Examining Effort in 1D Uncertainty Communication Using Individual Differences in Working Memory and NASA-TLX

IF 4.7 1区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics Pub Date : 2021-08-10 DOI:10.31234/osf.io/wpz8b
Spencer C. Castro, P. S. Quinan, Helia Hosseinpour, Lace M. K. Padilla
{"title":"Examining Effort in 1D Uncertainty Communication Using Individual Differences in Working Memory and NASA-TLX","authors":"Spencer C. Castro, P. S. Quinan, Helia Hosseinpour, Lace M. K. Padilla","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/wpz8b","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As uncertainty visualizations for general audiences become increasingly common, designers must understand the full impact of uncertainty communication techniques on viewers' decision processes. Prior work demonstrates mixed performance outcomes with respect to how individuals make decisions using various visual and textual depictions of uncertainty. Part of the inconsistency across findings may be due to an over-reliance on task accuracy, which cannot, on its own, provide a comprehensive understanding of how uncertainty visualization techniques support reasoning processes. In this work, we advance the debate surrounding the efficacy of modern 1D uncertainty visualizations by conducting converging quantitative and qualitative analyses of both the effort and strategies used by individuals when provided with quantile dotplots, density plots, interval plots, mean plots, and textual descriptions of uncertainty. We utilize two approaches for examining effort across uncertainty communication techniques: a measure of individual differences in working-memory capacity known as an operation span (OSPAN) task and self-reports of perceived workload via the NASA-TLX. The results reveal that both visualization methods and working-memory capacity impact participants' decisions. Specifically, quantile dotplots and density plots (i.e., distributional annotations) result in more accurate judgments than interval plots, textual descriptions of uncertainty, and mean plots (i.e., summary annotations). Additionally, participants' open-ended responses suggest that individuals viewing distributional annotations are more likely to employ a strategy that explicitly incorporates uncertainty into their judgments than those viewing summary annotations. When comparing quantile dotplots to density plots, this work finds that both methods are equally effective for low-working-memory individuals. However, for individuals with high-working-memory capacity, quantile dotplots evoke more accurate responses with less perceived effort. Given these results, we advocate for the inclusion of converging behavioral and subjective workload metrics in addition to accuracy performance to further disambiguate meaningful differences among visualization techniques.","PeriodicalId":13376,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics","volume":" ","pages":"1-1"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wpz8b","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

As uncertainty visualizations for general audiences become increasingly common, designers must understand the full impact of uncertainty communication techniques on viewers' decision processes. Prior work demonstrates mixed performance outcomes with respect to how individuals make decisions using various visual and textual depictions of uncertainty. Part of the inconsistency across findings may be due to an over-reliance on task accuracy, which cannot, on its own, provide a comprehensive understanding of how uncertainty visualization techniques support reasoning processes. In this work, we advance the debate surrounding the efficacy of modern 1D uncertainty visualizations by conducting converging quantitative and qualitative analyses of both the effort and strategies used by individuals when provided with quantile dotplots, density plots, interval plots, mean plots, and textual descriptions of uncertainty. We utilize two approaches for examining effort across uncertainty communication techniques: a measure of individual differences in working-memory capacity known as an operation span (OSPAN) task and self-reports of perceived workload via the NASA-TLX. The results reveal that both visualization methods and working-memory capacity impact participants' decisions. Specifically, quantile dotplots and density plots (i.e., distributional annotations) result in more accurate judgments than interval plots, textual descriptions of uncertainty, and mean plots (i.e., summary annotations). Additionally, participants' open-ended responses suggest that individuals viewing distributional annotations are more likely to employ a strategy that explicitly incorporates uncertainty into their judgments than those viewing summary annotations. When comparing quantile dotplots to density plots, this work finds that both methods are equally effective for low-working-memory individuals. However, for individuals with high-working-memory capacity, quantile dotplots evoke more accurate responses with less perceived effort. Given these results, we advocate for the inclusion of converging behavioral and subjective workload metrics in addition to accuracy performance to further disambiguate meaningful differences among visualization techniques.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用工作记忆和NASA-TLX的个体差异研究一维不确定性沟通的努力
随着面向普通观众的不确定性可视化变得越来越普遍,设计师必须了解不确定性沟通技术对观众决策过程的全面影响。先前的工作证明了个人如何使用各种视觉和文本描述不确定性来做出决策的混合绩效结果。结果之间的不一致部分可能是由于对任务准确性的过度依赖,它本身不能提供对不确定性可视化技术如何支持推理过程的全面理解。在这项工作中,我们通过对个人在提供分位数点图、密度图、间隔图、平均图和不确定性文本描述时所使用的努力和策略进行收敛的定量和定性分析,推进了围绕现代一维不确定性可视化效果的辩论。我们利用两种方法来检查不确定性沟通技术的努力:工作记忆容量的个体差异测量,即操作跨度(osspan)任务和通过NASA-TLX感知工作量的自我报告。结果表明,可视化方法和工作记忆容量都影响被试的决策。具体来说,分位数点图和密度图(即分布注释)比区间图、不确定性的文本描述和平均图(即摘要注释)产生更准确的判断。此外,参与者的开放式回答表明,与查看摘要注释的人相比,查看分布式注释的人更有可能采用一种明确地将不确定性纳入其判断的策略。当比较分位数点图和密度图时,这项工作发现这两种方法对低工作记忆个体同样有效。然而,对于具有高工作记忆容量的个体,分位数点图用较少的感知努力唤起更准确的反应。鉴于这些结果,我们提倡除了准确性性能之外,还包括收敛的行为和主观工作负载指标,以进一步消除可视化技术之间有意义的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics
IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
19.20%
发文量
946
审稿时长
4.5 months
期刊介绍: TVCG is a scholarly, archival journal published monthly. Its Editorial Board strives to publish papers that present important research results and state-of-the-art seminal papers in computer graphics, visualization, and virtual reality. Specific topics include, but are not limited to: rendering technologies; geometric modeling and processing; shape analysis; graphics hardware; animation and simulation; perception, interaction and user interfaces; haptics; computational photography; high-dynamic range imaging and display; user studies and evaluation; biomedical visualization; volume visualization and graphics; visual analytics for machine learning; topology-based visualization; visual programming and software visualization; visualization in data science; virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality; advanced display technology, (e.g., 3D, immersive and multi-modal displays); applications of computer graphics and visualization.
期刊最新文献
EventPointMesh: Human Mesh Recovery Solely From Event Point Clouds A Review and Analysis of Evaluation Practices in VIS Domain Applications HINTs: Sensemaking on large collections of documents with Hypergraph visualization and INTelligent agents RSVP for VPSA : A Meta Design Study on Rapid Suggestive Visualization Prototyping for Visual Parameter Space Analysis 3D Shape Completion on Unseen Categories: A Weakly-Supervised Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1