skip to main content
10.1145/2858036.2858155acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Honorable Mention

Towards Understanding Human Similarity Perception in the Analysis of Large Sets of Scatter Plots

Published:07 May 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present a study aimed at understanding how human observers judge scatter plot similarity when presented with a large set of iconic scatter plot representations. The work we present involves 18 participants with a scientific background in a similarity perception study. The study asks participants to group a carefully selected set of plots according to their subjective perceptual judgement of similarity, and it integrates the results into a consensus similarity grouping. We then use this consensus grouping to generate insights on similarity perception. The main output of this work is a list of concepts we derive to describe major perceptual features, and a description of how these concepts relate and rank. We also evaluate scagnostics (scatter plot diagnostics), a popular and established set of scatter plot descriptors, and show that they do not reliably reproduce our participants judgements. Finally, we discuss the major implications of this study and how these results can be used for future research.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Georgia Albuquerque, Martin Eisemann, and Marcus Magnor. 2011. Perception-based visual quality measures. In Proc. of IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST). 13-20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Anushka Anand, Leland Wilkinson, and Tuan Nhon Dang. 2012. Visual pattern discovery using random projections. In Proc. of IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST). 43-52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Mihael Ankerst, Stefan Berchtold, and Daniel A Keim. 1998. Similarity clustering of dimensions for an enhanced visualization of multidimensional data. In Proc. of IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization. 52-60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Enrico Bertini and Giuseppe Santucci. 2004. Quality metrics for 2d scatterplot graphics: automatically reducing visual clutter. In Smart Graphics. Springer, 77-89.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Enrico Bertini, Andrada Tatu, and Daniel Keim. 2011. Quality metrics in high-dimensional data visualization: An overview and systematization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 17, 12 (2011), 2203-2212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Ingwer Borg, Patrick JF Groenen, and Patrick Mair. 2012. Applied multidimensional scaling. Springer Science & Business Media. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Qingguang Cui, Matthew O Ward, Elke A Rundensteiner, and Jing Yang. 2006. Measuring data abstraction quality in multiresolution visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 12, 5 (2006), 709-716. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Tuan Nhon Dang and Leland Wilkinson. 2014. Scagexplorer: Exploring scatterplots by their scagnostics. In Proc. of IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (PacificVis). 73-80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Aritra Dasgupta and Robert Kosara. 2010. Pargnostics: Screen-space metrics for parallel coordinates. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 16, 6 (2010), 1017-1026. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Çağatay Demiralp, Michael S Bernstein, and Jeffrey Heer. 2014. Learning Perceptual Kernels for Visualization Design. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 20, 12 (2014), 1933-1942.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Bilkis J Ferdosi, Hugo Buddelmeijer, Scott Trager, Michael Wilkinson, and Jos Roerdink. 2010. Finding and visualizing relevant subspaces for clustering high-dimensional astronomical data using connected morphological operators. In Proc. of IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST). 35-42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Johannes Fuchs, Petra Isenberg, Anastasia Bezerianos, Fabian Fischer, and Enrico Bertini. 2014. The Influence of Contour on Similarity Perception of Star Glyphs. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 20, 12 (2014), 2251-2260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Lane Harrison, Fumeng Yang, Steven Franconeri, and Remco Chang. 2014. Ranking visualizations of correlation using weber's law. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 20, 12 (2014), 1943-1952.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. John D Hunter. 2007. Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Computing In Science & Engineering 9, 3 (2007), 90-95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ilknur Icke and Andrew Rosenberg. 2011. Automated measures for interpretable dimensionality reduction for visual classification: A user study. In Proc. of IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST). 281-282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Ilknur Icke and Andrew Rosenberg. 2012. Visual and semantic interpretability of projections of high dimensional data for classification tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1205.4776 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jimmy Johansson and Matthew Cooper. 2008. A screen space quality method for data abstraction. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 27. Wiley Online Library, 1039-1046. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Sara Johansson and Jimmy Johansson. 2009. Interactive dimensionality reduction through user-defined combinations of quality metrics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 15, 6 (2009), 993-1000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Jing Li, Jean-Bernard Martens, and Jarke J Van Wijk. 2010. Judging correlation from scatterplots and parallel coordinate plots. Information Visualization 9, 1 (2010), 13-30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A Chris Long Jr, James A Landay, Lawrence A Rowe, and Joseph Michiels. 2000. Visual similarity of pen gestures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 360-367. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Wei Peng, Matthew O Ward, and Elke A Rundensteiner. 2004. Clutter reduction in multi-dimensional data visualization using dimension reordering. In Proc. of IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis). IEEE, 89-96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Ronald A Rensink and Gideon Baldridge. 2010. The perception of correlation in scatterplots. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 29. Wiley Online Library, 1203-1210. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. David N Reshef, Yakir A Reshef, Hilary K Finucane, Sharon R Grossman, Gilean McVean, Peter J Turnbaugh, Eric S Lander, Michael Mitzenmacher, and Pardis C Sabeti. 2011. Detecting novel associations in large data sets. Science 334, 6062 (2011), 1518-1524.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Bernice E Rogowitz, Thomas Frese, John R Smith, Charles A Bouman, and Edward B Kalin. 1998. Perceptual image similarity experiments. In Photonics West'98 Electronic Imaging. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 576-590.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Eleanor Rosch, Carolyn B Mervis, Wayne D Gray, David M Johnson, and Penny Boyes-Braem. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive psychology 8, 3 (1976), 382-439.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Jörn Schneidewind, Mike Sips, and Daniel A Keim. 2007. An automated approach for the optimization of pixel-based visualizations. Information Visualization 6, 1 (2007), 75-88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Michael Sedlmair and Michaël Aupetit. 2014. Data-driven Evaluation of Visual Quality Measures. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 34. Wiley Online Library, 201-210. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Michael Sedlmair, Andrada Tatu, Tamara Munzner, and Melanie Tory. 2012. A taxonomy of visual cluster separation factors. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 31. Wiley Online Library, 1335-1344. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Jinwook Seo and Ben Shneiderman. 2005. A rank-by-feature framework for interactive exploration of multidimensional data. Information Visualization 4, 2 (2005), 96-113. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Mike Sips, Boris Neubert, John P Lewis, and Pat Hanrahan. 2009. Selecting good views of high-dimensional data using class consistency. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 28. Wiley Online Library, 831-838. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Donna Spencer. 2009. Card sorting: Designing usable categories. Rosenfeld Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Andrada Tatu, Georgia Albuquerque, Martin Eisemann, Jörn Schneidewind, Holger Theisel, Marcus Magnor, and Daniel Keim. 2009. Combining automated analysis and visualization techniques for effective exploration of high-dimensional data. In Proc. of IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST). 59-66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Edward Tufte. 1991. Envisioning information. Graphics press Cheshire, CT. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Simon Urbanek. 2012. Scagnostics: Compute scagnostics - scatterplot diagnostics. (2012). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ scagnostics/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Liyang Wei, Yongyi Yang, Miles N Wernick, and Robert M Nishikawa. 2009. Learning of perceptual similarity from expert readers for mammogram retrieval. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing 3, 1 (2009), 53-61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Leland Wilkinson, Anushka Anand, and Robert L Grossman. 2005. Graph-Theoretic Scagnostics. In Proc. of IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis). 157-164. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Josh Wills, Sameer Agarwal, David Kriegman, and Serge Belongie. 2009. Toward a perceptual space for gloss. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 28, 4 (2009), 103. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Myron Wish. 1970. Individual differences in perceptions and preferences among nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16, 3 (1970), 361-373.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Towards Understanding Human Similarity Perception in the Analysis of Large Sets of Scatter Plots

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2016
      6108 pages
      ISBN:9781450333627
      DOI:10.1145/2858036

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 May 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '16 Paper Acceptance Rate565of2,435submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader