Pith. sign in

REVIEW 86 references

Evaluating Perceptual Bias During Geometric Scaling of Scatterplots

T0 review · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Geometric scaling of scatterplots biases perceived numerosity, correlation, and cluster separation, and the bias grows linearly with the scale ratio.

arxiv 1908.00403 v2 pith:UAJQGMWK submitted 2019-08-01 cs.HC

Yating Wei , Honghui Mei , Ying Zhao , Shuyue Zhou , Bingru Lin , Haojing Jiang , Wei Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords scalinggeometricscatterplotsbiasfeaturesperceptualscatterplotthree
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Scatterplots are charts made of dots. When a chart is enlarged or shrunk, the dots grow or shrink with it. This study asked whether resizing changes how people read the data. The authors created pairs of scatterplots, one original and one scaled, and showed them to 20 viewers. Viewers judged which chart had more dots, which looked more correlated, and which had clearer clusters.

The results showed that scaling changes perception. An enlarged scatterplot seemed to have fewer dots than it really did, while a shrunken one seemed to have more. Similar biases appeared for correlation and cluster separation, and the size of the bias increased steadily with the amount of scaling. The authors also tried changing the dot radius to counteract the bias. Making dots smaller in a shrunken chart, or larger in an enlarged chart, reduced the bias, but only within a certain range and not completely.

They also compared normally distributed and uniformly distributed dot clouds, but found no reliable difference in the bias. The conclusion is that resizing a scatterplot is not a neutral operation: it changes perceived patterns in a predictable, roughly linear way, and dot size offers only limited correction.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Geometric scaling causes a perceptual bias that has a linear relationship with the scale ratio. The paper states: "the results of fitting index R2 (numerosity: R2 = 0.940 > 0.9; correlation: R2 = 0.969 > 0.9; cluster separation: R2 = 0.920 > 0.9) denote that the bias has a significant linear relationship with the scale ratio for each feature" (Section 5.2, Hypothesis 1). If correct, the bias is a monotonic function of scaling, with direction depending on the visual feature.

Load-bearing premise

The study assumes that perceptual bias measured on a single desktop monitor with stimuli scaled to different visual angles (Section 4.4, fixed 59 cm viewing distance) represents the bias in real multi-device scenarios with different physical screens, resolutions, and viewing distances. The authors acknowledge this: "all scatterplots in the experiments were simplified to be shown on a unified desktop monitor. This practice benefited controllable experiments but reduced the ecological validity" (Section 6). If device-specific rendering modulates the bias, the measured linear relationship may not generalize to the motivating laptop-to-projector or desktop-to-phone scenarios.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical study with no derivation. The central claim rests on standard psychophysical measurement assumptions and on the validity of imputing 16% of abnormal sequences with group means.

free parameters (2)
  • Linear regression coefficients (slope and intercept) for bias versus scale ratio = Not reported numerically; R² = 0.940, 0.969, 0.920
    The linear relationship claim is quantified by fitting these coefficients to the 7 mean bias values; the paper reports only R², not the coefficients or their uncertainties.
  • Variance threshold for abnormal sequence identification = 2 (variance of feature levels in 10 essential trials)
    Chosen during pilot studies; sequences with variance > 2 are replaced with group mean bias. This threshold directly affects the 16% of imputed data and thus the reported bias means.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 2IFC with 2WS staircase protocol yields a valid and approximately unbiased estimate of the point of subjective equality.
    The entire bias measurement rests on this psychophysical assumption; it is standard in the literature but not verified in this study.
  • domain assumption The choice probabilities are adequately described by a cumulative Gaussian psychometric function.
    PSE is derived by fitting a cumulative Gaussian to each participant's choices; this functional form is assumed, and the paper does not report goodness-of-fit.
  • domain assumption Replacing abnormal choice sequences with the group mean for the same condition does not systematically distort the results.
    16% of sequences are imputed this way; the authors acknowledge this 'may still have a potential effect on the experimental results' (Section 6).
  • domain assumption Perceptual biases measured on a single desktop monitor at fixed viewing distance generalize to real multi-device scaling scenarios.
    The authors note that using a unified monitor reduced ecological validity (Section 6).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evaluating Perceptual Bias During Geometric Scaling of Scatterplots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UAJQGMWK

