Literature DB >> 34846520

Two graphs walk into a bar: Readout-based measurement reveals the Bar-Tip Limit error, a common, categorical misinterpretation of mean bar graphs.

Sarah H Kerns1,2, Jeremy B Wilmer1,3.   

Abstract

How do viewers interpret graphs that abstract away from individual-level data to present only summaries of data such as means, intervals, distribution shapes, or effect sizes? Here, focusing on the mean bar graph as a prototypical example of such an abstracted presentation, we contribute three advances to the study of graph interpretation. First, we distill principles for Measurement of Abstract Graph Interpretation (MAGI principles) to guide the collection of valid interpretation data from viewers who may vary in expertise. Second, using these principles, we create the Draw Datapoints on Graphs (DDoG) measure, which collects drawn readouts (concrete, detailed, visuospatial records of thought) as a revealing window into each person's interpretation of a given graph. Third, using this new measure, we discover a common, categorical error in the interpretation of mean bar graphs: the Bar-Tip Limit (BTL) error. The BTL error is an apparent conflation of mean bar graphs with count bar graphs. It occurs when the raw data are assumed to be limited by the bar-tip, as in a count bar graph, rather than distributed across the bar-tip, as in a mean bar graph. In a large, demographically diverse sample, we observe the BTL error in about one in five persons; across educational levels, ages, and genders; and despite thoughtful responding and relevant foundational knowledge. The BTL error provides a case-in-point that simplification via abstraction in graph design can risk severe, high-prevalence misinterpretation. The ease with which our readout-based DDoG measure reveals the nature and likely cognitive mechanisms of the BTL error speaks to the value of both its readout-based approach and the MAGI principles that guided its creation. We conclude that mean bar graphs may be misinterpreted by a large portion of the population, and that enhanced measurement tools and strategies, like those introduced here, can fuel progress in the scientific study of graph interpretation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34846520      PMCID: PMC8648051          DOI: 10.1167/jov.21.12.17

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  47 in total

1.  Biosocial factors, sexual orientation and neurocognitive functioning.

Authors:  Qazi Rahman; Glenn D Wilson; Sharon Abrahams
Journal:  Psychoneuroendocrinology       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.905

2.  Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory.

Authors:  Weiwei Zhang; Steven J Luck
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Speed of processing in the human visual system.

Authors:  S Thorpe; D Fize; C Marlot
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1996-06-06       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  General object recognition is specific: Evidence from novel and familiar objects.

Authors:  Jennifer J Richler; Jeremy B Wilmer; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2017-05-26

5.  Beyond differences in means: robust graphical methods to compare two groups in neuroscience.

Authors:  Guillaume A Rousselet; Cyril R Pernet; Rand R Wilcox
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 3.386

6.  Object recognition with severe spatial deficits in Williams syndrome: sparing and breakdown.

Authors:  Barbara Landau; James E Hoffman; Nicole Kurz
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2005-09-26

7.  Error Bars Considered Harmful: Exploring Alternate Encodings for Mean and Error.

Authors:  Michael Correll; Michael Gleicher
Journal:  IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.579

8.  Imagining Replications: Graphical Prediction & Discrete Visualizations Improve Recall & Estimation of Effect Uncertainty.

Authors:  Jessica Hullman; Matthew Kay; Yea-Seul Kim; Samana Shrestha
Journal:  IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 4.579

9.  Reflecting on Graphs: Attributes of Graph Choice and Construction Practices in Biology.

Authors:  Aakanksha Angra; Stephanie M Gardner
Journal:  CBE Life Sci Educ       Date:  2017       Impact factor: 3.325

10.  Capturing specific abilities as a window into human individuality: the example of face recognition.

Authors:  Jeremy B Wilmer; Laura Germine; Christopher F Chabris; Garga Chatterjee; Margaret Gerbasi; Ken Nakayama
Journal:  Cogn Neuropsychol       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.468

View more
  1 in total

1.  Replacing bar graphs of continuous data with more informative graphics: are we making progress?

Authors:  Nico Riedel; Robert Schulz; Vartan Kazezian; Tracey Weissgerber
Journal:  Clin Sci (Lond)       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 6.876

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.