4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Perception of Average Value in Multiclass Scatterplots

Journal

Publisher

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TVCG.2013.183

Keywords

Psychophysics; Information Visualization; Perceptual Study

Funding

  1. NSF [CMMI-0941013, BCS-1056730, SBE-1041707, DRL-0918409, DRL-1247262, IIS-1162037]
  2. NIH [R01 AU974787]
  3. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci
  4. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [1056730] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  6. Directorate For Engineering [0941013] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Div Of Information & Intelligent Systems
  8. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [1162037] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The visual system can make highly efficient aggregate judgements about a set of objects, with speed roughly independent of the number of objects considered. While there is a rich literature on these mechanisms and their ramifications for visual summarization tasks, this prior work rarely considers more complex tasks requiring multiple judgements over long periods of time, and has not considered certain critical aggregation types, such as the localization of the mean value of a set of points. In this paper, we explore these questions using a common visualization task as a case study: relative mean value judgements within multi-class scatterplots. We describe how the perception literature provides a set of expected constraints on the task, and evaluate these predictions with a large-scale perceptual study with crowd-sourced participants. Judgements are no harder when each set contains more points, redundant and conflicting encodings, as well as additional sets, do not strongly affect performance, and judgements are harder when using less salient encodings. These results have concrete ramifications for the design of scatterplots.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available