@misc{pith2026190800403,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evaluating Perceptual Bias During Geometric Scaling of Scatterplots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UAJQGMWK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00403}
}
read the original abstract

Scatterplots are frequently scaled to fit display areas in multi-view and multi-device data analysis environments. A common method used for scaling is to enlarge or shrink the entire scatterplot together with the inside points synchronously and proportionally. This process is called geometric scaling. However, geometric scaling of scatterplots may cause a perceptual bias, that is, the perceived and physical values of visual features may be dissociated with respect to geometric scaling. For example, if a scatterplot is projected from a laptop to a large projector screen, then observers may feel that the scatterplot shown on the projector has fewer points than that viewed on the laptop. This paper presents an evaluation study on the perceptual bias of visual features in scatterplots caused by geometric scaling. The study focuses on three fundamental visual features (i.e., numerosity, correlation, and cluster separation) and three hypotheses that are formulated on the basis of our experience. We carefully design three controlled experiments by using well-prepared synthetic data and recruit participants to complete the experiments on the basis of their subjective experience. With a detailed analysis of the experimental results, we obtain a set of instructive findings. First, geometric scaling causes a bias that has a linear relationship with the scale ratio. Second, no significant difference exists between the biases measured from normally and uniformly distributed scatterplots. Third, changing the point radius can correct the bias to a certain extent. These findings can be used to inspire the design decisions of scatterplots in various scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00403 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scenario of scatterplot scaling. Bob finds a pattern of interest in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stimuli and visual features. (a) Stimulus-pair consists of two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of a 2WS sequence. The y-axis shows visual feature levels. The x-axis shows the number of trials. (a) Fifteen trials of the forward-staircase. (b) Fifteen trials of the backward-staircase. The gray background shows the fluctuating interval of both staircases. The 2IFC is a method used to measure the subjective experience of a person through his/her choice pattern. In a 2IFC trial, the person is asked to judg… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Interface of the experiment system. (a) Interface of the tutorial. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of abnormal choice patterns: (a) fiercely fluctuating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Objective results of the bias measurement with regard to experiments (E1, E2, E3 [scale ratio = 63%], and E3 [scale ratio = 252%]) and three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Subjective questionnaire results. (a) Results of DL questions. A violin plot, which consists of a box plot and an area plot, presents the results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alexander, C.-C

    E. Alexander, C.-C. Chang, M. Shimabukuro, S. Franconeri, C. Collins, and M. Gleicher. Perceptual biases in font size as a data encoding. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(8):2397–2410, 2017

    2017

  2. [2]

    Allik and T

    J. Allik and T. Tuulmets. Occupancy model of perceived numerosity. Perception & Psychophysics, 49(4):303–314, 1991

    1991

  3. [3]

    Andrews, A

    C. Andrews, A. Endert, and C. North. Space to Think: Large High- Resolution Displays for Sensemaking. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems , pp. 55–64. ACM, 2010

    2010

  4. [4]

    Andrews, A

    C. Andrews, A. Endert, B. Yost, and C. North. Information visualization on large, high-resolution displays: Issues, challenges, and opportunities. Information Visualization, 10(4):341–355, 2011

    2011

  5. [5]

    Anobile, G

    G. Anobile, G. M. Cicchini, and D. C. Burr. Separate Mechanisms for Perception of Numerosity and Density. Psychological Science, 25(1):265– 270, 2014

    2014

  6. [6]

    Anobile, M

    G. Anobile, M. Turi, G. M. Cicchini, and D. C. Burr. Mechanisms for perception of numerosity or texture-density are governed by crowding-like effects. Journal of Vision, 15(5):4–4, 2015

    2015

  7. [7]

    Ardito, P

    C. Ardito, P. Buono, M. F. Costabile, and G. Desolda. Interaction with Large Displays: A Survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 47(3):46, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Behrisch, M

