Abstract
This paper presents a model of perceptual task effort for use in hypothesizing the message that a bar chart is intended to convey. It presents our rules, based on research by cognitive psychologists, for estimating perceptual task effort, and discusses the results of an eye tracking experiment that demonstrates the validity of our model. These rules comprise a model that captures the relative difficulty that a viewer would have performing one perceptual task versus another on a specific bar chart. The paper outlines the role of our model of relative perceptual task effort in recognizing the intended message of an information graphic. Potential applications of this work include using this message to provide (1) a more complete representation of the content of the document to be used for searching and indexing in digital libraries, and (2) alternative access to the information graphic for visually impaired users or users of low-bandwidth environments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ACT-R: ‘The ACT-R Home Page’. http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/ (retrieved on May 18th, 2004)
Bertin J. (1983). Semiology of Graphics. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI
Boff K.R., Lincoln J.E. (1988). Engineering Data Compendium: Human Perception and Performance. AAMRL, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH
Carberry S. (2001). Techniques for plan recognition. User Model. User-Adap. Interact. 11(1–2):31–48
Card S.K., Moran T.P., Newell A. (1983). The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ
Cavanaugh J.P. (1972). Relation between the intermediate memory span and the memory search rate. Psychol. Rev. 79:525–530
Charniak E., Goldman R.P. (1993). A Bayesian model of plan recognition. Artif. Intell. 64(1):53–79
Clark H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Cleveland W.S. (1985). The Elements of Graphing Data. Chapman and Hall, New York
Corio, M., Lapalme, G.: Generation of texts for information graphics. In: Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation EWNLG’99. pp. 49–58 (1999)
Druzdzel M.J., van der Gaag L.C. (2000). Building probabilistic networks: Where do the numbers come from?. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data. Eng. 12:481–486
Elzer, S., Carberry, S., Zukerman, I., Chester, D., Green, N., Demir, S.: A probabilistic framework for recognizing intention in information graphics. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). pp. 1042–1047 (2005)
EPIC: The brain, cognition, and action laboratory: EPIC. http://www.umich.edu/~bcalab/epic.html (retrieved on May 18th, 2004)
Futrelle R. (1999). Summarization of diagrams in documents. In: Mani I., Maybury M. (eds) Advances in Automated Text Summarization. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 403–421
Futrelle, R., Nikolakis, N.: Efficient analysis of complex diagrams using constraint-based parsing. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition. pp.~782–790 (1995)
Green N., Carenini G., Kerpedjiev S., Mattis J., Moore J., Roth S. (2004). Autobrief: an experimental system for the automatic generation of briefings in integrated text and information graphics. Int. J. Hum-Comp. Stud. 61(1):32–70
Grice H.P. (1969). Utterer’s meaning and intentions. Philos. Rev. 78:147–177
Hollands J.G., Spence I. (2001). The discrimination of graphical elements. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 15:413–431
Iverson G., Gergen M. (1997). Statistics: The Conceptual Approach. Springer-Verlag, New York
John B.E., Newell A. (1990). Toward an engineering model of stimulus response compatibility. In: Gilmore R.W., Reeve T.G. (eds) Stimulus-Response Compatibility: An Integrated Approach. North-Holland, New York, pp. 107–115
Kerpedjiev, S., Roth, S.F.: Mapping communicative goals into conceptual tasks to generate graphics in discourse. In: Proceedings of Intelligent User Interfaces. pp. 157–164 (2000)
Kosslyn S. (1994). Elements of Graph Design. W. H. Freeman and Company, NY
Kosslyn S.M. (1983). Ghosts in the Mind’s Machine. Norton, New York
Kosslyn S.M. (1989). Understanding charts and graphs. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 3:185–226
Larkin J.H., Simon H.A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth a thousand words. Cogn. Sci. 11, 65–99
Lohse G.L. (1993). A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception. Hum-Comp. Interact. 8:353–388
Pearl J. (1988). Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, CA
Peebles D., Cheng P.C.-H. (2003). Modeling the effect of task and graphical representation on response latency in a graph reading task. Hum. Factors. 45:28–46
Perrault C.R., Allen J.F. (1980). A plan-based analysis of indirect speech acts. Am. J. Comput. Ling. 6(3–4):167–182
Pomerantz, J.R., Kubovy, M.: Theoretical approaches to perceptual organization. In: Boff, K.R., Kaufman, L., Thomas, J.P. (eds.) Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, pp.36.1–36.46. Wiley, New York (1986)
Russo J.E. (1978). Adaptation of cognitive processes to eye movement systems. In: Senders J.W., Fisher D.F., Monty R.A. (eds) Eye Movements and Higher Psychological Functions. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ
Shah P. (2002). Graph comprehension: the role of format, content, and individual differences. In: Anderson M., Meyer M.B., Olivier P. (eds) Diagrammatic Representation and Reasoning. Springer Verlag, Berlin
Shah P., Mayer R.E., Hegarty M. (1999). Graphs as aids to knowledge construction: signaling techniques for guiding the process of graph comprehension. J. Educ. Psychol. 1991(4):690–702
Simkin D., Hastie R. (1987). An information-processing analysis of graph perception. J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 82(398):454–465
Sripada, S.G., Reiter, E., Hunter, J., Yu, J.: Segmenting time series for weather forecasting. In: Macintosh, A., Ellis, R., Coenen, F. (eds.) Proceedings of ES2002. pp. 193–206 (2002)
Tufte E.R. (1983). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT
Welford A.T. (1973). Attention, strategy, and reaction time. In: Kornblum S. (eds) Attention and Performance IV. Academic, New York, pp. 37–54
Wickens C.D., Carswell C.M. (1995). The proximity compatibility principle: its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Hum Factors 37(3):473–494
Yu, J., Hunter, J., Reiter, E., Sripada, S.: Recognising visual patterns to communicate gas turbine time-series data. In: Macintosh, A., Ellis, R., Coenen, F. (eds.) Proceedings of ES2002. pp. 105–118 (2002)
Zacks J., Tversky B. (1999). Bars and lines: a study of graphic communication. Mem Cogn 27(6):1073–1079
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Elzer, S., Green, N., Carberry, S. et al. A Model of Perceptual Task Effort for Bar Charts and its Role in Recognizing Intention. User Model User-Adap Inter 16, 1–30 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-006-9002-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-006-9002-9