Evan M Peck
ABSTRACT
The effects of individual differences on user interaction is a topic that has been explored for the last 25 years in HCI. Recently, the importance of this subject has been carried into the field of information visualization and consequently, there has been a wide range of research conducted in this area. However, there has been no consensus on which evaluation methods best answer the unique needs of information visualization. In this position paper we propose that individual differences are evaluated in three dominant dimensions: cognitive traits, cognitive states and experience/bias. We believe that this is a first step in systematically evaluating the effects of users' individual differences on information visualization and visual analytics.
- E. Anderson, K. Potter, L. Matzen, J. Shepherd, G. Preston, and C. Silva. A user study of visualization effectiveness using eeg and cognitive load. Computer Graphics Forum, 30(3):791--800, 2011.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- R. Arias-Hernandez, L. T. Kaastra, T. Green, and B. Fisher. Pair analytics: Capturing reasoning processes in collaborative visual analytics. System Sciences (HICSS), pages 1--10, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. G. Ashby, V. Valentin, and U. Turken. The effects of positive affect and arousal on working memory and executive attention. Emotional Cognition: From Brain to Behavior, pages 245--287, 2002.Google Scholar
- S. Bateman, R. L. Mandryk, C. Gutwin, A. Genest, D. Mcdine, and C. Brooks. Useful junk? The effects of visual embellishment on comprehension and memorability of charts. ACM CHI '10, pages 2573--2582, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Bechara. The role of emotion in decision-making: Evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain and Cognition, 55:30--40, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Boddy, A. Carver, and K. Rowley. Effects of positive and negative verbal reinforcement on performance as a function of extraversion-introversion: Some tests of Gray's theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 7(1):81--88, 1986.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Casner and J. Larkin. Cognitive efficiency considerations for good graphic design. Technical report, 1989.Google Scholar
- P. Chandler and J. Sweller. Cognition and Instruction.Google Scholar
- C. Chen. Individual differences in a spatial-semantic virtual environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(6):529--542, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Chen and M. Czerwinski. Spatial ability and visual navigation: An empirical study. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 3(1):67--89, 1997.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Cohen and M. Hegarty. Individual differences in use of external visualisations to perform an internal visualisation task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6):701--711, 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Conati and H. Maclaren. Exploring the role of individual differences in information visualization. Advanced Visual Interfaces, pages 199--206, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. R. Cox and R. A. Griggs. The effects of experience on performance in Wason's selection task. Memory & Cognition, 10(5):496--502, 1982.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Croskerry. Achieving quality in clinical decision making: Cognitive strategies and detection of bias. Academic Emergency Medicine, 9(11):1184--1204, 2002.Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. Dou, D. H. Jeong, F. Stukes, W. Ribarsky, H. Lipford, and R. Chang. Recovering reasoning processes from user interactions. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 29(3):52--61, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. W. Fisher, I. Chengalur-Smith, and D. P. Ballou. The impact of experience and time on the use of data quality information in decision making. Information Systems, 14(2):170--188, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Fredrickson. What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3):300--319, 1998.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Green and B. Fisher. The impact of personality factors on visual analytics interface interaction. IEEE Visual Analytics Science and Technology, pages 203--210, 2010.Google Scholar
- R. Heuer. Psychology of intelligence analysis. United States Govt Printing Office, 1999.Google Scholar
- W. Huang, P. Eades, and S.-H. Hong. Measuring effectiveness of graph visualizations: A cognitive load perspective. Information Visualization, 8(3):139--152, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Hullman, E. Adar, and P. Shah. Benefitting InfoVis with visual difficulties. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12):2213--22, Dec. 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Johnston. Analytic culture in the US intelligence community: An ethnographic study. The Center for the Study of Intelligence, 2005.Google Scholar
- K. Klein and A. Boals. Expressive writing can increase working memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 130(3):520--533, 2001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Kosara, F. Drury, L. Holmquist, and D. Laidlaw. Visualization criticism. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 28(3):13--15, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Kwon, B. Fisher, and J. Yi. Visual analytic roadblocks for novice investigators. IEEE Visual Analytics Science and Technology, pages 3--11, 2011.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. L. Lohse. The role of working memory on graphical information processing. Behaviour & Information Technology, (16):297--308, 1997.Google Scholar
- L. Matzen, L. McNamara, K. Cole, A. Bandlow, C. Dornburg, and T. Bauer. Proposed working memory measures for evaluating information visualization tools. Position paper presented orally at the BELIV 2010 conference, 2010.Google Scholar