    M. Behrisch, M. Blumenschein, N. W. Kim, L. Shao, M. El-Assady, J. Fuchs, D. Seebacher, A. Diehl, U. Brandes, H. Pfister, et al. Qual- ity Metrics for Information Visualization. Computer Graphics Forum, 37(3):625–662, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Bertini, A

    E. Bertini, A. Tatu, and D. Keim. Quality Metrics in High-Dimensional Data Visualization: An Overview and Systematization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12):2203–2212, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    Blascheck, L

    T. Blascheck, L. Besanc ¸on, A. Bezerianos, B. Lee, and P. Isenberg. Glance- able Visualization: Studies of Data Comparison Performance on Smart- watches. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1):630–640, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    M. A. Borkin, Z. Bylinskii, N. W. Kim, C. M. Bainbridge, C. S. Yeh, D. Borkin, H. Pfister, and A. Oliva. Beyond Memorability: Visualiza- tion Recognition and Recall. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(1):519–528, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Brehmer and T

    M. Brehmer and T. Munzner. A Multi-Level Typology of Abstract Vi- sualization Tasks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(12):2376–2385, 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    Butscher, S

    S. Butscher, S. Hubenschmid, J. M¨uller, J. Fuchs, and H. Reiterer. Clusters, Trends, and Outliers: How Immersive Technologies Can Facilitate the Collaborative Analysis of Multidimensional Data. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p...

    2018

  6. [14]

    Y .-H. Chan, C. D. Correa, and K.-L. Ma. Flow-based Scatterplots for Sensitivity Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Symposium on Visual analytics science and technology (VAST), pp. 43–50. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  7. [15]

    H. Chen, W. Chen, H. Mei, Z. Liu, K. Zhou, W. Chen, W. Gu, and K.-L. Ma. Visual abstraction and exploration of multi-class scatterplots. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20(12):1683–1692, 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    Chittaro

    L. Chittaro. Visualizing Information on Mobile Devices. Computer, 39(3):40–45, 2006

    2006

  9. [17]

    Chung, S

    H. Chung, S. L. Chu, and C. North. A comparison of Two Display Models for Collaborative Sensemaking. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays, pp. 37–42. ACM, 2013

    2013

  10. [18]

    W. S. Cleveland and W. S. Cleveland. The Elements of Graphing Data, vol. 2. Wadsworth Advanced Books and Software Monterey, CA, 1985

    1985

  11. [19]

    W. S. Cleveland, P. Diaconis, and R. McGill. Variables on Scatterplots Look More Highly Correlated When the Scales are Increased. Science, 216(4550):1138–1141, 1982

    1982

  12. [20]

    W. S. Cleveland, M. E. McGill, and R. McGill. The Shape Parameter of a Two-variable Graph. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(402):289–300, 1988

    1988

  13. [21]

    Conati and H

    C. Conati and H. Maclaren. Exploring the Role of Individual Differences in Information Visualization. In Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces, pp. 199–206. ACM, 2008

    2008

  14. [22]

    S. C. Dakin, M. S. Tibber, J. A. Greenwood, M. J. Morgan, et al. A common visual metric for approximate number and density. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(49):19552–19557, 2011

    2011

  15. [23]

    S. M. Drucker, D. Fisher, R. Sadana, J. Herron, et al. TouchViz: A Case Study Comparing Two Interfaces for Data Analytics on Tablets. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2301–2310. ACM, 2013

  16. [24]

    G. Ellis. Cognitive Biases in Visualizations. Springer, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Friendly and D

    M. Friendly and D. Denis. The Early Origins and Development of The Scatterplot. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 41(2):103– 130, 2005

    2005

  18. [26]

    M. A. Garcıa-P´erez. Forced-choice staircases with fixed step sizes: asymp- totic and small-sample properties. Vision Research, 38(12):1861–1881, 1998

    1998

  19. [27]

    Gleicher, M

    M. Gleicher, M. Correll, C. Nothelfer, and S. Franconeri. Perception of Av- erage Value in Multiclass Scatterplots.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(12):2316–2325, 2013

    2013

  20. [28]

    Gutwin, A

    C. Gutwin, A. Cockburn, and A. Coveney. Peripheral Popout: The In- fluence of Visual Angle and Stimulus Intensity on Popout Effects. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 208–219. ACM, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Gutwin and C

