Visual routines are associated with specific graph interpretations

Abstract

We argue that people compare values in graphs with a visual routine – attending to data values in an ordered pattern over time. Do these visual routines exist to manage capacity limitations in how many values can be encoded at once, or do they actually affect the relations that are extracted? We measured eye movements while people judged configurations of a two-bar graph based on size only (“[short tall] or [tall short]?”) and contrast only (“[light dark] or [dark light]?”). Participants exhibited visual routines in which they systematically attended to a specific feature (or “anchor point”) in the graph; in the size task, most participants inspected the taller bar first, and in the contrast task, most participants attended to the darker bar first. Participants then judged configurations that varied in both size and contrast (e.g., [short-light tall-dark]); however, only one dimension was task-relevant (varied between subjects). During this orthogonal task, participants overwhelmingly relied on the same anchor point used in the single-dimension version, but only for the task-relevant dimension (e.g., taller bar for the size-relevant task). These results suggest that visual routines are associated with specific graph interpretations. Responses were also faster when task-relevant and task-irrelevant anchor points appeared on the same object (congruent) than on different objects (incongruent). This interference from the task-irrelevant dimension suggests that top-down control may be necessary to extract relevant relations from graphs. The effect of visual routines on graph comprehension has implications for both science, technology, engineering, and mathematics pedagogy and graph design.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41235-017-0059-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Curse of Knowledge in Visual Data Communication

“…To our knowledge, this is the first empirical demonstration of the curse of knowledge in the realm of data visualization, and even in the broader realm of visual perception. This result joins other recent explorations of the influence of perceptual and cognitive biases on interpretations of patterns in data visualizations, many of which cannot be easily mitigated [2,6,13,19,22,23,24,36,37,39,46]. Some of this research has begun to explore visual designs and interactive decision-making environments that mitigate these biases [12].…”

“…While a perfectly rational memory system should process or remember different types of information equally well, data visualizations can be more engaging and better remembered if they are distinctive, concrete, or look more like real-world objects [2,6,7,8,19] . Storytelling techniques adapted from journalism can influence the way people extract data from visualizations [23,24,36,37,39,45]. Still more work has sought evidence for whether a viewer's history of previously seen data visualizations can sway their perception of a subsequent, but unrelated, visualization [26,49].…”

Embodied cognition and STEM learning: overview of a topical collection in CR:PI

“…Research on effective visualization of data and visual communication of STEM concepts has capitalized on Gibsonian ideas of perception for action. Michal and Franconeri ( 2017 ) 13 show that the cognitive processes involved in graph interpretation manifest not in high-level cognition, but in knowing where to look. In an eye tracking study, participants looked at bar graphs and were asked to attend either to the size of the bar or the luminance.…”

Unplugged Programming: The future of teaching computational thinking?

“…Xu & Clarke, 2012). Research in mathematics education has explored the embodied and distributed nature of meaning-making when it comes to mental arithmetic (Vallee-Tourangeau, Sirota, & Vallee-Tourangeau, 2016), statistics (Rueckert et al, 2017), interpreting graphs (Michal & Franconeri, 2017) and algebra (Marghetis, Landy, & Goldstone, 2016). Research in science education is making signifi cant headway exploring the embodied and distributed nature of meaning making in science, for example in physics (Johnson-Glenberg & Megowen-Romanowicz, 2017), geoscience (Jaeger, Wiley, & Moher, 2016) and earth science (Atit et al, 2016), subdisciplines which conceptually focus on spatial and temporal dimensions and therefore can be more easily related to the movement of the body in its relationship with the environment.…”