- G. Miller. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2):81--97, 1956.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Miller, A. Kirlik, A. Kosorukoff, and J. Tsai. Supporting joint human-computer judgment under uncertainty. Human Factors, 52(4):408--412, 2008.Google Scholar
- T. Munzner. A nested process model for visualization design and validation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 15(6):921--928, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Organ. Extraversion, locus of control, and individual differences in conditionability in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3):401--404, 1975.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. Paas, J. E. Tuovinen, H. Tabbers, and P. W. M. Van Gerven. Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Technology, 38(1):63--71, 2003.Google Scholar
- F. G. Paas and J. J. Van Merriënboer. The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35(4):737--743, 1993.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Phelps, S. Ling, and M. Carrasco. Emotion facilitates perception and potentiates the perceptual benefits of attention. Psychological Science, 17(4):292--299, 2006.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Pinker. A theory of graph comprehension. In Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Testing, pages 73--126. 1990.Google Scholar
- P. Pirolli and S. Card. The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. Intelligence Analysis, pages 2--4, 2005.Google Scholar
- M.-Z. Poh, N. C. Swenson, and R. W. Picard. A wearable sensor for unobtrusive, long-term assessment of electrodermal activity. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 57(5):1243--1252, 2010.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. S. Reich and P. Ruth. Wason's selection task: Verification, falsification and matching. British Journal of Psychology, 73(3):395--405, 1982.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. Riche. Beyond system logging: Human logging for evaluating information visualization. Position paper presented orally at the BELIV 2010 conference, 2010.Google Scholar
- J. Rotter. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1):1--28, 1966.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Rowe, J. Hirsh, and A. Anderson. Positive affect increases the breadth of attentional selection. National Academy of Sciences, 104(1):383--388, 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. A. Salthouse and D. R. Mitchell. Effects of age and naturally occurring experience on spatial visualization performance. Developmental Psychology, 26(5):845--854, 1990.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Scholtz. Beyond usability: Evaluation aspects of visual analytic environments. IEEE Visual Analytics Science And Technology, pages 145--150, 2006.Google Scholar
- J. Scholtz. Progress and challenges in evaluating tools for sensemaking. CHI '08 Workshop on Sensemaking, 2008.Google Scholar
- A. Shackman, I. Sarinopoulos, J. Maxwell, D. Pizzagalli, A. Lavric, and R. Davidson. Anxiety selectively disrupts visuospatial working memory. Emotion, 6(1):40--61, 2006.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Solovey, P. Schermerhorn, M. Scheutz, A. Sassaroli, S. Fantini, and R. Jacob. Brainput: Enhancing interactive systems with streaming fnirs brain input. ACM CHI '12, pages 2193--2202, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Thomas and K. Cook. Illuminating the path: The research and development agenda for visual analytics. IEEE, 2005.Google Scholar
- A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157):1124--1131, 1974.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Velez, D. Silver, and M. Tremaine. Understanding visualization through spatial ability differences. IEEE Visualization, pages 511--518, 2005.Google Scholar
- C. Wickens and J. Hollands. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. Prentice-Hall, 1999.Google Scholar
- Y. Yeh and C. D. Wickens. Dissociation of performance and subjective measures of workload. Human Factors, 30(1):111--120, 1988.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. S. Yi. Implications of individual differences on evaluating information visualization techniques. Position paper presented orally at the BELIV 2010 conference, 2010.Google Scholar
- C. Ziemkiewicz, R. Crouser, A. Yauilla, S. Su, W. Ribarsky, and R. Chang. How locus of control influences compatibility with visualization style. IEEE Visual Analytics Science and Technology, pages 81--90, 2011.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Ziemkiewicz and R. Kosara. Laws of attraction: From perceptual forces to conceptual similarity. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(6):1009--1016, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Zuk and S. Carpendale. Visualization of uncertainty and reasoning. Smart Graphics, pages 164--177, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Towards a 3-dimensional model of individual cognitive differences: position paper
Recommendations
Exploring the role of individual differences in information visualization
AVI '08: Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfacesIn this paper, we describe a user study aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of two different data visualization techniques developed for describing complex environmental changes in an interactive system designed to foster awareness in sustainable ...
Individual differences and Information Security Awareness
The main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between individuals' Information Security Awareness (ISA) and individual difference variables, namely age, gender, personality and risk-taking propensity. Within this study, ISA was defined ...
Individual Differences as Predictors of Social Networking
Research suggests that personality dictates specific Internet preferences. One area that remains relatively unexplored is the influence of personality on engagement with social networking sites SNSs. The current study employs a 'Uses and Gratifications' ...
Comments