    C. Gutwin and C. Fedak. Interacting with Big Interfaces on Small Screens: a Comparison of Fisheye, Zoom, and Panning Techniques. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2004 , pp. 145–152. Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society, 2004

    2004

  22. [30]

    Harrison, K

    L. Harrison, K. Reinecke, and R. Chang. Infographic aesthetics: Design- ing for the first impression. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp. 1187–1190. ACM, 2015

    2015

  23. [31]

    Harrison, F

    L. Harrison, F. Yang, S. Franconeri, and R. Chang. Ranking Visualizations of Correlation Using Weber’s Law.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20(12):1943–1952, 2014

    1943

  24. [32]

    Healey and J

    C. Healey and J. Enns. Attention and Visual Memory in Visualization and Computer Graphics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(7):1170–1188, 2012

    2012

  25. [33]

    Heer and M

    J. Heer and M. Agrawala. Multi-Scale Banking to 45 Degrees. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 12(5):701–708, 2006

    2006

  26. [34]

    Jerit and J

    J. Jerit and J. Barabas. Partisan Perceptual Bias and the Information Environment. The Journal of Politics, 74(3):672–684, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    Kandogan

    E. Kandogan. Just-in-time Annotation of Clusters, Outliers, and Trends in Point-based Data Visualizations. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST), pp. 73–

    2012

  28. [36]

    Kay and J

    M. Kay and J. Heer. Beyond Weber’s Law: A Second Look at Ranking Visualizations of Correlation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(1):469–478, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    S. Kim, M. Al-Haj, S. Chen, S. Fuller, U. Jain, M. Carrasco, and R. Tan- nock. Colour vision in ADHD: Part 1-Testing the retinal dopaminergic hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 10(1):38, 2014

    2014

  30. [38]

    O.-H. Kwon, C. Muelder, K. Lee, and K.-L. Ma. A Study of Layout, Rendering, and Interaction Methods for Immersive Graph Visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(7):1802– 1815, 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    Li, J.-B

    J. Li, J.-B. Martens, and J. J. Van Wijk. Judging correlation from scatter- plots and parallel coordinate plots. Information Visualization, 9(1):13–30, 2010

    2010

  32. [40]

    J. Li, J. J. van Wijk, and J.-B. Martens. A Model of Symbol Lightness Discrimination in Sparse Scatterplots. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Symposium on Pacific Visualization (PacificVis), pp. 105–112. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  33. [41]

    H. Liao, Y . Wu, L. Chen, and W. Chen. Cluster-based visual abstraction for multivariate scatterplots. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(9):2531–2545, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    P. Lv, Z. Zhang, C. Li, Y . Guo, B. Zhou, and M. Xu. Crowd behavior evolution with emotional contagion in political rallies. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 6(2):377–386, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Y . Ma, A. K. Tung, W. Wang, X. Gao, Z. Pan, and W. Chen. Scatternet: A deep subjective similarity model for visual analysis of scatterplots. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, pp. 1–1, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Matejka, F

    J. Matejka, F. Anderson, and G. Fitzmaurice. Dynamic Opacity Optimiza- tion for Scatter Plots. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2707–2710. ACM, 2015

    2015

  37. [45]

    H. Mei, Y . Ma, Y . Wei, and W. Chen. The design space of construction tools for information visualization: A survey. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 44:120–132, 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    T. Ni, G. S. Schmidt, O. G. Staadt, M. A. Livingston, R. Ball, and R. May. 10 © 2019 IEEE. This is the author’s version of the article that has been published in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. The final version of this record is available at: 10.1109/...

