Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Peebles, David (2013)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: BF, QA75
I present a model of expert comprehension performance for 2 × 2 "interaction" graphs typically used to present data from two-way factorial research designs. Developed using the ACT-R cognitive architecture, the model simulates the cognitive and perceptual operations involved in interpreting interaction graphs and provides a detailed characterisation of the information\ud extracted from the diagram, the prior knowledge required to interpret interaction graphs, and the knowledge generated during the comprehension\ud process. The model produces a scan path of attention fixations and a symbolic description of the interpretation which can be compared to human eye movement and verbal protocol data respectively, provides an account of the\ud strategic processes that control comprehension, and makes explicit what underlies the differences between expert and novice performance.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Ali, N., & Peebles, D. (in press). The e ect of Gestalt laws of perceptual organisation on the comprehension of three-variable bar and line graphs. Human Factors, doi:10.1177/0018720812452592 .
    • Anderson, J. R. (2007). How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    • Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Coups, E. J. (2006). Statistics for Psychology . (4th ed.). London: Pearson.
    • Carpenter, P. A., & Shah, P. (1998). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied , 4 , 75{100.
    • Casner, S. M. (1991). A task-analytic approach to the automated design of graphic presentations. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 10 , 111{151.
    • Cleveland, W. S., & McGill, R. (1984). Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79 , 531{554.
    • Gillan, D. J. (1994). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: 1. linear regression modelling. Human Factors, 36 , 419{440.
    • Gunzelmann, G. (Ed.) (2011). Modeling spatial cognition [Special issue] volume 3. Topics in Cognitive Science.
    • Kosslyn, S. M. (1989). Understanding charts and graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 3 , 185{226.
    • Kosslyn, S. M. (2006). Graph design for the eye and mind . New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Laird, J. E., Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1987). SOAR: An architecture for general intelligence. Arti cial Intelligence, 33 , 1{64.
    • Lohse, G. L. (1993). A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception. Human-Computer Interaction, 8 , 353{388.
    • McClelland, J. L. (2009). The place of modeling in cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1 , 11{38.
    • Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance 1. basic mechanisms. Psychological Review , 104 , 3{65.
    • Peebles, D., & Ali, N. (2009). Di erences in comprehensibility between threevariable bar and line graphs. In Proceedings of the Thirty- rst Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2938{2943). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    • Peebles, D., & Cheng, P. C.-H. (2003). Modeling the e ect of task and graphical representation on response latency in a graph reading task. Human Factors, 45 , 28{45.
    • Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Arti cial Intelligence and the Future of Testing (pp. 73{126). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    • Shah, P., & Freedman, E. G. (2011). Bar and line graph comprehension: An interaction between top-down and bottom-up processes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3 , 560{578.
    • Tabachneck-Schijf, H. J. M., Leonardo, A. M., & Simon, H. A. (1997). CaMeRa: A computational model of multiple representations. Cognitive Science, 21 , 305{350.
    • Trafton, J. G., Kirschenbaum, S. S., Tsui, T. L., Miyamoto, R. T., Ballas, J. A., & Raymond, P. D. (2000). Turning pictures into numbers: Extracting and generating information from complex visualizations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53 , 827{850.
    • Wertheimer, M. (1938). Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A source book of Gestalt psychology . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    • Zacks, J., & Tversky, B. (1999). Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication. Memory and Cognition, 27 , 1073{1079.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article