Rethinking the Ranks of Visual Channels.

Data can be visually represented using visual channels like position, length or luminance. An existing ranking of these visual channels is based on how accurately participants could report the ratio between two depicted values. There is an assumption that this ranking should hold for different tasks and for different numbers of marks. However, there is surprisingly little existing work that tests this assumption, especially given that visually computing ratios is relatively unimportant in real-world visualizations, compared to seeing, remembering, and comparing trends and motifs, across displays that almost universally depict more than two values. To simulate the information extracted from a glance at a visualization, we instead asked participants to immediately reproduce a set of values from memory after they were shown the visualization. These values could be shown in a bar graph (position (bar)), line graph (position (line)), heat map (luminance), bubble chart (area), misaligned bar graph (length), or 'wind map' (angle). With a Bayesian multilevel modeling approach, we show how the rank positions of visual channels shift across different numbers of marks (2, 4 or 8) and for bias, precision, and error measures. The ranking did not hold, even for reproductions of only 2 marks, and the new probabilistic ranking was highly inconsistent for reproductions of different numbers of marks. Other factors besides channel choice had an order of magnitude more influence on performance, such as the number of values in the series (e.g., more marks led to larger errors), or the value of each mark (e.g., small values were systematically overestimated). Every visual channel was worse for displays with 8 marks than 4, consistent with established limits on visual memory. These results point to the need for a body of empirical studies that move beyond two-value ratio judgments as a baseline for reliably ranking the quality of a visual channel, including testing new tasks (detection of trends or motifs), timescales (immediate computation, or later comparison), and the number of values (from a handful, to thousands).

No mark is an island: Precision and category repulsion biases in data reproductions.

Data visualization is powerful in large part because it facilitates visual extraction of values. Yet, existing measures of perceptual precision for data channels (e.g., position, length, orientation, etc.) are based largely on verbal reports of ratio judgments between two values (e.g., [7]). Verbal report conflates multiple sources of error beyond actual visual precision, introducing a ratio computation between these values and a requirement to translate that ratio to a verbal number. Here we observe raw measures of precision by eliminating both ratio computations and verbal reports; we simply ask participants to reproduce marks (a single bar or dot) to match a previously seen one. We manipulated whether the mark was initially presented (and later drawn) alone, paired with a reference (e.g. a second '100%' bar also present at test, or a y-axis for the dot), or integrated with the reference (merging that reference bar into a stacked bar graph, or placing the dot directly on the axis). Reproductions of smaller values were overestimated, and larger values were underestimated, suggesting systematic memory biases. Average reproduction error was around 10% of the actual value, regardless of whether the reproduction was done on a common baseline with the original. In the reference and (especially) the integrated conditions, responses were repulsed from an implicit midpoint of the reference mark, such that values above 50% were overestimated, and values below 50% were underestimated. This reproduction paradigm may serve within a new suite of more fundamental measures of the precision of graphical perception.

Truth or Square: Aspect Ratio Biases Recall of Position Encodings.

Bar charts are among the most frequently used visualizations, in part because their position encoding leads them to convey data values precisely. Yet reproductions of single bars or groups of bars within a graph can be biased. Curiously, some previous work found that this bias resulted in an overestimation of reproduced data values, while other work found an underestimation. Across three empirical studies, we offer an explanation for these conflicting findings: this discrepancy is a consequence of the differing aspect ratios of the tested bar marks. Viewers are biased to remember a bar mark as being more similar to a prototypical square, leading to an overestimation of bars with a wide aspect ratio, and an underestimation of bars with a tall aspect ratio. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that the aspect ratio of the bar marks indeed influenced the direction of this bias. Experiment 3 confirmed that this pattern of misestimation bias was present for reproductions from memory, suggesting that this bias may arise when comparing values across sequential displays or views. We describe additional visualization designs that might be prone to this bias beyond bar charts (e.g., Mekko charts and treemaps), and speculate that other visual channels might hold similar biases toward prototypical values.

Classic motor chunking theory fails to account for behavioural diversity and speed in a complex naturalistic task.

In tasks that demand rapid performance, actions must be executed as efficiently as possible. Theories of expert motor performance such as the motor chunking framework suggest that efficiency is supported by automatization, where many serial actions are automatized into smaller chunks, or groups of commonly co-occuring actions. We use the fast-paced, professional eSport StarCraft 2 as a test case of the explanatory power of the motor chunking framework and assess the importance of chunks in explaining expert performance. To do so, we test three predictions motivated by a simple motor chunking framework. (1) StarCraft 2 players should exhibit an increasing number of chunks with expertise. (2) The proportion of actions falling within a chunk should increase with skill. (3) Chunks should be faster than non-chunks containing the same atomic behaviours. Although our findings support the existence of chunks, they also highlight two problems for existing accounts of rapid motor execution and expert performance. First, while better players do use more chunks, the proportion of actions within a chunks is stable across expertise and expert sequences are generally more varied (the diversity problem). Secondly, chunks, which are supposed to enjoy the most extreme automatization, appear to save little or no time overall (the time savings problem). Instead, the most parsimonious description of our latency analysis is that players become faster overall regardless of chunking.

Learning-induced changes in attentional allocation during categorization: a sizable catalog of attention change as measured by eye movements.

Learning how to allocate attention properly is essential for success at many categorization tasks. Advances in our understanding of learned attention are stymied by a chicken-and-egg problem: there are no theoretical accounts of learned attention that predict patterns of eye movements, making data collection difficult to justify, and there are not enough datasets to support the development of a rich theory of learned attention. The present work addresses this by reporting five measures relating to the overt allocation of attention across 10 category learning experiments: accuracy, probability of fixating irrelevant information, number of fixations to category features, the amount of change in the allocation of attention (using a new measure called Time Proportion Shift - TIPS), and a measure of the relationship between attention change and erroneous responses. Using these measures, the data suggest that eye-movements are not substantially connected to error in most cases and that aggregate trial-by-trial attention change is generally stable across a number of changing task variables. The data presented here provide a target for computational models that aim to account for changes in overt attentional behaviors across learning.