The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Cognitive Model for Understanding Graphical Perception
Abstract
This article describes a computer program, UCIE (Understanding Cognitive Information Engineering) that simulates graphical perception. UCIE predicts response time to answer a question posed to a graphic display from assumptions about the sequence of eye fixations, short-term memory capacity and duration limits, and the degree of difficulty to acquire information in each glance. An empirical study compared actual performance to UCIE predictions over a range of display types and question types. The results yielded some support for the cognitive model. A zero-parameter model explains 37% of the variance in average reaction times (N = 1,128). However, the zero-parameter model only explains about 10% of the individual variation in reaction times across 28 subjects (N = 15,200). Although this is an important start to understand how we interpret visual displays for meaning, additional research is needed to explain individual differences in performance.
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
A spreading activation theory of memory.
Anderson, J. R. (1983) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(83)90201-3 · Cited by 2,199
Chunking in recall of symbolic drawings
Egan, D. E., & Schwartz, B. J. (1979) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03197595 · Cited by 482
Displaying proportions and percentages
Spence, I., & Lewandowsky, S. (1991) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.2350050106 · Cited by 162
Analysis of the Cognition Involved in Spreadsheet Software Interaction
Olson, J. R., & Nilsen, E. (1987) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0304_1 · Cited by 115
Cited by
Making Sense of Graphs: Critical Factors Influencing Comprehension and Instructional Implications
Friel, S. N., Curcio, F. R., & Bright, G. W. (2001) · Journal for Research in Mathematics Education · doi:10.2307/749671 · Cited by 819
Review of Graph Comprehension Research: Implications for Instruction
Shah, P., & Hoeffner, J. (2002) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1023/a:1013180410169 · Cited by 431
Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication
Zacks, J., & Tversky, B. (1999) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03201236 · Cited by 300
Confusion in internet retailing: causes and consequences
Garaus, M. (2018) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-11-2016-0356 · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Lohse, G. L.
- Venue
- Human–Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1993-12
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 353-388
- ISSN
- 0737-0024 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7051
- OpenAlex
- W2083009591
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 3.57
- 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
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.