Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Maps and Globes in Virtual Reality

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 In head-mounted VR, an exocentric globe—the classic view of a physical globe from outside—proved the most accurate and generally best of four geographic visualisations for distance and direction tasks.

desk verdict First controlled study of four VR global map displays, with a solid core result and a real caveat: the egocentric globe was parameterized in a way that likely stacked the deck against it. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02088 v1 pith:WUFJNBHZ submitted 2019-08-06 cs.HC cs.GRcs.MM

Yalong Yang , Bernhard Jenny , Tim Dwyer , Kim Marriott , Haohui Chen , Maxime Cordeil This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.GRcs.MM
keywords virtualrealitygeographicvisualisationexocentricglobeegocentriccurvedmapprojectionuserstudyspatialanalysis
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

This paper reports the first controlled comparison of four ways to show the whole Earth inside a virtual-reality headset: an exocentric globe viewed from outside, a flat map, an egocentric globe viewed from inside, and a curved map wrapping around the viewer. The authors built all four with the same interaction—dragging any geographic location to the centre of view with a handheld controller—and had 32 participants perform three fundamental spatial tasks: comparing distances, comparing areas, and estimating direction. The exocentric globe was the most accurate for distance comparison and direction estimation, and the fastest for direction, even though it shows only one hemisphere at a time and has the most perceptual distortion near its edge. It was slower than the flat and curved maps for area comparison; the egocentric globe was the least effective in almost all cases, and the curved map beat the flat map for direction but caused more motion sickness. The paper concludes that exocentric globes are generally the best choice for global geographic visualisation in virtual, augmented, and mixed reality.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a set of four display geometries with fixed physical parameters, evaluated through a shared task battery and interaction scheme. The exocentric globe is a sphere of radius 0.4 m placed 1 m in front of the user, with the Earth rendered directly onto it so no map projection is applied, at the cost of showing only one hemisphere and introducing perceptual distortion near the limb; the flat map is a 1 m by 0.5 m plane 1 m away; the egocentric globe has radius 8 m with the user standing 80% of the way to the shell; and the curved map is a 108 by 54 degree spherical section of radius 1 m facing the user. Each display lets the user drag any location to the centre of view and move physically around the visualisation. The analysis then asks how these geometric choices affect accuracy and speed on artificial distance, area, and direction stimuli that avoid prior geographic knowledge, using a chance-corrected accuracy score, response-time measurement, head and controller tracking, motion-sickness ratings, and preference ranking.

What would settle it

Re-run the three tasks with the egocentric globe viewed from the sphere's centre instead of 6.4 m off-centre, and with the flat map placed closer to the user or the curved map's curvature reduced; if direction-estimation accuracy on either display then matched or exceeded the exocentric globe, the paper's general recommendation would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that for the three fundamental spatial analysis tasks tested, the exocentric globe is generally the best VR visualisation of global geography. In the study, distance comparison was significantly more accurate with the exocentric globe (mean accuracy score 0.88) than with the egocentric globe (0.73) or the flat map (0.75); direction estimation was both significantly more accurate and significantly faster with the exocentric globe than with all three other displays; and area comparison was more accurate with the exocentric globe than with the egocentric globe, though slower than with the flat and curved maps. The authors interpret these patterns as reflecting the absence of map-projection distortion on the globe, combined with the cost of seeing only half the Earth at once. The egocentric globe was the least effective visualisation in almost all cases, while the curved map improved on the flat map for direction estimation; both produced noticeably more motion sickness than the exocentric globe and the flat map. The authors therefore recommend exocentric globes as the default for global geovisualisation in mixed reality, while noting that the hidden hemisphere can hinder tasks that need the entire world in view.

