The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Effects of Interactive Latency on Exploratory Visual Analysis
Abstract
To support effective exploration, it is often stated that interactive visualizations should provide rapid response times. However, the effects of interactive latency on the process and outcomes of exploratory visual analysis have not been systematically studied. We present an experiment measuring user behavior and knowledge discovery with interactive visualizations under varying latency conditions. We observe that an additional delay of 500 ms incurs significant costs, decreasing user activity and data set coverage. Analyzing verbal data from think-aloud protocols, we find that increased latency reduces the rate at which users make observations, draw generalizations and generate hypotheses. Moreover, we note interaction effects in which initial exposure to higher latencies leads to subsequently reduced performance in a low-latency setting. Overall, increased latency causes users to shift exploration strategy, in turn affecting performance. We discuss how these results can inform the design of interactive analysis tools.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 · Cited by 10,328
Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition
Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., Pook, P. K., & Rao, R. P. N. (1997) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x97001611 · Cited by 1,082
Memory Representations in Natural Tasks
Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., & Pelz, J. B. (1995) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.1995.7.1.66 · Cited by 817
Krueger, C., & Tian, L. (2004) · Biological Research For Nursing · doi:10.1177/1099800404267682 · Cited by 561 · cited 6×
“As no single subject experienced all combinations of factors, repeated measures ANOVA is subject to sampling bias and higher chances of type I error [32] .”
BackgroundInfluentialApproximate Power for Repeated-Measures ANOVA Lacking Sphericity
Muller, K. E., & Barton, C. N. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2289941 · Cited by 177
The Effects of Operator Implementation Cost on Planfulness of Problem Solving and Learning
O'Hara, K. P., & Payne, S. J. (1998) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1997.0676 · Cited by 155
Cited by
Approximated and User Steerable tSNE for Progressive Visual Analytics
Pezzotti, N., Lelieveldt, B. P. F., Maaten, L. V. D., Hollt, T., Eisemann, E., & Vilanova, A. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2016.2570755 · Cited by 308
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, Z., & Heer, J.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics
- Published
- 2014-12-31
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2122-2131
- ISSN
- 1077-2626 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2002544066
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 21.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Effects of Interactive Latency on Exploratory Visual Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tvcg.2014.2346452
- The paper
- Liu, Z., & Heer, J. (2014). The Effects of Interactive Latency on Exploratory Visual Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. https://doi.org/10.1109/tvcg.2014.2346452
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.