↓ Skip to main content

Effects of ensemble and summary displays on interpretations of geospatial uncertainty data

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#17 of 150)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of ensemble and summary displays on interpretations of geospatial uncertainty data
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41235-017-0076-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lace M. Padilla, Ian T. Ruginski, Sarah H. Creem-Regehr

Abstract

Ensemble and summary displays are two widely used methods to represent visual-spatial uncertainty; however, there is disagreement about which is the most effective technique to communicate uncertainty to the general public. Visualization scientists create ensemble displays by plotting multiple data points on the same Cartesian coordinate plane. Despite their use in scientific practice, it is more common in public presentations to use visualizations of summary displays, which scientists create by plotting statistical parameters of the ensemble members. While prior work has demonstrated that viewers make different decisions when viewing summary and ensemble displays, it is unclear what components of the displays lead to diverging judgments. This study aims to compare the salience of visual features - or visual elements that attract bottom-up attention - as one possible source of diverging judgments made with ensemble and summary displays in the context of hurricane track forecasts. We report that salient visual features of both ensemble and summary displays influence participant judgment. Specifically, we find that salient features of summary displays of geospatial uncertainty can be misunderstood as displaying size information. Further, salient features of ensemble displays evoke judgments that are indicative of accurate interpretations of the underlying probability distribution of the ensemble data. However, when participants use ensemble displays to make point-based judgments, they may overweight individual ensemble members in their decision-making process. We propose that ensemble displays are a promising alternative to summary displays in a geospatial context but that decisions about visualization methods should be informed by the viewer's task.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Student > Bachelor 5 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 29%
Computer Science 5 18%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Decision Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 10 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2017.
All research outputs
#292,773
of 15,087,934 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#17
of 150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,419
of 278,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,087,934 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them