↓ Skip to main content

Visual routines are associated with specific graph interpretations

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Visual routines are associated with specific graph interpretations
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41235-017-0059-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Audrey L. Michal, Steven L. Franconeri

Abstract

We argue that people compare values in graphs with a visual routine - attending to data values in an ordered pattern over time. Do these visual routines exist to manage capacity limitations in how many values can be encoded at once, or do they actually affect the relations that are extracted? We measured eye movements while people judged configurations of a two-bar graph based on size only ("[short tall] or [tall short]?") and contrast only ("[light dark] or [dark light]?"). Participants exhibited visual routines in which they systematically attended to a specific feature (or "anchor point") in the graph; in the size task, most participants inspected the taller bar first, and in the contrast task, most participants attended to the darker bar first. Participants then judged configurations that varied in both size and contrast (e.g., [short-light tall-dark]); however, only one dimension was task-relevant (varied between subjects). During this orthogonal task, participants overwhelmingly relied on the same anchor point used in the single-dimension version, but only for the task-relevant dimension (e.g., taller bar for the size-relevant task). These results suggest that visual routines are associated with specific graph interpretations. Responses were also faster when task-relevant and task-irrelevant anchor points appeared on the same object (congruent) than on different objects (incongruent). This interference from the task-irrelevant dimension suggests that top-down control may be necessary to extract relevant relations from graphs. The effect of visual routines on graph comprehension has implications for both science, technology, engineering, and mathematics pedagogy and graph design.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 29%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 12 29%
Unknown 7 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 November 2019.
All research outputs
#13,316,630
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#217
of 318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,062
of 309,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.1. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,710 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.