Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Common Fate for Animated Transitions in Visualization

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · 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 The paper confirms that the Gestalt Law of Common Fate extends to dynamic luminance and dynamic size, and estimates a partial ranking of their grouping strengths against static position, size, and luminance.

desk verdict Useful ranking study for animated transitions, but the DL/DS stimuli never dissociate common fate from static similarity, so the core claim is cleaner in the abstract than in the data. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00661 v1 pith:W7C5QZMO submitted 2019-08-01 cs.HC

Amira Chalbi , Jacob Ritchie , Deokgun Park , Jungu Choi , Nicolas Roussel , Niklas Elmqvist , Fanny Chevalier This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords commonfateGestaltpsychologyperceptualgroupinganimatedtransitionsvisualvariablesgraphicalperceptiondynamicluminancesize
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

The paper asks whether the Gestalt Law of Common Fate is really about moving together or, more generally, about changing together. A crowdsourced experiment presented four objects divided into two groups in two incompatible ways at once, pitting motion, dynamic luminance, dynamic size, static position, static size, and static luminance against one another. The results confirm that coordinated changes in luminance and size do create perceptual grouping, with motion the strongest cue; the ranking is partial rather than total. A follow-up using an animated scatterplot and a thematic map of election data shows that the relative strengths shift with context, yet people can still read trends from all three dynamic variables. This matters for design because animated transitions can encode dynamic groups using size or luminance changes even when position is already carrying data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is a generalized similarity criterion that turns the Gestalt notion into a measurable quantity. Static similarity holds when two objects' values in a visual variable stay within a threshold, $|V_A(t)-V_B(t)| \le \tau_V$; dynamic similarity holds when their changes over a time step stay within a threshold, $|\Delta V_A(t_{i-1},t_i) - \Delta V_B(t_{i-1},t_i)| \le \theta_V$. Each trial presents four objects with two orthogonal pairwise groupings, each dictated by a different visual variable, and grouping strength is scored by which grouping the observer chooses. This machinery makes the strength of common fate directly comparable, pairwise, against proximity and similarity.

What would settle it

Rerun the same four-object conflict task while parametrically varying the magnitudes of dynamic size and luminance changes, equating their discriminability with a staircase procedure; if the dynamic-size-over-luminance ordering reverses or disappears when discriminability is equalized, the ranking is a salience artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that common fate is not limited to identical velocity: synchronized changes in luminance and in size also group visual objects. In the controlled four-object conflict task, all three dynamic variables had mean grouping strength above the halfway point when competing against static variables, confirming the hypothesis that the law extends to dynamic luminance and dynamic size. The resulting partial ranking is that motion beats dynamic luminance, static size, and static luminance; dynamic size beats dynamic luminance and static position; and dynamic luminance beats static size, with no strict total order across all six variables. In the realistic follow-up, participants used all three dynamic variables to identify trends and to perform conjunction search, but the ranking proved context-dependent: motion dominated in the animated scatterplot, while dynamic luminance and dynamic size were nearly indistinguishable in the election map.