Load-bearing premise

The ranking rests on the chosen physical sizes and viewing distances of the four displays; a different reasonable parameterisation—for example, an egocentric globe viewed from its centre—could change which visualisation wins.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • VR geovisualisation applications that support distance, direction, or area judgments should adopt an exocentric globe as the default view, accepting that users will need to rotate or reposition the globe to inspect the hidden hemisphere.
  • When area comparison must be done quickly, a flat or curved map is the safer choice, since both were significantly faster than the globes in the study.
  • Egocentric globes—views from inside the sphere—should generally be avoided for analytic geographic tasks: they were slowest overall, demanded the most head and controller movement, and produced the strongest motion sickness.
  • A curved map is a viable middle ground: it outperformed the flat map for direction estimation, matched it elsewhere, and was more comfortable than the egocentric globe, though motion sickness still exceeded the exocentric globe and flat map.
  • The paper's prototype animated transition between an exocentric globe and a flat map is a direct design response to the finding that each display has complementary strengths, and is a natural next step for hybrid visualisations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The ranking is sensitive to the chosen physical parameters: the egocentric globe's 8 m radius and the user's position 80% of the way to the shell required substantial head turning, so a version viewed from the centre might fare better than it did here.
  • The paper's tasks target low-level spatial judgments; higher-level analytic tasks such as comparing thematic overlays, flows, or networks could plausibly change the ordering, as the authors themselves note for future work.
  • A direct robustness test would vary the radius and viewing distance of each display systematically to map where each visualisation wins, rather than treating the chosen parameters as canonical.
  • The conclusion that exocentric globes suit mixed reality extrapolates from a VR headset study; see-through AR displays have different field-of-view and depth cues, so the advantage may not transfer unchanged.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports a within-subjects user study (N=32) comparing four VR visualizations of global geographic data: an exocentric globe, a flat map, an egocentric globe, and a curved map. Participants performed three fundamental spatial tasks—distance comparison, area comparison, and direction estimation—with accuracy, response time, head/controller movement, motion-sickness ratings, and preference recorded. The paper finds that the exocentric globe is the most accurate for distance and direction and the fastest for direction, while flat and curved maps are faster for area comparison; the egocentric globe is generally the least effective and causes the most motion sickness. The authors conclude that the results support the use of exocentric globes for geographic visualization in mixed reality.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides the first controlled empirical comparison of global-map display types in head-mounted VR, which is a valuable reference for geovisualization and immersive analytics design. Strengths include appropriate nonparametric and mixed-effects statistical analyses, confidence intervals for performance measures, and the inclusion of interaction and motion-sickness measures. The study is empirical and does not rely on fitted parameters, so there is little risk of circularity. However, the class-level recommendation is qualified by the use of a single parameterization per visualization type, particularly the egocentric globe, and by the extrapolation from VR to mixed reality.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3 (Egocentric Globe), Section 6 (Discussion), Section 7 (Conclusion)] The central claim that the exocentric globe is 'generally the best choice of VR visualisation' is not fully supported because the egocentric globe is tested under a parameterization that the paper itself concedes introduces 'considerable distortion': the user stands at 80% of the 8 m radius, so the view is oblique. Section 6 attributes the egocentric globe's weaknesses to 'perceptual distortion introduced by changing view point and the extra effort of body interaction', and the interaction results (Fig. 10) show the egocentric condition produces the most head movement and rotation. This confound is load-bearing: it prevents the study from supporting a class-level recommendation, because a centered or otherwise more favorable egocentric design could plausibly perform differently. Please either restrict the conclusions to the specific implementations tested or add a condition that varies the egocentric parameterization.
  2. [Section 7 (Conclusion) and Abstract] The abstract and conclusion extend the results to 'mixed-reality' and to 'VR, AR and MR', but the experiment was conducted only with an HTC Vive VR headset (Section 4, Experimental Setup). The paper itself notes that AR devices currently have a narrower field of view, and this difference could plausibly affect the relative performance of the four visualizations. The central claim should therefore be restricted to VR HMDs, with MR implications presented as a hypothesis for future work, unless an AR condition is included.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5 (Area Comparison)] The overall Friedman test for area-comparison accuracy is reported as 'statistically significant' with χ2(3) = 7.218, p = .0652, but p = .0652 exceeds the conventional α = 0.05. This is a misreport; the correct conclusion is that the omnibus effect is not significant, with only a single post-hoc pairwise difference (flat map vs. egocentric globe) reaching significance. Please correct this statement and any downstream wording that relies on it.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'F ar distance' should be 'Far distance' (e.g., Section 5, Figures 5, 7, 9); 'texocentric globe' should be 'exocentric globe' in the direction-estimation time results (Section 5); 'posthoc questionaire' should be 'post-hoc questionnaire' (Section 4); 'familarised' should be 'familiarised' (Section 4).
  3. [Section 6 (Discussion)] The sentence 'its ratio of controller interactions head interactions is significantly larger than with other visualisations' appears to be missing a word; it should read 'ratio of controller interactions to head interactions'.
  4. [General] The paper does not provide the experimental data or analysis code, which would allow readers to re-parameterize the visualizations and test the sensitivity of the conclusions. Please consider adding a supplemental material with anonymized data and code.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are supported by measured user-study data, not by fitted parameters or self-cited derivations.

