Validation of SplitVectors Encoding for Quantitative Visualization of Large-Magnitude-Range Vector Fields
We designed and evaluated SplitVectors, a new vector field display approach to help scientists perform new discrimination tasks on large-magnitude-range scientific data shown in three-dimensional (3D) visualization environments. SplitVectors uses scientific notation to display vector magnitude, thus...
| Veröffentlicht in: | IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics. - 1996. - 23(2017), 6 vom: 15. Juni, Seite 1691-1705 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Weitere Verfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Online-Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2017
|
| Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk: | IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics |
| Schlagworte: | Journal Article Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. |
| Zusammenfassung: | We designed and evaluated SplitVectors, a new vector field display approach to help scientists perform new discrimination tasks on large-magnitude-range scientific data shown in three-dimensional (3D) visualization environments. SplitVectors uses scientific notation to display vector magnitude, thus improving legibility. We present an empirical study comparing the SplitVectors approach with three other approaches - direct linear representation, logarithmic, and text display commonly used in scientific visualizations. Twenty participants performed three domain analysis tasks: reading numerical values (a discrimination task), finding the ratio between values (a discrimination task), and finding the larger of two vectors (a pattern detection task). Participants used both mono and stereo conditions. Our results suggest the following: (1) SplitVectors improve accuracy by about 10 times compared to linear mapping and by four times to logarithmic in discrimination tasks; (2) SplitVectors have no significant differences from the textual display approach, but reduce cluttering in the scene; (3) SplitVectors and textual display are less sensitive to data scale than linear and logarithmic approaches; (4) using logarithmic can be problematic as participants' confidence was as high as directly reading from the textual display, but their accuracy was poor; and (5) Stereoscopy improved performance, especially in more challenging discrimination tasks |
|---|---|
| Beschreibung: | Date Completed 24.10.2018 Date Revised 08.10.2019 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
| ISSN: | 1941-0506 |
| DOI: | 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2539949 |