CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11Data Visualization and AnalyticsVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesSpatial Cognition and Navigation

Representation control increases task efficiency in complex graphical representations

Open access
Moritz, Julia, Meyerhoff, Hauke S., Meyer-Dernbecher, Claudia, Schwan, Stephan·2018·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0196420PMC PMC5919614
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In complex graphical representations, the relevant information for a specific task is often distributed across multiple spatial locations. In such situations, understanding the representation requires internal transformation processes in order to extract the relevant information. However, digital technology enables observers to alter the spatial arrangement of depicted information and therefore to offload the transformation processes. The objective of this study was to investigate the use of such a representation control (i.e. the users' option to decide how information should be displayed) in order to accomplish an information extraction task in terms of solution time and accuracy. In the representation control condition, the participants were allowed to reorganize the graphical representation and reduce information density. In the control condition, no interactive features were offered. We observed that participants in the representation control condition solved tasks that required reorganization of the maps faster and more accurate than participants without representation control. The present findings demonstrate how processes of cognitive offloading, spatial contiguity, and information coherence interact in knowledge media intended for broad and diverse groups of recipients.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0196420

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Frequent externalisation of internal cognitive processes leads to an impoverishment of the corresponding internal abilities.

    “a common concern states that frequent externalisation of internal cognitive processes leads to an impoverishment of the corresponding internal abilities. This concern has received empirical support from findings on spatial memory (e.g., Fenech et al., 2010; Gardony et al., 2015), problem solving (Moritz et al., 2018, 2020; O’Hara & Payne, 1998; Van Nimwegen & Van Oostendorp, 2009), as well as the”

    From Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory (2021) · cites this paper as Moritz et al., 2018

    The Introduction describes externalising cognitive processes in problem-solving tasks, and the Discussion reports that this offloading increased task efficiency. But the Discussion also says the study did not measure participants’ abilities, so it provides no empirical support for the claimed impoverishment of internal abilities through frequent externalisation (pages unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 47 · Cited by 11

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. [1]Börner K. Atlas of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2010.
  2. [3]Bertin J. Semiology of Graphics Diagrams, Networks, Maps. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press; 1967.
  3. [4]Hegarty M, Smallman HS, Stull AT. Choosing and using geospatial displays: Effects of design on performance and metacognition. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2012; 18(1): 1– 17. doi: 10.1037/a0026625 22250838 · DOI
  4. [5]Locoro A, Cabitza F, Actis-Grosso R, Batini C. Static and interactive infographics in daily tasks: A value-in-use and quality of interaction user study. Comput Human Behav. 2017; 71: 240– 57.
  5. [6]Cary M, Carlson RA. External support and the development of problem-solving routines. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999; 25(4): 1053– 70.
  6. [9]Scaife M, Rogers Y. External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int J. 1996; 45(2): 185– 213.
  7. [10]Liu Z, Stasko JT. Mental Models, Visual Reasoning and Interaction in Information Visualization: A Top-down Perspective. 2010;(3). doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2010.177 20975137 · DOI
  8. [11]Risko EF, Medimorec S, Chisholm J, Kingstone A. Rotating With Rotated Text: A Natural Behavior Approach to Investigating Cognitive Offloading. Cogn Sci. 2014; 38(3): 537– 64. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12087 24070616 · DOI
  9. [13]Ballard DH, Hayhoe MM, Pelz JB. Memory Representations in Natural Tasks. J Cogn Neurosci. 1995; 7(1): 66– 80. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1995.7.1.66 23961754 · DOI · Paper page
  10. [14]Patrick J, Morgan P, Smy V, Tiley L, Seeby H, Patrick T, et al The influence of training and experience on memory strategy. Mem Cognit. 2015; 43(5): 775– 787 13p. doi: 10.3758/s13421-014-0501-3 25591501 · DOI
  11. [18]Gilbert SJ. Strategic use of reminders: Influence of both domain-general and task-specific metacognitive confidence, independent of objective memory ability. Conscious Cogn. 2015; 33: 245– 60. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2015.01.006 25666463 · DOI
  12. [19]Scheiter K. The Learner Control Principle in Multimedia Learning In: Mayer RE, editor. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. 2nd ed New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2014 p. 487– 512.
  13. [20]Scheiter K, Gerjets P. Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educ Psychol Rev. 2007; 19(3): 285– 307.
  14. [21]Kirsh D. The intelligent use of space. Artif Intell. 1995; 73(94): 31– 68.
  15. [22]Mayer RE, editor. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. 2nd ed New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
  16. [23]Moreno R, Mayer RE. Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. J Educ Psychol. 1999; 91(2): 358– 68.
  17. [24]Mwangi W, Sweller J. Learning to Solve Compare Word Problems: The Effect of Example Format and Generating Self-Explanations. 1998; 16(2): 173– 99.
  18. [25]Tufte ER. The visual display of quantitative information. 2nd ed Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 1983.
  19. [26]Mayer RE. Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educ Psychol. 1997; 32(1): 1– 19.
  20. [27]Tarmizi RA, Sweller J. Guidance during mathematical problem solving. J Educ Psychol. 1988; 80(4): 424– 36.
  21. [28]Ayres P, Sweller J. The split-attention principle in multimedia learning In: Mayer RE, editor. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2014 p. 206– 26.
  22. [30]Johnson CI, Mayer RE. An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2012; 18(2): 178– 91. doi: 10.1037/a0026923 22309059 · DOI
  23. [31]Bauhoff V, Huff M, Schwan S. Distance matters: Spatial contiguity effects as trade-off between gaze switches and memory load. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2012; 26(6): 863– 71.
  24. [32]Hardiess G, Gillner S, Mallot HA. Head and eye movements and the role of memory limitations in a visual search paradigm. J Vis. 2008; 8(1):7.1–13. 18318610
  25. [34]Hegarty M, Canham MS, Fabrikant SI. Thinking about the weather: How display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010; 36(1): 37– 53. doi: 10.1037/a0017683 20053043 · DOI
  26. [36]Lowe RK. Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learn Instr. 2003; 13(2): 157– 76.
  27. [37]Canham M, Hegarty M. Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learn Instr. 2010; 20(2): 155– 66.
  28. [38]Hegarty M. Cognition, Metacognition, and the Design of Maps. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2013; 22(1): 3– 9.
  29. [39]Hegarty M, Smallman HS, Stull AT, Canham MS. Naïve Cartography: How Intuitions about Display Configuration Can Hurt Performance. Cartogr Int J Geogr Inf Geovisualization. 2009; 44(3): 171– 86.
  30. [41]Bates DM, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. 2015; 67(1): 1– 48.
  31. [44]Mayer RE, Fiorella L. Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning: Coherence, Signaling, Redundancy, Spatial Contiguity, and Temporal Contiguity. In: The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. 2005 p. 279– 315.
  32. [45]Meyerhoff HS, Huff M, Papenmeier F, Jahn G, Schwan S. Continuous visual cues trigger automatic spatial target updating in dynamic scenes. Cognition. 2011; 121(1): 73– 82. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.001 21726856 · DOI
  33. [46]Azevedo FS. Designing representations of terrain: a study in meta-representational competence. J Math Behav. 2000; 19: 443– 80.
  34. [47]Disessa AA. Metarepresentation: Native Competence and Targets for Instruction. Cogn Instr. 2004; 22(3): 293– 331.
  35. [50]Tichenor PJ, Donohue GA, Olien CN. Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge. Public Opin Q. 1970; 34(2): 159– 70.
  36. [52]Pike WA, Stasko J, Chang R, O’Connell TA. The science of interaction. Inf Vis. 2009; 8(4): 263– 74.

Authors
Moritz, J., Meyerhoff, H. S., Meyer-Dernbecher, C., & Schwan, S.
Affiliations
Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien (DE)
Corresponding author
Moritz, Julia
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2018-04-26
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
e0196420
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0196420
PMC
PMC5919614
OpenAlex
W2799964237
Cited by
11
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Leibniz-Gemeinschaft
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
Keywords
cognitive offloading, spatial contiguity, informational coherence, information density, interactive maps, information extraction, task efficiency, knowledge media
MeSH terms
Adult, Computer Graphics, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Reaction Time, Task Performance and Analysis, User-Computer Interface, Young Adult

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