Load-bearing premise

The ranking rests on the assumption that the hand-picked magnitudes of the size, luminance, and motion changes were perceptually balanced across variables; the authors themselves note that the parameter values would have benefited from more principled selection, so if one change was easier to notice than another, the observed ordering could be an artifact of salience rather than intrinsic grouping strength.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Animated transitions can encode group membership through simultaneous size or luminance change, not only through shared motion, giving designers extra channels when position is already mapped to data.
  • To reveal several groups at once, pair variables with similar grouping strengths: dynamic size with static luminance, or dynamic luminance with static position.
  • To make a single group salient, use the strongest available dynamic variable; for instance, prefer dynamic size over static size when position and luminance are occupied by data.
  • Viewers can combine up to three dynamic variables in a conjunction search, so multi-variable animated encodings are feasible, but their ranking should be validated in the actual visualization context.
  • Because the ranking shifted between the controlled and realistic settings, design guidance drawn from controlled perception studies should be re-tested on target visualizations and data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The $\tau_V$ and $\theta_V$ threshold formalism suggests a direct design rule the paper does not state: choose transition magnitudes so the variable meant to carry a group maximizes its intra-group similarity and inter-group distance relative to competing variables, turning animation design into a constraint-satisfaction problem.
  • The paper reports that motion can distract attention from size and luminance changes; a testable extension is to cap motion magnitude whenever another dynamic variable is the intended carrier of grouping.
  • The context-dependence in the follow-up implies that effective grouping strength scales with the number of objects changing in a variable and the magnitude of their change; a controlled experiment that varies cardinality and dynamic range should reproduce the ranking shifts.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether the Gestalt Law of Common Fate extends from coherent motion to coordinated changes in luminance and size. In a crowdsourced experiment, 100 workers completed 12 pairwise competition tasks among three static (position, size, luminance) and three dynamic (motion, luminance change, size change) variables, with three repetitions per task, yielding 3,600 trials. The authors report that dynamic variables dominate static ones, with motion and dynamic size strongest, and that dynamic luminance beats static size. A follow-up qualitative study in a Gapminder-like scatterplot and a U.S. election map suggests that these relative rankings are context-dependent. The paper concludes that dynamic luminance and size create common-fate grouping and discusses implications for animated transitions.

Significance. If the findings withstand scrutiny, the paper would provide a quantitative, crowdsourced extension of the Law of Common Fate beyond velocity, with direct implications for encoding dynamic groups in visualization and for designing animated transitions. The work is thoroughly empirical, uses best-practice estimation with bootstrapped confidence intervals, reports open materials on OSF, and candidly addresses limitations such as parameter selection and context-dependence in the follow-up. The primary weakness is a stimulus confound, detailed below, that bears directly on the H1/H2 claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.1, Table 2, §4.3.2] The controlled study does not instantiate the dissociation between dynamic common fate and static similarity that §4.3.2 defines as central to the Law of Common Fate. In all DL trials, both members of a group begin at the identical neutral luminance 0.5 and then undergo the same signed change to 0.0 or 1.0 (Table 2, e.g., SS-DL, SP-DL, DL-DS, DP-DL); in all DS trials, both members begin at the identical radius 20 px and change together to 10 or 30 px (e.g., SS-DS, SP-DS, DL-DS, DP-DS). Consequently, at every frame of the animation the two objects in a group have exactly equal luminance (or size) and are therefore also statically similar under the Law of Similarity. The definition in §4.3.2 explicitly says common fate should hold 'even if objects are not similar at any time t,' but no DL or DS stimulus ever tests this condition: unlike DP, whose grouped objects are spatially separated, no trial contrasts a condition in which objects are statically dissimilar yet dynamically coherent. A participant choosing the darkening or shrinking pair in DL-vs-SS or DS-vs-SP could be responding to static similarity present at every moment, not to common fate. This undermines the H1 existence claim for DL and DS and the H2 claim for DS, not merely the parameter-balancing concern raised in §8.2. I recommend adding a control condition in which group members start from different values and undergo identical signed changes (e.g., luminances 0.3→0.1 vs. 0.7→0.5; radii 14→10 vs. 26→22 px), so that the objects are never statically equal yet have identical delta-V, or, if no new data are collected, substantially narrowing the H1/H2 claims to the conditions actually tested.
  2. [Section 6.3, Figure 3, abstract] The paper's summary ranking 'motion > (dynamic luminance, size, luminance)' is not supported by the data as plotted. Figure 3's left column shows DP and DS both with confidence intervals above 0.5, and the text in Section 8 acknowledges 'no clear distinction between these latter two.' Thus the abstract should not imply a total order with motion strictly above dynamic size. The pairwise contrasts do support a partial order (DP > DL, SS, SL; DS > DL, SP; DL > SS), and the text should present it as such to avoid overstating the evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The ranking notation in the abstract is ambiguous; please use the paper's variable names (DP, DL, DS, SS, SL, SP) consistently and clearly specify which comparisons are being summarized.
  2. [Section 5.6, Section 6.2] The bootstrap analysis aggregates three repetitions into one mean per participant, but the manuscript does not state this explicitly in the methods; please state that the bootstrap resamples participants, not individual trials, so readers do not overestimate precision from the 3,600-trial count.
  3. [Figure 4 caption] The footnote about P4 and P5 appears as a stray superscript '5' in the caption; please format it as a proper footnote or note.
  4. [References] Reference [10] has 'Kbben' (missing an umlaut or diacritic) and reference [32] has 'Visusalization'; these typos should be corrected.
  5. [Section 8.2] The quotation from Garner that relative grouping strengths are 'fairly impervious to manipulations of discriminability' should be qualified, since the paper itself notes that separability of the dynamic variables is not well characterized; the citation does not directly apply to DL/DS.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an empirical perceptual study with no fitted parameters, no derivation chain, and no load-bearing self-citation; the DL/DS static-similarity confound is a validity threat, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are behavioral results from a crowdsourced grouping experiment; there is no mathematical derivation, no parameter fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction, and no normalization that could make an output equal its input by construction. H1 is supported by newly collected participant responses, not derived from the hypothesis itself. The prior evidence for dynamic luminance grouping comes from external prior work [1, 48] and is independently tested by the paper's own experiment, so the citations are not load-bearing and involve no self-citation chain. The most serious concern is that the DL and DS stimuli are constructed so that both members of a group 'start at an identical neutral value and then diverge' (Section 5.1, Table 2), meaning group members are statically similar at every frame and the experiment never instantiates the paper's own condition of objects 'not similar at any time t' (Section 4.3.2). That is a genuine stimulus-confounding / internal-validity problem for the claim that common fate, rather than static similarity, drives the observed grouping. It is not, however, circularity in the derivation-chain sense: the outcome measure is not defined in terms of the stimulus construction, no result is forced by an equation, and the paper acknowledges related parameter-balancing limitations in Section 8.2. The ranking claims rest on empirical contrasts, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented entities or model parameters are introduced. The experimental stimulus parameters are hand-chosen controls, not fitted values, but they are load-bearing for the relative ranking because they are not perceptually equated across conditions.

free parameters (3)
  • Inter-group distance and intra-group similarity thresholds (theta_V, tau_V) = Varies by comparison, e.g., theta_SS=10px, tau_SP<57px, theta_SL=0.34
    Chosen by hand to maximize grouping and vary across tasks (Table 2), potentially affecting relative grouping strengths; acknowledged in Section 8.2.
  • Speed ranges for dynamic position = 53 to 177 px/s depending on comparison
    Selected to be above JND and to keep objects on screen, but not perceptually equated with the magnitudes of size or luminance changes.
  • Luminance and size change ranges = e.g., luminance 0.5 to 0.0 vs 0.5 to 1.0; size 20px to 10px vs 20px to 30px
    Chosen to produce clearly visible groups; discriminability is not matched across visual variables, so relative strengths may be scale-dependent.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Forced-choice between two pairwise groupings measures which visual variable has stronger grouping strength.
    The task design in Section 4.2 assumes the participant's chosen grouping reflects the dominant factor; participant comments in Section 6.4 suggest some used other strategies.
  • domain assumption The dynamic visual variables (DP, DS, DL) are separable enough for independent perceptual judgments.
    Stated in Section 8.2 as an assumption; some think-aloud comments indicate DP can interfere with perceiving other variables, so separability may be imperfect.
  • domain assumption Linear interpolation of position, size, and luminance during animated transitions is representative of typical transitions.
    Used for all dynamic stimuli; other interpolation or pacing schemes could yield different grouping behavior.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Common Fate for Animated Transitions in Visualization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W7C5QZMO

@misc{pith2026190800661,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Common Fate for Animated Transitions in Visualization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W7C5QZMO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00661}
}
read the original abstract

