Abstract
In this chapter, we discuss a research framework borrowed from medicine, called translational science, and how it may be used to develop more useful research protocols for the study of user interface cognition and visual analytical reasoning. Translational science incorporates laboratory research, field studies, and other empirical protocols into a holistic research program which ambitiously incorporates the study of individual and collaborative cognition in a longitudinal and/or ethnographic approach to interactive visualization research and design. To introduce how translational science fits into human centric visualization design and evaluation, we discuss research methods it would employ. We also explore the unique variabilities that affect both the human-visualization interaction and visualization-mediated human to human collaboration through our reported research. These variabilities—or individual differences—complicate the study of user interface cognition and make a more holistic approach like translational science necessary. A current and on-going translational science program is described, and we discuss its unique challenges and contributions.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Andrienko G, Andrienko N, Wrobel S 2007 Visual analytics tools for analysis of movement data. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter – Special issue on visual analytics 9(2): 38–46
R. Arias-Hernández, T.M. Green, B. Fisher, Pair Analytics: Capturing Reasoning Processes in Collaborative Visualization. Proceedings of the 44th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Digital Library 2011a.
R. Arias-Hernandez, L.T. Kaastra, and B. Fisher, Joint Action Theory and Pair Analytics: In-vivo Studies of Cognition and Social Interaction in Collaborative Visualization. In: L. Carlson, C.Hoelscher, and T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society Austin TX: Cognitive Science Society. pp. 3244–3249. 2011b.
R. Chang, M. Ghoniem,, R. Kosara, W. Ribarsky, J. Yang, E. Suma, C. Ziemkiewicz, D. Kern, A. Sudjianto, WireVis: Visualization of categorical, time-varying data from financial transactions. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology Sacramento, CA, October 2007, 155–162. 2007.
H.H. Clark. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996.
J. Cooper, R. Lewis, and Urquhart. Using participant and non-participant observation to explain information behavior. Information Research, 2004. 1–18. 2004.
Corn AL 1983 Visual function: A theoretical model for individuals with Low Vision. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 77(8): 373
Dunegan K 1993 Framing, cognitive modes, and image theory: Toward an understanding of a glass half full. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(3): 491–503
P. Ehn, Scandinavian Design: on participation and skill. In P. Adler & T. Winograd (Eds.). Usability: turning technologies into tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1991.
Elmqvist N, Stasko J, Tsigas, P 2008 DataMeadow: A visual canvas for analysis of large-scale multivariate data. Information Visualization 7: 18–33
J. St B. T. Evans and P.C. Wason. Rationalization in a reasoning task. British Journal of Psychology, 67(4), 479–486. 1976.
Y.H. Fua, M.O. Ward, and E.A. Rundensteiner. Hierarchical parallel coordinates for exploration of large datasets. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Visualization 1999, October 24–27, San Francisco, CA. 43–50. 1999.
J.A. Guirao-Goris, and G. Duarte-Climents. The Expert Nurse Profile and Diagnostic Content Validity of Sedentary Lifestyle: The Spanish Validation, International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classifications 18(3), (July-September, 2007). 84–92. 2007.
T.M. Green, D.H. Jeong, and B. Fisher Using personality factors to predict interface learning performance, Proceedings of Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences 43, January 2010, Koloa, Hawai’i,. 1–10. 2010.
Heaven P.C.L, Quintin D.S 2002 Personality factors predict racial prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences 34: 625–634
J. Heinstrom, Five personality dimensions and their influence on information behavior. Information Research 9(1). paper 165 [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/9-1/paper165.html] 2000.
D.H. Jeong, W. Dou, F. Stukes, W. Ribarsky, H.R. Lipford, and R. Chang. Evaluation the relationship between user interaction and financial visual analytics. Proceedings the of IEEE Visual Analytics Science and Technology, Columbus, OH, October 24–27. 83–90. 2008.
R. Johnston. Analytic Culture in the US Intelligence Community: an Ethnographic Study. Washington, D.C.: The Center for the Study of Intelligence - CIA. 2005.
J. Henrich. S.J. Heine and A. Norenzayan. The Weirdest People in the World? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 61–135. 2010.
E. Hutchins. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 1995.
V. Kaptelinin, and B. A. Nardi. Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 2009.
J. Lave, Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1988.
Leontiev AN 1978 Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliff s N.J, Prentice Hall
Macia. Visual perception of landscape: sex and personality differences In Elsner, G.H. and Smardon, R.C. (eds.), Proceedings of our national landscape: a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. Incline Village, NC. April 23–25. 279–285. 1979.
R.R. McCrae and P.T. Costa Jr. Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist 52(5). 509–516. 1997.
