Dynamic Visualizations: A Two-Edged Sword?



Advances in computer technology have greatly facilitated the generation of dynamic visualizations fuelling a growing preference for animated graphics over their static counterparts. Animated graphics have thus become the visualization of choice in fields as diverse as science and high finance. An assumption underlying this shift to animations is that their direct portrayal of dynamic information is inherently superior to its indirect depiction in a static graphic. However, any benefits of animations must be offset against the costs that may be incurred due to psychological effects of their dynamics. Such problems are particularly likely in traditionally designed animations that depict the subject matter as an entire functioning system. However, alternative design approaches that are informed by the Animation Processing Model [R. Lowe and J-M. Boucheix. Learning from animated diagrams: How are mental models built? In Diagrammatic Representation and Inference, pp. 266–281, Springer, 2008.] offer a more effective way of presenting dynamic information. Viewers can be relieved of the burden of decomposing the whole dynamic system by presenting them instead with ready-made relation sets that are tailored to fit the perceptual and cognitive constraints of the human information processing system. Relation sets are designed to facilitate the internal construction processes that people use in composing mental models of the referent subject matter.


Static Graphic Event Unit Static Visualization Referent Content Animated Display 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    R. Lowe and J-M. Boucheix. Learning from animated diagrams: How are mental models built? In Diagrammatic Representation and Inference, pp. 266–281, Springer, 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. Schnotz and R. Lowe. A unified view of learning from animated and static graphics. In Learning with Animation: Research Implications for Design, chapter 14, Cambridge University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Hegarty. Mental animation: Inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. In Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, volume 18, pp. 1084–1102. 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Hegarty, S. Kriz and C. Cate. The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. In Cognition and Instruction, volume 21, pp. 209–249. 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Van der Waarde and P. Westendorp. The functions of arrows in user instructions. Proceedings of IIID Expert Forum on Manual Design (Eskilstuna, Sweden, November, 2000), pp. 1–7, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Heiser and B. Tversky. Arrows in comprehending and producing mechanical diagrams. In Cognitive Science, volume 30, pp. 581–592. 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Nienhaus and J. Döllner. Depicting dynamics using principles of visual art and narrations. In IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, volume 25, pp. 40–51, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Bétrancourt, S. Ainsworth, E. de Vries, J-M. Boucheix and R.K. Lowe. Graphicacy: Do readers of science textbooks need it? Proceedings of the Text and Graphics Comprehension Conference (Grenoble, France, August 29–31, 2012), In Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    N. H. Narayanan and M. Hegarty. Multimedia design for communication of dynamic information. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, volume 57, pp. 279–315. 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Tversky, J.B. Morrison and M. Bétrancourt, M. Animation: Can it facilitate? In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, volume 57, pp. 247–262. 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. N. Höffler and D. Leutner. Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. In Learning and Instruction, volume 17, pp. 722–738. 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. K. Lowe, T. Rasch and W. Schnotz. Aligning affordances of graphics with learning task requirements. In Applied Cognitive Psychology, volume 25, pp. 452–459. 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. K. Lowe. Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. In Learning and Instruction, volume 13, pp. 157–176. 2003.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. K. Lowe. Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. In European Journal of Psychology of Education, volume14, pp. 225–244. 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    P.N. Johnson-Laird. Mental Models, Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J-M. Boucheix, R.K. Lowe and A. Soirat, A. (2006, September). One line processing of a complex technical animation: Eye tracking investigation during verbal description. Proceedings of the Text and Graphics Comprehension Conference, (Nottingham, UK, September, 2006), pp. 14–17. 2006.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. K. Lowe. Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. In Learning and Instruction, volume 14, pp. 257–274. 2004.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. K. Lowe. Learning from animation: Where to look, when to look. In Learning with Animation: Research Implications for Design, chapter 3, Cambridge University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Lowe. Perceptual and cognitive challenges to learning with dynamic visualizations. Proceedings of International Workshop on Dynamic Visualizations and Learning (Tübingen, Germany, July 17–18, 2002), 2002.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    W. Winn. Perception principles. In Instructional Message Design: Principles from the Behavioural and Cognitive sciences, pp. 55–126, Educational Technology Publications, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J.M. Wolfe and T.S. Horowitz). What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? In Nature Reviews Neuroscience, volume 5, pp. 1–7. 2004.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    B.B de Koning, H.K. Tabbers, R. M. J. P. Rikers and F. Paas. Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. In Educational Psychology Review, volume 21, pp. 113–140. 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. E. Mayer. Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press. 2001.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. E. Mayer and R.B. Anderson. The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. In Journal of Educational Psychology, volume 84, pp. 444–452. 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Bétrancourt. The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, chapter 18, Cambridge University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. E. Mayer. Research-based principles for learning with animation. In Learning with Animation. Research Implications for Design, chapter 2, Cambridge University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R.K. Lowe. Multimedia learning of meteorology. In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, chapter 27, Cambridge University Press, 2005,Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    S.Kriz and M. Hegarty. Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations. In International Journal of Human Computer Studies, volume 65, pp. 911–930. 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    J-M. Boucheix and R.K. Lowe. An eye tracking comparison of external pointing cues and internal continuous cues in learning with complex animation. In Learning and Instruction, volume 20, pp. 123–135. 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    R. K. Lowe and J-M. Boucheix. Cueing complex animations: Does direction of attention foster learning processes? In Learning and Instruction, volume 21, pp. 650–663. 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    J-M. Boucheix and R.K. Lowe. Cueing animations: Dynamic signaling aids information extraction and comprehension. In press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    J.L. Plass, B.D. Horner, and E.O. Hayward. Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, volume 21, 31–61. 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    H.S. Smallman and M. St. John. Naïve realism: Misplaced faith in realistic displays. Ergonomics in Design, volume 13, pp. 6–13. 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    H.S. Smallman, & M. Cook. Naïve realism: Fallacies in the design and use of visual displays. In Topics in Cognitive Science, volume 3, pp. 579–608. 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    S. Fischer, R.K. Lowe and S. Schwan. Effects of presentation speed of a dynamic visualization on the understanding of a mechanical system. In Applied Cognitive Psychology, volume 22, pp. 1126–1141. 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    B. Tversky, J. Heiser, S. Lozano, R. MacKenzie and J. Morrison. Enriching animations. In Learning with animation: Research and design implications, chapter 12, Cambridge University Press. 2008.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    R. Ploetzner, and R. Lowe. A systematic characterisation of expository animations. In Computers in Human Behavior, volume 28, pp. 781–794. 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    R.K. Lowe and J-M. Boucheix. Dynamic diagrams: A composition alternative. In Diagrammatic Representation and Inference, pp. 233–240, Springer. 2012.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    R.K. Lowe. Changing perceptions of animated diagrams. In Diagrammatic Representation and Inference, pp. 168–172, Springer. 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationCurtin UniversityKent St. BentleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations