Serviceeinschränkungen vom 12.-22.02.2026 - weitere Infos auf der UB-Homepage

Treffer: Decision making with visualizations: a cognitive framework across disciplines.

Title:
Decision making with visualizations: a cognitive framework across disciplines.
Authors:
Padilla LM; 1Northwestern University, Evanston, USA.; 2Department of Psychology, University of Utah, 380 S. 1530 E., Room 502, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 USA., Creem-Regehr SH; 2Department of Psychology, University of Utah, 380 S. 1530 E., Room 502, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 USA., Hegarty M; 3Department of Psychology, University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, USA., Stefanucci JK; 2Department of Psychology, University of Utah, 380 S. 1530 E., Room 502, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 USA.
Source:
Cognitive research: principles and implications [Cogn Res Princ Implic] 2018 Jul 11; Vol. 3, pp. 29. Date of Electronic Publication: 2018 Jul 11 (Print Publication: 2018).
Publication Type:
Journal Article; Review
Language:
English
Journal Info:
Publisher: SpringerOpen Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101697632 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2365-7464 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 23657464 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Cogn Res Princ Implic Subsets: PubMed not MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s):
Publication: 2017- : London : SpringerOpen
Original Publication: [London] : Springer, [2016]-
Comments:
Erratum in: Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2018 Sep 2;3:34. doi: 10.1186/s41235-018-0126-3. (PMID: 31329808)
References:
Cognition. 2000 Sep 14;76(3):179-93. (PMID: 10913575)
Ergonomics. 2000 Nov;43(11):1840-65. (PMID: 11105976)
IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2017 Jan;23(1):431-440. (PMID: 27875159)
Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2012 Mar;14(1):77-89. (PMID: 22577307)
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Jan;36(1):37-53. (PMID: 20053043)
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1996 Mar;125(1):4-27. (PMID: 8851737)
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Mar;99(3):448-454. (PMID: 26481910)
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 May;8(3):223-41. (PMID: 26172965)
Risk Anal. 2009 Sep;29(9):1255-64. (PMID: 19572963)
IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2017 Sep;23(9):2165-2178. (PMID: 28113666)
Mem Cognit. 2006 Mar;34(2):344-55. (PMID: 16752598)
Hum Factors. 1992 Jun;34(3):313-34. (PMID: 1634243)
Psychol Bull. 1994 Sep;116(2):220-44. (PMID: 7972591)
Risk Anal. 2005 Jun;25(3):555-66. (PMID: 16022690)
Hum Factors. 2001 Spring;43(1):79-98. (PMID: 11482314)
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2018 Sep;24(3):275-295. (PMID: 29963882)
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2015 Mar;21(1):37-46. (PMID: 25437794)
Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2017;2(1):40. (PMID: 29051918)
Psychon Bull Rev. 2017 Aug;24(4):1158-1170. (PMID: 27896630)
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001 Oct;2(10):704-16. (PMID: 11584308)
Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Apr;18(2):422-8. (PMID: 21327381)
Top Cogn Sci. 2011 Jul;3(3):560-78. (PMID: 25164403)
Med Decis Making. 2005 Jul-Aug;25(4):398-405. (PMID: 16061891)
Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:255-78. (PMID: 18154502)
Cogn Sci. 2008 Jun;32(4):755-70. (PMID: 21635352)
Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:451-82. (PMID: 21126183)
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2007 Mar;13(1):11-21. (PMID: 17385998)
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001 Jun;130(2):169-83. (PMID: 11409097)
Psychol Bull. 2009 Nov;135(6):943-73. (PMID: 19883143)
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2012 Mar;18(1):1-17. (PMID: 22250838)
Cereb Cortex. 2004 Nov;14(11):1256-65. (PMID: 15192010)
Med Decis Making. 2011 May-Jun;31(3):444-57. (PMID: 20671213)
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2016 Dec;22(4):381-392. (PMID: 27732032)
Psychol Methods. 2005 Dec;10(4):389-96. (PMID: 16392994)
Top Cogn Sci. 2011 Jul;3(3):446-74. (PMID: 25164399)
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006 Nov-Dec;13(6):608-18. (PMID: 16929039)
Cognition. 2008 Apr;107(1):343-52. (PMID: 17803985)
Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Aug;19(4):601-7. (PMID: 22648655)
Health Psychol. 2009 Mar;28(2):210-6. (PMID: 19290713)
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009 Nov;4(6):533-50. (PMID: 26161732)
Top Cogn Sci. 2011 Jul;3(3):499-535. (PMID: 25164401)
Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31. (PMID: 17835457)
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996 Aug;71(2):390-405. (PMID: 8765488)
Acad Med. 1998 May;73(5):538-40. (PMID: 9609869)
J Health Commun. 2006 Mar;11(2):167-82. (PMID: 16537286)
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2015 Aug;77(6):1863-80. (PMID: 25911154)
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1996 Jan;22(1):231-9. (PMID: 8648286)
Curr Biol. 2004 Oct 5;14(19):R850-2. (PMID: 15458666)
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2019 Jun;45(6):826-839. (PMID: 30998070)
J Health Commun. 2013;18 Suppl 1:273-89. (PMID: 24093361)
J Neurosci. 2007 Aug 1;27(31):8161-5. (PMID: 17670959)
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: Cognitive model; Decision making with visualizations review; Dual-process; Geospatial visualizations; Graphical decision making; Graphs; Healthcare visualizations; Uncertainty visualizations; Visual-spatial biases; Weather forecast visualizations
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20180922 Latest Revision: 20240330
Update Code:
20250114
PubMed Central ID:
PMC6091269
DOI:
10.1186/s41235-018-0120-9
PMID:
30238055
Database:
MEDLINE