full rationale

This is an empirical user study comparing four VR visualisations on distance, area, and direction tasks. The central claim that the exocentric globe is generally the best choice is supported by direct measurements of accuracy, response time, participant preference, and motion-sickness ratings reported in Section 5. There is no derivation chain in which an output is constructed from its inputs: no equation is fitted to a subset of data and then reused as a prediction, no parameter is defined in terms of the outcome, and no uniqueness theorem or prior result is invoked to force the conclusion. The few self-citations (e.g., Cordell et al. on immersive analytics, Jenny et al. on map projections) are background references and are not load-bearing for the empirical ranking. The egocentric globe design was adjusted during piloting for usability (radius and viewing position), and the paper openly discusses its perceptual distortion and motion sickness, but this is a design-choice limitation that affects external validity and generalizability rather than circularity: the measured outcomes were not enforced by construction. The skeptical concern that a different egocentric parameterization might yield different results is a threat to the scope of the conclusion, not a circular reduction. Under the defined criteria, no circular step is present, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard cartographic facts and typical HCI domain assumptions, plus several hand-chosen display parameters. No hidden entities or postulates are introduced. The free parameters are design choices that could affect the results, so they are listed explicitly, though none were fitted to the final outcome.

free parameters (5)
  • Exocentric globe radius = 0.4 m
    Hand-chosen size. At 1 m distance it subtends about 44 degrees, making it visually smaller than the other displays, yet it still performed best. Different sizes could alter results.
  • Egocentric globe radius and user position = 8 m radius; user at 80% of radius (6.4 m from center)
    Set to 8 m to prevent walking out and positioned off-center after pilot feedback. This configuration likely increased head movement and motion sickness, and may not represent typical egocentric globe designs.
  • Flat map size = 1 x 0.5 m at 1 m distance
    Hand-chosen size and distance; affects viewing angle and the scale of map features relative to the user.
  • Curved map parameters = radius 1 m; horizontal 108 degrees; vertical 54 degrees
    Chosen to cover most of the HMD field of view while reducing head movement. The curvature and coverage contribute to motion sickness and perceptual characteristics.
  • Coefficient of variation (CV) thresholds for task difficulty = Distance: 10% and 5%; Area: 10% and 7.5%
    Adjusted after pilot studies to avoid floor/ceiling effects. These thresholds influence accuracy differences and are not pre-registered.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The Hammer projection preserves area while introducing angular distortion that increases away from the center.
    The paper relies on this known cartographic property when claiming the flat map is equal-area (Section 3, Flat Map; based on Snyder [Sny87]).
  • domain assumption The Unity3D implementation on HTC Vive provides a valid and artifact-free presentation of the four visualizations.
    The study assumes stereoscopic rendering, head tracking, and lighting are correct and do not bias results (Section 4, Experimental Setup).
  • domain assumption Artificial stimuli (random points and polygons) eliminate the influence of prior geographic knowledge.
    The authors state this in Section 4 (Stimuli and tasks) to ensure the tasks measure visualization effectiveness rather than memory of real-world geography.
  • domain assumption The participant sample of 32 university students and researchers, mostly with little VR experience, is representative of target users of mixed-reality geovisualization.
    The authors generalize their findings to VR/AR/MR users despite the convenience sample and limited age range (Section 4, Participants).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Maps and Globes in Virtual Reality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WUFJNBHZ

@misc{pith2026190802088,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Maps and Globes in Virtual Reality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WUFJNBHZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02088}
}
read the original abstract

