Zhao Fang, Gaschler Robert
Research Cluster D2L2, FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany.
Faculty of Psychology, FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany.
Front Psychol. 2021 Dec 24;12:775721. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.775721. eCollection 2021.
Different graph types might differ in group comparison due to differences in underlying graph schemas. Thus, this study examined whether graph schemas are based on perceptual features (i.e., each graph has a specific schema) or common invariant structures (i.e., graphs share several common schemas), and which graphic type (bar vs. dot vs. tally) is the best to compare discrete groups. Three experiments were conducted using the mixing-costs paradigm. Participants received graphs with quantities for three groups in randomized positions and were given the task of comparing two groups. The results suggested that graph schemas are based on a common invariant structure. Tally charts mixed either with bar graphs or with dot graphs showed mixing costs. Yet, bar and dot graphs showed no mixing costs when paired together. Tally charts were the more efficient format for group comparison compared to bar graphs. Moreover, processing time increased when the position difference of compared groups was increased.
由于底层图形模式的差异,不同的图形类型在组间比较中可能会有所不同。因此,本研究考察了图形模式是基于感知特征(即每个图形都有特定的模式)还是共同的不变结构(即图形共享几个共同的模式),以及哪种图形类型(条形图、点图还是计数图)最适合比较离散组。使用混合成本范式进行了三个实验。参与者收到随机排列的三组数量的图形,并被赋予比较两组的任务。结果表明,图形模式基于共同的不变结构。计数图与条形图或点图混合时显示出混合成本。然而,条形图和点图配对时没有显示出混合成本。与条形图相比,计数图是更有效的组间比较格式。此外,当比较组的位置差异增加时,处理时间会增加。