    2019

  39. [47]

    Ondov, N

    B. Ondov, N. Jardine, N. Elmqvist, and S. Franconeri. Face to Face: Evaluating Visual Comparison. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1):861–871, 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    W. Peng, M. O. Ward, and E. A. Rundensteiner. Clutter Reduction in Multi-Dimensional Data Visualization Using Dimension Reordering. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, pp. 89–96. IEEE, 2004

    2004

  41. [49]

    A. M. Reach and C. North. Smooth, Efficient, and Interruptible Zooming and Panning. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(2):1421–1434, 2019

    2019

  42. [50]

    K. Reda, A. E. Johnson, M. E. Papka, and J. Leigh. Effects of Display Size and Resolution on User Behavior and Insight Acquisition in Visual Exploration. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2759–2768. ACM, 2015

    2015

  43. [51]

    R. A. Rensink. The nature of correlation perception in scatterplots. Psy- chonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(3):776–797, 2017

    2017

  44. [52]

    R. A. Rensink and G. Baldridge. The Perception of Correlation in Scatter- plots. Computer Graphics Forum, 29(3):1203–1210, 2010

    2010

  45. [53]

    Ross and D

    J. Ross and D. C. Burr. Vision senses number directly. Journal of vision, 10(2):10–10, 2010

    2010

  46. [54]

    Saket, A

    B. Saket, A. Endert, and J. Stasko. Beyond Usability and Performance: A Review of User Experience-focused Evaluations in Visualization. In Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Beyond Time and Errors on Novel Evaluation Methods for Visualization, pp. 133–142. ACM, 2016

    2016

  47. [55]

    Saket, A

    B. Saket, A. Srinivasan, E. D. Ragan, and A. Endert. Evaluating Interac- tive Graphical Encodings for Data Visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(3):1316–1330, 2018

    2018

  48. [56]

    Sarikaya and M

    A. Sarikaya and M. Gleicher. Scatterplots: Tasks, Data, and Designs.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(1):402–412, 2018

    2018

  49. [57]

    Schulz, T

    H.-J. Schulz, T. Nocke, M. Heitzler, and H. Schumann. A Design Space of Visualization Tasks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(12):2366–2375, 2013

    2013

  50. [58]

    Sedlmair and M

    M. Sedlmair and M. Aupetit. Data-driven Evaluation of Visual Quality Measures. Computer Graphics Forum, 34(3):201–210, 2015

    2015

  51. [59]

    Sedlmair, T

    M. Sedlmair, T. Munzner, and M. Tory. Empirical Guidance on Scatterplot and Dimension Reduction Technique Choices. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(12):2634–2643, 2013

    2013

  52. [60]

    Sedlmair, A

    M. Sedlmair, A. Tatu, T. Munzner, and M. Tory. A Taxonomy of Visual Cluster Separation Factors. Computer Graphics Forum, 31(3):1335–1344, 2012

    2012

  53. [61]

    Y . Shi, Y . Zhao, F. Zhou, R. Shi, and Y . Zhang. A novel radial visualization of intrusion detection alerts. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 38(6):83–95, 2018

    2018

  54. [62]

    M. Sips, B. Neubert, J. P. Lewis, and P. Hanrahan. Selecting good views of high-dimensional data using class consistency. Computer Graphics Forum, 28(3):831–838, 2009

    2009

  55. [63]

    Sophian and Y

    C. Sophian and Y . Chu. How do people apprehend large numerosities? Cognition, 107(2):460–478, 2008

    2008

  56. [64]

    Steichen, G

    B. Steichen, G. Carenini, and C. Conati. User-adaptive information visual- ization: using eye gaze data to infer visualization tasks and user cognitive abilities. In Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, pp. 317–328. ACM, 2013

    2013

  57. [65]

    S. S. Stevens and G. Stevens. Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. New Brunswick, 1986

    1986

  58. [66]

    D. A. Szafir. Modeling Color Difference for Visualization Design. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(1):392–401, 2018

    2018

  59. [67]

    A. Tatu, G. Albuquerque, M. Eisemann, J. Schneidewind, H. Theisel, M. Magnork, and D. Keim. Combining automated analysis and visual- ization techniques for effective exploration of high-dimensional data. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and...