Weitere Informationen

Visualizations-visual representations of information, depicted in graphics-are studied by researchers in numerous ways, ranging from the study of the basic principles of creating visualizations, to the cognitive processes underlying their use, as well as how visualizations communicate complex information (such as in medical risk or spatial patterns). However, findings from different domains are rarely shared across domains though there may be domain-general principles underlying visualizations and their use. The limited cross-domain communication may be due to a lack of a unifying cognitive framework. This review aims to address this gap by proposing an integrative model that is grounded in models of visualization comprehension and a dual-process account of decision making. We review empirical studies of decision making with static two-dimensional visualizations motivated by a wide range of research goals and find significant direct and indirect support for a dual-process account of decision making with visualizations. Consistent with a dual-process model, the first type of visualization decision mechanism produces fast, easy, and computationally light decisions with visualizations. The second facilitates slower, more contemplative, and effortful decisions with visualizations. We illustrate the utility of a dual-process account of decision making with visualizations using four cross-domain findings that may constitute universal visualization principles. Further, we offer guidance for future research, including novel areas of exploration and practical recommendations for visualization designers based on cognitive theory and empirical findings.

LMP is a Ph.D. student at the University of Utah in the Cognitive Neural Science department. LMP is a member of the Visual Perception and Spatial Cognition Research Group directed by Sarah Creem-Regehr, Ph.D., Jeanine Stefanucci, Ph.D., and William Thompson, Ph.D. Her work focuses on graphical cognition, decision making with visualizations, and visual perception. She works on large interdisciplinary projects with visualization scientists and anthropologists. SHC is a Professor in the Psychology Department of the University of Utah. She received her MA and Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Virginia. Her research serves joint goals of developing theories of perception-action processing mechanisms and applying these theories to relevant real-world problems in order to facilitate observers’ understanding of their spatial environments. In particular, her interests are in space perception, spatial cognition, embodied cognition, and virtual environments. She co-authored the book Visual Perception from a Computer Graphics Perspective; previously, she was Associate Editor of Psychonomic Bulletin & Review and Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. MH is a Professor in the Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She received her Ph.D. in Psychology from Carnegie Mellon University. Her research is concerned with spatial cognition, broadly defined, and includes research on small-scale spatial abilities (e.g. mental rotation and perspective taking), large-scale spatial abilities involved in navigation, comprehension of graphics, and the role of spatial cognition in STEM learning. She served as chair of the governing board of the Cognitive Science Society and is associate editor of Topics in Cognitive Science and past Associate Editor of Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. JS is an Associate Professor in the Psychology Department at the University of Utah. She received her M.A. and Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Virginia. Her research focuses on better understanding if a person’s bodily states, whether emotional, physiological, or physical, affects their spatial perception and cognition. She conducts this research in natural settings (outdoor or indoor) and in virtual environments. This work is inherently interdisciplinary given it spans research on emotion, health, spatial perception and cognition, and virtual environments. She is on the editorial boards for the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General and Virtual Environments: Frontiers in Robotics and AI. She also co-authored the book Visual Perception from a Computer Graphics Perspective.The research reported in this paper was conducted in adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki and received IRB approval from the University of Utah, #IRB_00057678. No human subject data were collected for this work; therefore, no consent to participate was acquired.Consent to publish was not required for this review.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.