The Law of Common Fate from Gestalt psychology states that visual objects moving with the same velocity along parallel trajectories will be perceived by a human observer as grouped. However, the concept of common fate is much broader than mere velocity; in this paper we explore how common fate results from coordinated changes in luminance and size. We present results from a crowdsourced graphical perception study where we asked workers to make perceptual judgments on a series of trials involving four graphical objects under the influence of conflicting static and dynamic visual factors (position, size and luminance) used in conjunction. Our results yield the following rankings for visual grouping: motion > (dynamic luminance, size, luminance); dynamic size > (dynamic luminance, position); and dynamic luminance > size. We also conducted a follow-up experiment to evaluate the three dynamic visual factors in a more ecologically valid setting, using both a Gapminder-like animated scatterplot and a thematic map of election data. The results indicate that in practice the relative grouping strengths of these factors may depend on various parameters including the visualization characteristics and the underlying data. We discuss design implications for animated transitions in data visualization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00661 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. User interface of our study, during a DS-SL task. Here, A-B and C-D are pairs of SL-similar objects, whereas A-D and B-C are pairs of DS-similar objects, forming the two concurrent possible groupings. is either static (i.e. SP-SS, SP-SL, SS-SL), or a two-second infinitely￾looping animation (i.e. all other tasks, since they involve a dynamic variable). We used linear interpolation for DP, DS and DL. 5.2 Attention Tri… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mean grouping strength for the dynamic variables ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Summary of the mean grouping strength for all visual variables examined in our main experiment. Error bars are 95% CIs. The left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Grouping strength ranking results (numerical answers to Q3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Combinations of dynamic behavior and initial/final conditions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alais, R

    D. Alais, R. Blake, and S.-H. Lee. Visual features that vary together over time group together over space. Nature Neuroscience, 1(2):160– 164, 1998. doi: 10.1038/414

    work page doi:10.1038/414 1998

  2. [2]

    The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association

    American Psychological Association. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC, 6th ed., 2010

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    F. G. Ashby and W. T. Maddox. A response time theory of separability and integrality in speeded classification. Journal of Mathematical Psy- chology, 38:423–466, 12 1994

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    Baecker and I

    R. Baecker and I. Small. Animation at the interface. In B. Laurel, ed., The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design , pp. 251–267. Addison- Wesley, 1990

    work page 1990

  5. [5]

    Bartram and C

    L. Bartram and C. Ware. Filtering and brushing with motion. Information Visualization, 1(1):66–79, Mar. 2002. doi: 10.1057/palgrave/ivs/9500005

    work page arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    Bartram, C

    L. Bartram, C. Ware, and T. Calvert. Moticons: detection, distraction and task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 5(58):515–554,

    work page

  7. [7]

    B. B. Bederson and A. Boltman. Does animation help users build mental maps of spatial information? In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, pp. 28–35, 1999. doi: 10.1109/INFVIS.1999. 801854

    doi:10.1109/infvis.1999 1999

  8. [8]

    J. Bertin. S´emiologie graphique. Mouton/Gauthier-Villars, Paris, France, 1967

    work page 1967

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Bezerianos, F

    A. Bezerianos, F. Chevalier, P. Dragicevic, N. Elmqvist, and J.-D. Fekete. GraphDice: a system for exploring multivariate social networks. Com- puter Graphics Forum, 29(3):863–872, 2010. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8659. 2009.01687.x

    2010 arXiv

  2. [10]

    C. Blok, B. Kbben, T. Cheng, and A. A. Kuterema. Visualization of relationships between spatial patterns in time by cartographic animation. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 26(2):139–151, 1999. doi: 10.1559/152304099782330716

    1999 doi

  3. [11]

    R. Bridson. Fast Poisson disk sampling in arbitrary dimensions. In ACM SIGGRAPH Sketches. ACM, New York, NY , USA, 2007. doi: 10.1145/ 1278780.1278807

    2007

  4. [12]