McCrae R.R, Costa P.T 1987 Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(1); 81–90
G.H. Mead. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago. 1934.
R.E. Nisbett. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently … and Why. New York: Free Press. 2003.
D. Norman. The Design of Everyday Things. London: MIT Press. 1998.
J. Palmer. Scientists and information: II. Personal factors in information behavior. Journal of Documentation, 3, 254–275. 1991.
Po B.A, Fisher B.D, Booth K.S 2005 A two visual systems approach to understanding voice and gestural interaction. Virtual Reality 8: 231–241
M. Scaife, and Y. Rogers. External Cognition: How Do Graphical Representations Work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45(2): 185–213. 1996.
M.C. Schatz, A.M. Phillippy, B. Scneiderman, and S. L. Salzberg. Hawkeye: An interactive visual analysis tool for genome assemblies. Genome Biology, 8(3). 2007.
Scheufele DA 2000 Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another looked at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society 3(2–3)
H.C. Schouwenburg. Personality and academic competence. Poster presented at the seventh meeting of the International Society for Study of Individual Differences, Warsaw, Poland. 1995.
B. Shneiderman and C. Plaisant. Strategies for evaluating information visualization tools: multi-dimensional in-depth long-term case studies. Proceedings of the 2006 AVI workshop on Beyond time and errors: novel evaluation methods for information visualization. Italy. May 23–26. 1–7. 2006.
Shore. Culture in Mind: Cognition, Culture, and the Problem of Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1996.
L.K. Silverman. Identifying visual-spatial and auditory-sequential learners: A validation study. In N. Colangelo & S. G. Assouline (Eds.), Talent development V: Proceedings from the 2000 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press 2000.
Suchman L 1987 Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Mass
Vygotsky L 1978 Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass
A.T. Wade, and R. Nicholson. Improving Airplane Safety: Tableau and Bird Strikes. In: IEEE Information Visualization 2010 Conference Compendium (Discovery Exhibition), October 24–29, Salt Lake City, UT, USA 2010.
Warton, J. Rieman C. Lewis, and P. Polson. The cognitive walkthrough method: A practitioner’s guide. In: Usability Inspection Methods. John Wiley & Sons: New York. 105–140. 1994.
L. Wittgenstein. Philosophical investigations. Oxford. Basil Blackwell & Mott. 1953.
C. Ziemkiewicz, R.J. Crouser, A.R. Yauilla, S.L. Su, W. Ribarsky, W. and R. Chang. How locus of control influences compatibility with visualization style. Proceeding of the IEEE Visual Analytics Science and Technology, October 23–28. Providence, RI. 81–90. 2011.
J.B. Rotter, Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs 80, 609. (1966).
A.T. Beck, N. Epstein, G. Brown, & R.A. Steer. An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 893–897. 1988.
R. Schwarzer, M. Diehl, & G.S. Schmitz. The self-regulation scale. Gesundheitspsychologie, (Berlin:Freie Universitat). 1999.
S. Budner, Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30, 29–50. 1962.
T.A. Litzinger, S.H. Lee, J.C. Wise, & R.M. Felder. A psychometric study of the Index of Learning Styles. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 309–319. 2007.
K.E. Stanovich, Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1999.
A. Newell. You can’t play 20 questions with nature and win: Projective comments on the papers of this symposium. Visual Information Processing (W.G. Chase (Ed.).). New York: Academic Press. 1973.
Marincola F 2003 Translational Medicine: A two-way road. Journal of Translational Medicine 1(1): 1
Fisher B, Green T.M, Arias-Hernandez R 2011 Visual Analytics as a Translational Science Topics in Cognitive Science 3(3): 609–625
T.M. Green and B. Fisher, Towards the Personal Equation of Interaction: The impact of personality factors on visual analytics interface interaction, IEEE Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST) 2010.
B Shneiderman, The Eyes Have It: A Task by Data Type Taxonomy for Information Visualizations. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, pp 336–343, 1996.
R. Chang, C. Ziemkiewicz, T.M. Green, and W. Ribarsky. ``Defining insight for visual analytics.'' Visualization Viewpoint, Computer Graphics and Application, 29(2): 14–17. 2009.
P. Cherubini and P.N. Johnson-Laird. ``Does everyone love everyone? The psychology of iterative reasoning.'' Think Reasoning, 10: 31–53. 2004.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Green, T.M., Arias-Hernandez, R., Fisher, B. (2014). Individual Differences and Translational Science in the Design of Human-Centered Visualizations. In: Huang, W. (eds) Handbook of Human Centric Visualization. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7485-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7485-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7484-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7485-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)