This paper explores different ways to render world-wide geographic maps in virtual reality (VR). We compare: (a) a 3D exocentric globe, where the user's viewpoint is outside the globe; (b) a flat map (rendered to a plane in VR); (c) an egocentric 3D globe, with the viewpoint inside the globe; and (d) a curved map, created by projecting the map onto a section of a sphere which curves around the user. In all four visualisations the geographic centre can be smoothly adjusted with a standard handheld VR controller and the user, through a head-tracked headset, can physically move around the visualisation. For distance comparison, exocentric globe is more accurate than egocentric globe and flat map. For area comparison, more time is required with exocentric and egocentric globes than with flat and curved maps. For direction estimation, the exocentric globe is more accurate and faster than the other visual presentations. Our study participants had a weak preference for the exocentric globe. Generally, the curved map had benefits over the flat map. In almost all cases the egocentric globe was found to be the least effective visualisation. Overall, our results provide support for the use of exocentric globes for geographic visualisation in mixed-reality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02088 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Four interactive visualisations for geographic data in Virtual Reality (VR). Abstract This paper explores different ways to render world-wide geographic maps in virtual reality (VR). We compare: (a) a 3D exo￾centric globe, where the user’s viewpoint is outside the globe; (b) a flat map (rendered to a plane in VR); (c) an egocentric 3D globe, with the viewpoint inside the globe; and (d) a curved map, created by proje… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distortion of an egocentric globe changes with user po￾sition: (b) view at the initial location; (a) view from left close to the sphere’s hull; (c) close view from right. centre and wished to move to the edge of the globe to enlarge their field of view. So we adjusted the position of the globe to allow the participants to stand at the edge of the globe (80% of radius away from the centre). To ensure that participant… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Tissot indicatrices on the Natural Earth raster map with a graticule, (a) on an exocentric globe, (b) on a flat map. pilot study. We therefore adjusted the CV values to 10% and 5%, re￾spectively. For the geographic distance, we chose 60◦ for the short distance, which approximately spans the size of a continent, and 120◦ was chosen for the long distance. Two pairs of points were randomly generated. The distance betwe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a1) Average performance of distance comparison task per visualisation, with 95% confidence interval, (a2) graphical de￾piction of results of pairwise post-hoc test. While curved map (0.83) outperformed egocentric globe and flat map, this was not found to be statistica…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a2). Small variation: χ 2 (3) = 10.938, p = .0120 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a1) Average performance of area comparison task per visualisation, with 95% confidence interval, (a2, a3) graphical de￾piction of results of pairwise post-hoc test. nificant effect for avg. accuracy: Easy: χ 2 (3) = 27.545, p < .0001 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) Average accumulated movements of head and con￾troller per task; (b) average accumulated rotations of head and controller per task. egocentric globe: - Placing the start point of the arrow at the center of the globe, then rotating the globe following the direction …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Break down of direction estimation task into different difficulty conditions. (a1,b1) Average performance per visualisa￾tion with 95% confidence interval, (a2,a3,b2,b3) graphical depic￾tion of results of pairwise post-hoc test. (10.0s) and egocentric globe (10.2s). The…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Animated transformation from a flat map to an exocen￾tric globe: top row - top view; second row - front view and bottom row - side view. The touchpad dynamically controls the progress. is despite the fact that less of the earth’s surface is visible in the exocentric g…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry.original add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 i...

  3. [3]

    T., Scaloubacas P., Assimacopoulos D

    Arampatzis G., Kiranoudis C. T., Scaloubacas P., Assimacopoulos D. : A GIS-based decision support system for planning urban transportation policies . European Journal of Operational Research 152, 2 (Jan. 2004), 465--475

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    : Code as Cartography

    Bostock M., Davies J. : Code as Cartography . The Cartographic Journal 50, 2 (Nov. 2013), 129--135

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    A., Jonsen I

    Block B. A., Jonsen I. D., Jorgensen S. J., Winship A. J., Shaffer S. A., Bograd S. J., Hazen E. L., Foley D. G., Breed G. A., Harrison A. L., Ganong J. E., Swithenbank A., Castleton M., Dewar H., Mate B. R., Shillinger G. L., Schaefer K. M., Benson S. R., Weise M. J., Henry R. W., Costa D. P. : Tracking apex marine predator movements in a dynamic ocean ....

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    E., Montello D

    Battersby S. E., Montello D. R. : Area Estimation of World Regions and the Projection of the Global-Scale Cognitive Map . Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99, 2 (Apr. 2009), 273--291

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    E., MacKinnon S

    Bos J. E., MacKinnon S. N., Patterson A. : Motion Sickness Symptoms in a Ship Motion Simulator: Effects of Inside, Outside and No View . Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 76, 12 (Jan. 2006), 1111--1118

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Brown C. E. : Coefficient of Variation . In Applied Multivariate Statistics in Geohydrology and Related Sciences. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998, pp. 155--157

    work page 1998

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    : The Earth is flat when personally significant experiences with the sphericity of the Earth are absent

    Carbon C.-C. : The Earth is flat when personally significant experiences with the sphericity of the Earth are absent . Cognition 116, 1 (2010), 130--135

    2010

  2. [10]