    J. L. Brooks. Traditional and new principles of perceptual grouping. In J. Wagemans, ed., Oxford Handbook of Perceptual Organization. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, September 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    M. S. T. Carpendale. Considering visual variables as a basis for informa- tion visualisation. Technical Report 2001-693-16, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, 2003

    2001

  6. [14]

    Cavanagh and G

    P. Cavanagh and G. A. Alvarez. Tracking multiple targets with multifocal attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 9(7):349–354, 2005. doi: 10. 1016/j.tics.2005.05.009

    2005

  7. [15]

    A. Chalbi. Understanding and designing animations in the user inter- faces. Theses, Universit ´e lille1, Apr. 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Chevalier, P

    F. Chevalier, P. Dragicevic, and S. Franconeri. The not-so-staggering ef- fect of staggered animated transitions on visual tracking. IEEE Transac- tions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20(12):2241–2250, 2014. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346424

    2014

  9. [17]

    Chevalier, N

    F. Chevalier, N. H. Riche, C. Plaisant, A. Chalbi, and C. Hurter. Ani- mations 25 years later: New roles and opportunities. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, pp. 280–287. ACM,

  10. [18]

    W. S. Cleveland and R. McGill. Graphical perception and graphical meth- ods for analyzing scientific data. Science, 229(4716):828–833, 1985. doi: 10.1126/science.229.4716.828

    1985 doi

  11. [19]

    G. Cumming. Understanding the New Statistics: Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and Meta-Analysis. Routledge, New York, NY , USA, 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    Cumming and S

    G. Cumming and S. Finch. Inference by eye: confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60(2):170–180,

  13. [21]

    Dragicevic

    P. Dragicevic. Fair Statistical Communication in HCI. In Modern Statis- tical Methods for HCI, pp. 291 – 330. Springer, 2016. doi: 10.1007/978 -3-319-26633-6 13

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    Dragicevic, A

    P. Dragicevic, A. Bezerianos, W. Javed, N. Elmqvist, and J.-D. Fekete. Temporal Distortion for Animated Transitions. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp. 2009–

    2009

  15. [23]

    Dragicevic, F

    P. Dragicevic, F. Chevalier, and S. Huot. Running an HCI experiment in multiple parallel universes. InExtended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (alt.CHI), pp. 607–618, 2014. doi: 10.1145/2559206.2578881

    2014

  16. [24]

    F. Du, N. Cao, J. Zhao, and Y .-R. Lin. Trajectory bundling for animated transitions. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 289–298. ACM, New York, NY , USA, 2015. doi: 10.1145/2702123.2702476

    2015

  17. [25]

    Elmqvist, P

    N. Elmqvist, P. Dragicevic, and J.-D. Fekete. Rolling the dice: Multidi- mensional visual exploration using scatterplot matrix navigation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 14(6):1141– 1148, 2008. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2008.153

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    D. Fisher. Animation for visualization: Opportunities and drawbacks. In Beautiful Visualization. Microsoft, 2010

    2010

  19. [27]

    Friedrich and M

    C. Friedrich and M. E. Houle. Graph drawing in motion II. In Graph Drawing, vol. 2265 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 220–231. Springer, 2002. doi: 10.1007/3-540-45848-4 18

    2002 doi

  20. [28]

    https://www.gapminder.org/data/, 2019

    Gapminder data. https://www.gapminder.org/data/, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    W. R. Garner. The Processing of Information and Structure . Lawrence Erlbaum, Oxford, England, 1974

    1974

  22. [30]

    Gonzalez

    C. Gonzalez. Does animation in user interfaces improve decision mak- ing? In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems, pp. 27–34. ACM, New York, NY , USA, 1996. doi: 10. 1145/238386.238396

    1996

  23. [31]

    Heer and M

    J. Heer and M. Bostock. Crowdsourcing graphical perception: using Mechanical Turk to assess visualization design. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 203–212. ACM, New York, NY , USA, 2010. doi: 10.1145/1753326.1753357

