Abstract
Most theories of graph comprehension posit the existence of a graph schema to account for people’s prior knowledge of how to understand different graph types. The graph schema is, however, a purely theoretical construct: No empirical studies have explicitly examined the nature of the graph schema. We sought to determine whether graph schemas are based on perceptual features or on a common invariant structure shared between certain graph types. We isolated the process of activating the graph schema by presenting the graphs to participants in pure and mixed blocks. Any differences in reaction time between the blocks could be attributed to loading the appropriate schema. Results from a series of experiments using five types of graphs suggest that graph schemas are based on the graphical framework, a common invariant structure among certain types of graphs.
Article PDF
References
Bernardo, A. B. I. (1994). Problem-specific information and the development of problem-type schemata. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 379–395.
Gattis, M. (2002). Structure mapping in spatial reasoning. Cognitive Development, 17, 1157–1183.
Henderson, J. M., & Hollingworth, A. (1999). High-level scene perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 243–271.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1989). Understanding charts and graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3, 185–225.
Lewandowsky, S., & Behrens, J. T. (1999). Statistical graphs and maps. In F. T. Durso, R. S. Nickerson, R. W. Schvaneveldt, S. T. Dumais, D. S. Lindsay, & M. T. H. Chi (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition (pp. 513–549). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
Lohse, G. L. (1993). A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 353–388.
Los, S. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials. Acta Psychologica, 94, 145–188.
Los, S. A. (1999). Identifying stimuli of different perceptual categories in mixed blocks of trials: Evidence for cost in switching between computational processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 3–23.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.
Peebles, D., & Cheng, P. C.-H. (2001). Graph-based reasoning: From task analysis to cognitive explanation. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 762–767). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Peebles, D., & Cheng, P. C.-H. (2003). Modeling the effect of task and graphical representation on response latency in a graph reading task. Human Factors, 45, 28–46.
Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (pp. 73–126). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Potter, M. C. (1993). Very short-term conceptual memory. Memory & Cognition, 21, 156–161.
Shah, P., & Carpenter, P. A. (1995). Conceptual limitations in comprehending line graphs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 24, 43–61.
Simkin, D. K., & Hastie, R. (1987). An information processing analysis of graph perception. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 454–465.
Zacks, J., & Tversky, B. (1999). Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication. Memory & Cognition, 27, 1073–1079.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by ONR Grant N0001403WX30001.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ratwani, R.M., Gregory Trafton, J. Shedding light on the graph schema: Perceptual features versus invariant structure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15, 757–762 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.4.757
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.4.757