Examining Effort in 1D Uncertainty Communication Using Individual Differences in Working Memory and NASA-TLX
Spencer C. Castro, P. Samuel Quinan, Helia Hosseinpour, Lace M. K. Padilla
Abstract
As uncertainty visualizations for general audiences become increasingly common, designers must understand the full impact of uncertainty communication techniques on viewers' decision processes. Prior work demonstrates mixed performance outcomes with respect to how individuals make decisions using various visual and textual depictions of uncertainty. Part of the inconsistency across findings may be due to an over-reliance on task accuracy, which cannot, on its own, provide a comprehensive understanding of how uncertainty visualization techniques support reasoning processes. In this work, we advance the debate surrounding the efficacy of modern 1D uncertainty visualizations by conducting converging quantitative and qualitative analyses of both the effort and strategies used by individuals when provided with quantile dotplots, density plots, interval plots, mean plots, and textual descriptions of uncertainty. We utilize two approaches for examining effort across uncertainty communication techniques: a measure of individual differences in working-memory capacity known as an operation span (OSPAN) task and self-reports of perceived workload via the NASA-TLX. The results reveal that both visualization methods and working-memory capacity impact participants' decisions. Specifically, quantile dotplots and density plots (i.e., distributional annotations) result in more accurate judgments than interval plots, textual descriptions of uncertainty, and mean plots (i.e., summary annotations). Additionally, participants' open-ended responses suggest that individuals viewing distributional annotations are more likely to employ a strategy that explicitly incorporates uncertainty into their judgments than those viewing summary annotations. When comparing quantile dotplots to density plots, this work finds that both methods are equally effective for low-working-memory individuals. However, for individuals with high-working-memory capacity, quantile dotplots evoke more accurate responses with less perceived effort. Given these results, we advocate for the inclusion of converging behavioral and subjective workload metrics in addition to accuracy performance to further disambiguate meaningful differences among visualization techniques.
Ask about this paper
Ask your agent about it.
Lune has read the top-tier papers around this one, so every answer names the papers it rests on.
Your agent calls
Lunesearch_papers
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers get 74a16e14-b77e-424f-ae3e-dc089893ae3cCited by top-tier papers8
- Seeing What You Believe or Believing What You See? Belief Biases Correlation EstimationCindy Xiong, Chase Stokes, Yea-Seul Kim, Steven FranconeriIEEE VIS 2022 · 49 citations
- From Information to Choice: A Critical Inquiry Into Visualization Tools for Decision MakingEmre Oral, Ria Chawla, Michel Wijkstra, Narges Mahyar et al.IEEE VIS 2023 · 31 citations
- Evaluating the Use of Uncertainty Visualisations for Imputations of Data Missing At Random in ScatterplotsAbhraneel Sarma, Shunan Guo, Jane Hoffswell, Ryan A. Rossi et al.IEEE VIS 2022 · 19 citations
- Why Combining Text and Visualization Could Improve Bayesian Reasoning: A Cognitive Load PerspectiveMelanie Bancilhon, Amanda Wright, Sunwoo Ha, R. Jordan Crouser et al.CHI 2023 · 18 citations
- Studying Early Decision Making with Progressive Bar ChartsAmeya B. Patil, Gaëlle Richer, Christopher Jermaine, Dominik Moritz et al.IEEE VIS 2022 · 11 citations
Related papers
- Visual Reasoning Strategies for Effect Size Judgments and DecisionsAlex Kale, Matthew Kay, Jessica HullmanIEEE VIS 2020 · 112 citations
- A Bayesian cognition approach for belief updating of correlation judgement through uncertainty visualizationsAlireza Karduni, Douglas Markant, Ryan Wesslen, Wenwen DouIEEE VIS 2020 · 34 citations
- Swaying the Public? Impacts of Election Forecast Visualizations on Emotion, Trust, and Intention in the 2022 U.S. MidtermsFumeng Yang, Mandi Cai, Chloe Mortenson, Hoda Fakhari et al.IEEE VIS 2023 · 30 citations
- Multiple Forecast Visualizations (MFVs): Trade-offs in Trust and Performance in Multiple COVID-19 Forecast VisualizationsLace M. K. Padilla, Racquel Fygenson, Spencer C. Castro, Enrico BertiniIEEE VIS 2022 · 43 citations
- How Visualizing Inferential Uncertainty Can Mislead Readers About Treatment Effects in Scientific ResultsJake M. Hofman, Daniel G. Goldstein, Jessica HullmanCHI 2020 · 83 citations