    2010

  24. [32]

    Heer and G

    J. Heer and G. Robertson. Animated transitions in statistical data graphics. IEEE Transactions on Visusalization and Computer Graphics, 13(6):1240–1247, 2007. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2007.70539

    2007

  25. [33]

    S. E. Hudson and J. T. Stasko. Animation support in a user interface toolkit: Flexible, robust, and reusable abstractions. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 57–67. ACM, New York, NY , USA, 1993. doi: 10.1145/168642.168648

    1993

  26. [34]

    H. J. Jerison. Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence . Academic Press, 1973

    1973

  27. [35]

    Johnston and F

    O. Johnston and F. Thomas. The Illusion of Life: Disney Animation . Hyperion, 1995

    1995

  28. [36]

    K. N. Kirby and D. Gerlanc. BootES: An R package for bootstrap confi- dence intervals on effect sizes. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4):905– 927, 2013. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0330-5

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    Kittur, E

    A. Kittur, E. H. Chi, and B. Suh. Crowdsourcing user studies with Me- chanical Turk. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 453–456. ACM, New York, NY , USA, 2008. doi: 10.1145/1357054.1357127

    2008

  30. [38]

    K. Koffka. Perception: An introduction to the Gestalt-theorie. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 19:531–585, 1922

    1922

  31. [39]

    Lee and R

    S.-H. Lee and R. Blake. Neural synergy in visual grouping: When good continuation meets common fate. Vision Research, 41(16):2057–2064,

  32. [40]

    B. R. Levinthal and S. L. Franconeri. Common-fate grouping as fea- ture selection. Psychological Science, 22(9):1132–1137, 2011. PMID: 21828350. doi: 10.1177/0956797611418346

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    W. T. Maddox. Perceptual and Decisional Separability , chap. Multi- dimensional Models of Perception and Cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1992

    1992

  34. [42]

    Mckee, G

    S. Mckee, G. H. Silverman, and K. Nakayama. Precise velocity discrim- ination despite random variations in temporal frequency and contrast. Vi- sion research, 26:609–19, 02 1986

    1986

  35. [43]

    K. V . Nesbitt and C. Friedrich. Applying Gestalt principles to animated visualizations of network data. In Proceedings of the International Con- ference on Information Visualisation, pp. 737–743, 2002. doi: 10.1109/ IV.2002.1028859

    2002 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Z. W. Pylyshyn and R. W. Storm. Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3(3):179– 197, 1988. doi: 10.1163/156856888X00122

    1988 doi

  37. [45]

    A. Reimer. Squaring the circle? Bivariate colour maps and Jacques Bertin’s concept of disassociation.Proceedings of the International Car- tographic Conference, pp. 3–8, 2011

    2011

  38. [46]

    Robertson, S

    G. Robertson, S. Card, and J. Mackinlay. The cognitive coprocessor ar- chitecture for interactive user interfaces. InProceedings of the ACM Sym- posium on User Interface Software and Technology , pp. 10–18. ACM, New York, NY , USA, 1989. doi: 10.1145/73660.73662

    1989

  39. [47]

    Romat, C

    H. Romat, C. Appert, B. Bach, N. Henry-Riche, and E. Pietriga. Ani- mated Edge Textures in Node-Link Diagrams: a Design Space and Initial Evaluation. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp. 187:1–187:13. ACM, New York, NY , USA,

  40. [48]

    A. B. Sekuler and P. J. Bennett. Generalized common fate: grouping by common luminance changes. Psychological Science, 12(6):437–444, Nov. 2001. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00382

    2001

  41. [49]

    Shanmugasundaram and P

    M. Shanmugasundaram and P. Irani. The effect of animated transitions in zooming interfaces. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, pp. 396–399. ACM, New York, NY , USA, 2008. doi: 10.1145/1385569.1385642

    2008

  42. [50]

    Strother and M

    L. Strother and M. Kubovy. On the surprising salience of curvature in grouping by proximity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(2):226–234, 2006. doi: 10.1037/0096 -1523.32.2.226

