerlevel codes themselves .

[1]  S. Edgell,et al.  Separable and unitary stimuli in nonmetric multiple-cue probability learning , 1992 .

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

[3]  Munsell Color.  The munsell book of color , 1993 .

[4]  L. Kaufman,et al.  Handbook of perception and human performance , 1986 .

[5]  Stephen E. Fienberg,et al.  Graphical Methods in Statistics , 1979 .

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

[7]  C M Carswell,et al.  Choosing Specifiers: An Evaluation of the Basic Tasks Model of Graphical Perception , 1992, Human factors.

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

[9]  Anne Treisman,et al.  Properties, Parts, and Objects , 1986 .

[10]  M D Boulette,et al.  Effect of Uncertainty and diagnosticity on Classification of Multidimensional Data with Integral and Separable Displays of System Status , 1989, Human factors.

[11]  J. Duncan.  Selective attention and the organization of visual information. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[13]  J. R. Pomerantz,et al.  Emergent features, attention, and perceptual glue in visual form perception. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  Herman Chernoff,et al.  The Use of Faces to Represent Points in k- Dimensional Space Graphically , 1973 .

[15]  James R. Beniger,et al.  Quantitative Graphics in Statistics: A Brief History , 1978 .

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

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

[18]  Robert McGill,et al.  An Experiment in Graphical Perception , 1986, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[19]  C. Wickens,et al.  Display Formatting in Information Integration and Nonintegration Tasks , 1987 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

[26]  J H Siegel,et al.  Pattern and process in the evolution of human septic shock. , 1971, Surgery.

[27]  B G Coury,et al.  Time Stress and the Processing of Visual Displays , 1992, Human factors.

[28]  John M. Chambers,et al.  Graphical Methods for Data Analysis , 1983 .

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

[30]  R. Rosenthal.  Meta-analytic procedures for social research , 1984 .

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

[32]  E. Anderson.  A SEMIGRAPHICAL METHOD FOR THE ANALYSIS OF COMPLEX PROBLEMS. , 1957, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[33]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Allocation of attention in the visual field. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[34]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  2-D vs. 3-D Display for Multidimensional Data Visualization: The Relationship between Task Integrality and Display Proximity , 1991 .

[35]  David Woods,et al.  An Evaluation of Nuclear Power Plant Safety Parameter Display Systems , 1981 .

[36]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Proximity Compatibility and Information Display: Effects of Color, Space, and Objectness on Information Integration , 1990 .

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