    : Immersive Analytics

    Chandler T., Cordeil M., Czauderna T., Dwyer T., Glowacki J., Goncu C., Klapperstueck M., Klein K., Marriott K., Schreiber F., Wilson E. : Immersive Analytics . In 2015 Big Data Visual Analytics (BDVA) (2015), IEEE, pp. 1--8

    2015

  3. [11]

    Cordeil M., Dwyer T., Klein K., Laha B., Marriott K., Thomas B. H. : Immersive Collaborative Analysis of Network Connectivity: CAVE-style or Head-Mounted Display? IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 1 (2016), 441--450

    2016

  4. [12]

    A., Kaufman Y

    Chu D. A., Kaufman Y. J., Zibordi G., Chern J. D., Mao J., Li C., Holben B. N. : Global monitoring of air pollution over land from the Earth Observing System-Terra Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) . Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 108, D21 (No...

    2003

  5. [13]

    : Rotate the World, 2013

    Davies J. : Rotate the World, 2013. URL: https://www.jasondavies.com/maps/rotate/

    2013

  6. [14]

    : GeoPeels: Deformation-Based Technique for Exploration of Geo-Referenced Networks

    Debiasi A., De Amicis R., Sim \ o es B. : GeoPeels: Deformation-Based Technique for Exploration of Geo-Referenced Networks . In International Conference on Computer Graphics, Visualization and Computer Vision WSCG (June 2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    : Globes in R enaissance E urope

    Dekker E. : Globes in R enaissance E urope. In The History of Cartography: Volume 3--Cartography in the E uropean R enaissance (Part 1) . University of Chicago Press, 2007, pp. 135--173

    2007

  8. [16]

    : The Teardown: HTC Vive virtual reality headset

    Dempsey P. : The Teardown: HTC Vive virtual reality headset . Engineering & Technology 11 , 7 (Aug. 2016), 80--81

    2016

  9. [17]

    u bel S., R \

    D \"u bel S., R \"o hlig M., Schumann H., Trapp M. : 2d and 3d presentation of spatial data: a systematic review. In 2014 IEEE VIS International Workshop on 3DVis (3DVis) (2014), IEEE, pp. 11--18

    2014

  10. [18]

    : Situated analytics

    ElSayed N., Thomas B., Marriott K., Piantadosi J., Smith R. : Situated analytics. In Big Data Visual Analytics (BDVA), 2015 (2015), IEEE, pp. 1--8

    2015

  11. [19]

    Friedman A., Brown N. R. : Reasoning about geography . Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129, 2 (2000), 193--219

    2000

  12. [20]

    Friedman A., Montello D. R. : Global-scale location and distance estimates: Common representations and strategies in absolute and relative judgments . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32, 2 (2006), 333--346

    2006

  13. [21]

    : Knowledge-based augmented reality

    Feiner S., Macintyre B., Seligmann D. : Knowledge-based augmented reality . Communications of the ACM 36, 7 (1993), 53--62

    1993

  14. [22]

    Guimer \`a R., Mossa S., Turtschi A., Amaral L. A. N. : The worldwide air transportation network: Anomalous centrality, community structure, and cities' global roles . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, 22 (May 2005), 7794--7799

    2005

  15. [23]

    URL: https://vr.google.com/earth/

    Google : Google Earth VR, 2017. URL: https://vr.google.com/earth/

    2017

  16. [24]

    C., Ayala R

    Hruby F., Avelino M. C., Ayala R. M. : Journey to the End of the World Map How Edges of World Maps Shape the Spatial Mind . Journal for Geographic Information Science Volume 1 (2016), 314--323

    2016

  17. [25]

    : Virtual reality

    Hedley N. : Virtual reality. In The History of Cartography: Cartography in the Twentieth Century , Monmonier M., (Ed.), vol. 6. University of Chicago Press, 2015, pp. 1680--1683

    2015

  18. [26]

    : Beyond the Periphery: Child and Adult Understanding of World Map Continuity

    Hennerdal P. : Beyond the Periphery: Child and Adult Understanding of World Map Continuity . Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105, 4 (July 2015), 773--790

    2015

  19. [27]

    C., Potapov P

    Hansen M. C., Potapov P. V., Moore R., Hancher M., Turubanova S. A., Tyukavina A., Thau D., Stehman S. V., Goetz S. J., Loveland T. R., Kommareddy A., Egorov A., Chini L., Justice C. O., Townshend J. R. G. : High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change . Sci...