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    St ¨urzel and L

    F. St ¨urzel and L. Spillmann. Perceptual limits of common fate. Vision Research, 44(13):1565–1573, 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2003.12.019

    2004 doi

  44. [52]

    J. W. Suchow and G. A. Alvarez. Motion silences awareness of visual change. Current Biology, 21(2):1–4, 2011

    2011

  45. [53]

    doi: 10.1145/3173574.3173761

  46. [54]

    2012 November general election turnout rates

    The United States Elections Project. 2012 November general election turnout rates. http://www.electproject.org/2012g, 2019

    2012

  47. [55]

    2016 November general election turnout rates

    The United States Elections Project. 2016 November general election turnout rates. http://www.electproject.org/2016g, 2019

    2016

  48. [56]

    Tversky, J

    B. Tversky, J. B. Morrison, and M. B ´etrancourt. Animation: can it facili- tate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4):247–262,

  49. [57]

    W. R. Uttal, L. Spillmann, F. St ¨urzel, and A. B. Sekuler. Motion and shape in common fate. Vision Research, 40(3):301–310, 2000. doi: 10. 1016/S0042-6989(99)00177-7

  50. [58]

    J. J. van Wijk and W. A. A. Nuij. A model for smooth viewing and nav- igation of large 2D information spaces. IEEE Transactions on Visualiza- tion and Computer Graphics, 10(4):447–458, 2004. doi: 10.1109/TVCG .2004.1

    2004 doi

  51. [59]

    D. A. Szafir. Modeling color difference for visualization design. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 24(1):392–401, Jan 2018

    2018

  52. [60]

    C. Ware. Information visualization: perception for design. Morgan Kauf- mann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 3 ed., 2012

    2012

  53. [61]

    Ware and R

    C. Ware and R. Bobrow. Motion to support rapid interactive queries on node–link diagrams. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 1(1):3– 18, 2004. doi: 10.1145/1008722.1008724

    2004

  54. [62]

    Ware and R

    C. Ware and R. Bobrow. Supporting visual queries on medium-sized node–link diagrams. Information Visualization, 4(1):49–58, 2005. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500090

    2005 doi

  55. [63]

    C. Ware, E. Neufeld, and L. Bartram. Visualizing causal relations. In IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization: Late Breaking Hot Top- ics, pp. 39–42. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1999

    1999

  56. [64]

    Wertheimer

    M. Wertheimer. A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology , chap. Laws of Organization in Perceptual Forms. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1938. Orig- inally published in German in 1923, translated by W.D. Ellis

    1938

  57. [65]

    2012 United States presidential election

    Wikipedia. 2012 United States presidential election. https: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_ presidential_election, 2019

    2012

  58. [66]

    Wagemans, J

    J. Wagemans, J. H. Elder, M. Kubovy, S. E. Palmer, M. A. Peterson, M. Singh, and R. von der Heydt. A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. perceptual grouping and figure–ground organiza- tion. Psychological Bulletin , 138(6):1172–1217, 2012. doi: 10.1037/ a0029333

    2012

  59. [67]

    D. Yu, X. Xiao, D. K. Bemis, and S. L. Franconeri. Similarity grouping as feature-based selection. Psychological Science, 30(3):376–385, 2019. PMID: 30699047. doi: 10.1177/0956797618822798

    2019 doi

  60. [73]

    2016 United States presidential election

    Wikipedia. 2016 United States presidential election. https: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_ presidential_election, 2019

    2016

  61. [2001]

    doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00086-4

    doi

  62. [2002]

    doi: 10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017

    2002

  63. [2003]

    doi: 10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00021-1

    doi

  64. [2005]

    doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.2.170

    doi

  65. [2016]

    doi: 10.1145/2909132.2909255

  66. [2018]

    doi: 10.1145/1978942.1979233

    ACM, New York, NY , USA, 2011. doi: 10.1145/1978942.1979233

    2011

Pith tools

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