    2009

  60. [68]

    A. Tatu, P. Bak, E. Bertini, D. Keim, and J. Schneidewind. Visual quality metrics and human perception: an initial study on 2D projections of large multidimensional data. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, pp. 49–56. ACM, 2010

    2010

  61. [69]

    M. S. Tibber, J. A. Greenwood, and S. C. Dakin. Number and density discrimination rely on a common metric: Similar psychophysical effects of size, contrast, and divided attention. Journal of Vision, 12(6):1–19, 2012

    2012

  62. [70]

    M. S. Tibber, G. S. Manasseh, R. C. Clarke, G. Gagin, S. N. Swanbeck, B. Butterworth, R. B. Lotto, and S. C. Dakin. Sensitivity to numerosity is not a unique visuospatial psychophysical predictor of mathematical ability. Vision Research, 89:1–9, 2013

    2013

  63. [71]

    Tokita and A

    M. Tokita and A. Ishiguchi. How might the discrepancy in the effects of perceptual variables on numerosity judgment be reconciled? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(7):1839–1853, 2010

    2010

  64. [72]

    M. Tory, D. Sprague, F. Wu, W. Y . So, and T. Munzner. Spatialization Design: Comparing Points and Landscapes. IEEE Transactions on Visual- ization and Computer Graphics, 13(6):1262–1269, 2007

    2007

  65. [73]

    A. C. Valdez, M. Ziefle, and M. Sedlmair. Priming and Anchoring Ef- fects in Visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(1):584–594, 2018

    2018

  66. [74]

    H. Wang, M. Xu, F. Zhu, Z. Deng, Y . Li, and B. Zhou. Shadow traffic: A unified model for abnormal traffic behavior simulation. Computers & Graphics, 70:235–241, 2018

    2018

  67. [75]

    Y . Wang, X. Chen, T. Ge, C. Bao, M. Sedlmair, C.-W. Fu, O. Deussen, and B. Chen. Optimizing color assignment for perception of class separa- bility in multiclass scatterplots. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1):820–829, 2019

    2019

  68. [76]

    Y . Wang, Z. Wang, C. W. Fu, H. Schmauder, O. Deussen, and D. Weiskopf. Image-based aspect ratio selection. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1):840–849, 2019

    2019

  69. [77]

    C. Ware. Information Visualization: Perception for Design . Elsevier, 2012

    2012

  70. [78]

    J. Xia, L. Gao, K. Kong, Y . Zhao, Y . Chen, X. Kui, and Y . Liang. Exploring linear projections for revealing clusters, outliers, and trends in subsets of multi-dimensional datasets. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 48:52–60, 2018

    2018

  71. [79]

    J. Xia, F. Ye, W. Chen, Y . Wang, W. Chen, Y . Ma, and A. K. Tung. Ldsscanner: exploratory analysis of low-dimensional structures in high- dimensional datasets. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(1):236–245, 2017

    2017

  72. [80]

    M. Xu, C. Li, P. Lv, N. Lin, R. Hou, and B. Zhou. An efficient method of crowd aggregation computation in public areas. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 28(10):2814–2825, 2017

    2017

  73. [81]

    F. Yang, L. T. Harrison, R. A. Rensink, S. L. Franconeri, and R. Chang. Correlation Judgment and Visualization Features: A Comparative Study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(3):1474– 1488, 2019

    2019

  74. [82]

    Yost and C

    B. Yost and C. North. The Perceptual Scalability of Visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 12(5):837–844, 2006

    2006

  75. [83]

    Y . Zhao, F. Luo, M. Chen, Y . Wang, J. Xia, F. Zhou, Y . Wang, Y . Chen, and W. Chen. Evaluating Multi-Dimensional Visualizations for Understand- ing Fuzzy Clusters. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1):12–21, 2019

    2019

  76. [84]

    F. Zhou, X. Lin, C. Liu, Y . Zhao, P. Xu, L. Ren, T. Xue, and L. Ren. A survey of visualization for smart manufacturing. Journal of Visualization, 22(2):419–435, 2019

    2019

  77. [85]

    Z. Zhou, L. Meng, C. Tang, Y . Zhao, Z. Guo, M. Hu, and W. Chen. Visual abstraction of large scale geospatial origin-destination movement data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1):43–53, 2018

    2018

  78. [86]

    Zimmermann and G

    E. Zimmermann and G. R. Fink. Numerosity perception after size adapta- tion. Scientific Reports, 6(1):32810–32817, 2016. 11

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.