SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Canham, M., & Hegarty, M. (in press). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction.
  • Carpenter, P. A., & Shah, P. (1998). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 75100.
  • Carswell, C. M. (1992). Choosing specifiers: An evaluation of the basic tasks model of graphical perception. Human Factors, 34, 535554.
  • Carswell, C. M., Emery, C., & Lonon, A. M. (1993). Stimulus complexity and information integration in the spontaneous interpretation of line graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 341357.
  • Carswell, C. M., & Wickens, C. D. (1987). Information integration and the object display: An interaction of task demands and display superiority. Ergonomics, 30, 511527.
  • Cleveland, W. (1993). Visualizing data. Murray Hill, NJ: AT&T Bell Laboratories.
  • Cleveland, W. S., & McGill, R. (1985). Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science, 229, 828833.
  • Fortin, J. M., Hirota, L. K., Bond, B. E., O’Conner, A. M., & Col, N. F. (2001). Identifying patient preferences for communicating risk estimates: A descriptive pilot study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 1, 2.
  • Freedman, E. G., & Shah, P. (2002). Toward a model of knowledge-based graph comprehension. In M.Hegarty, B.Meyer, & N.Hari Narayanan (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (pp. 831). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
  • Friel, S. N., Curcio, F. R., & Bright, G. W. (2001). Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 124158.
  • Gattis, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). Mapping conceptual to spatial relations in visual reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 231239.
  • Hegarty, M. (2005). Multimedia learning about physical systems. In R. E.Mayer (Ed.), Handbook of multimedia (pp. 447465). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension. A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163182.
  • Kriz, S., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 65, 911930.
  • Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 6599.
  • Lowe, R. C. (1993). Successful insructional diagrams. Florence, KY: Routledge.
  • Mautone, P., & Mayer, R. (2007). Cognitive aids for guiding graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 640652.
  • McKenzie, D. L., & Padilla, M. J. (1986). The construction and validation of the Test of Graphing in Science (TOGS). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 571579.
  • McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 143.
  • 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, 2845.
  • Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In R.Freedle (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (pp. 73126). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Ratwani, R., & Trafton, J. (2008). Shedding light on the graph schema: Perceptual features versus invariant structure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 757762.
  • Ratwani, R., Trafton, J., & Boehm-Davis, D. (2008). Thinking graphically: Connecting vision and cognition during graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 3649.
  • Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, G. M. (1999). Complexities of graphical representations during ecology lectures: An analysis rooted in semiotics and hermeneutic phenomenology. Learning and Instruction, 9, 235255.
  • Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, G. M. (2003). When are graphs worth ten thousand words? An expert-expert study. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 429473.
  • Shah, P. (1997). A model of the cognitive and perceptual processes in graphical display comprehension. In M.Anderson (Ed.), Reasoning with diagrammatic representations (pp. 94101). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
  • Shah, P. (2001). Graph comprehension: The role of format, content, and individual differences. In M.Anderson, B.Meyer, & P.Olivier (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and reasoning (pp. 173185). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
  • Shah, P., & Carpenter, P. A. (1995). Conceptual limitations in comprehending line graphs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 4361.
  • Shah, P., Freedman, E., & Vekiri, I. (2005). The comprehension of quantitative information in graphical displays. In P.Shah & A.Miyake (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 426476). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Shah, P., Mayer, R. E., & Hegarty, M. (1999). Graphs as aids to knowledge construction: Signaling techniques for guiding the process of graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 690702.
  • Simcox, W. A. (1984). A method for pragmatic communication in graphic displays. Human Factors, 26, 483487.
  • Simkin, D. K., & Hastie, R. (1986). An information processing analysis of graph perception. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 454465.
  • Smith, L. D., Best, L. A., Stubbs, D. A., Archibald, A. B., & Roberson-Nay, R. (2002). Constructing knowledge: The role of graphs and tables in hard and soft psychology. American Psychologist, 57, 749761.
  • Spence, I., & Lewandowsky, S. (1991). Displaying proportions and percentages. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 6177.
  • Trafton, J. G., Kirschenbaum, S. S., Tsui, T. L., Miyamoto, R. T., Ballas, J. A., & Raymond, P. D. (2000). Turning pictures into numbers: Extracting and generating information from complex visualizations. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 53, 827850.
  • Trafton, J. G., & Trickett, S. B. (2001). A new model of graph and visualization usage. In J. D.Moore & K.Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 10481053). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Trickett, S. B., & Trafton, J. G. (2007). “What if...’’: The use of conceptual simulations in scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 31, 843875.
  • Trickett, S. B., Trafton, J. B., Saner, L., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). “I don't know what's going on there”: The use of spatial transformations to deal with and resolve uncertainty in complex visualizations. In M. C.Lovett, & P.Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 6586). New York: Erlbaum.
  • Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
  • Zacks, J., Levy, E., Tversky, B., & Schiano, D. (2002). Graphs in print. In M.Anderson, B.Meyer, & P.Olivier (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and reasoning (pp. 187206). London: Springer-Verlag.
  • Zacks, J., & Tversky, B. (1999). Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication. Memory & Cognition, 27, 10731079.