    2013

  20. [28]

    Hollander M., Wolfe D. A. : Nonparametric Statistical Methods . New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1999

    1999

  21. [29]

    D., Marston B

    Jenny B., S avri c B., Arnold N. D., Marston B. E., Preppernau C. A. : A Guide to Selecting Map Projections for World and Hemisphere Maps . In Choosing a Map Projection. Springer, 2017, pp. 213--228

    2017

  22. [30]

    : Real-time raster projection for web maps

    Jenny B., S avri c B., Liem J. : Real-time raster projection for web maps . International Journal of Digital Earth 9, 3 (Jan. 2015), 215--229

    2015

  23. [31]

    T., Blasius B

    Kaluza P., K \"o lzsch A., Gastner M. T., Blasius B. : The complex network of global cargo ship movements . Journal of The Royal Society Interface 7, 48 (July 2010), 1093--1103

    2010

  24. [32]

    : A Study of Layout, Rendering, and Interaction Methods for Immersive Graph Visualization

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

    2016

  25. [33]

    A., Dykes J

    K \"o lzsch A., Slingsby A., Wood J., Nolet B. A., Dykes J. : Visualisation design for representing bird migration tracks in time and space . In Workshop on Visualisation in Environmental Sciences EnvirVis (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    : Mapping Population Data from Zone Centroid Locations

    Martin D. : Mapping Population Data from Zone Centroid Locations . Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 14, 1 (1989), 90

    1989

  27. [35]

    A., Carpenter T

    Moore D. A., Carpenter T. E. : Spatial Analytical Methods and Geographic Information Systems: Use in Health Research and Epidemiology . Epidemiologic Reviews 21, 2 (Feb. 1999), 143--161

    1999

  28. [36]

    McCulloch C. E. : Repeated Measures ANOVA, R.I.P.? CHANCE 18, 3 (Aug. 2013), 29--33

    2013

  29. [37]

    C., Bates D

    Pinheiro J. C., Bates D. M. : Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS . Springer, New York, NY, 2000

    2000

  30. [38]

    E., Natapov A., Fisher-Gewirtzman D

    Portman M. E., Natapov A., Fisher-Gewirtzman D. : To go where no man has gone before: Virtual reality in architecture, landscape architecture and environmental planning . Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 54 (Nov. 2015), 376--384

    2015

  31. [39]

    : Projection Wizard An Online Map Projection Selection Tool

    S avri c B., Jenny B., Jenny H. : Projection Wizard An Online Map Projection Selection Tool . The Cartographic Journal 53, 2 (June 2016), 177--185

    2016

  32. [40]

    A., McMaster R

    Slocum T. A., McMaster R. B., Kessler F. C., Howard H. H. : Thematic cartography and geovisualization, 3rd ed. Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2009

    2009

  33. [41]

    Snyder J. P. : Map projections: A working manual . U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987

    1987

  34. [42]

    Snyder J. P. : Flattening the earth: two thousand years of map projections. University of Chicago Press, 1997

    1997

  35. [43]

    : Temporal tile-maps for characterising the temporal occupancy of places: A seabird case study

    Slingsby A., van Loon E. : Temporal tile-maps for characterising the temporal occupancy of places: A seabird case study . In GISRUK 2017 Conference Proceedings (Apr. 2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    : The Judgment of Size

    Teghtsoonian M. : The Judgment of Size . The American Journal of Psychology 78, 3 (Sept. 1965), 392

    1965

  37. [45]

    : Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects

    Teghtsoonian R., Stevens S., Stevens G. : Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. The American Journal of Psychology 88, 4 (1975), 677

    1975

  38. [46]

    : Information visualization: perception for design, 3rd ed

    Ware C. : Information visualization: perception for design, 3rd ed. Elsevier, 2013

    2013

  39. [47]

    : Lightweight Relief Shearing for Enhanced Terrain Perception on Interactive Maps

    Willett W., Jenny B., Isenberg T., Dragicevic P. : Lightweight Relief Shearing for Enhanced Terrain Perception on Interactive Maps . In the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Apr. 2015), ACM, pp. 3563--3572

    2015

  40. [48]

    : An immersive approach to the visual exploration of geospatial network datasets

    Zhang M.-J., Li J., Zhang K. : An immersive approach to the visual exploration of geospatial network datasets . In VRCAI '16 Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry (Dec. 2016), ACM, pp. 381--390

    2016

Pith tools

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