Effects of animation, user-controlled interactions, and multiple static views in understanding 3D structures

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Effects of animation, user-controlled interactions, and multiple static views in understanding 3D structures

Full text

Pdf (806 KB)

Source

Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization archive
Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization table of contents

Chania, Crete, Greece

SESSION: Animation and transitions table of contents

Pages 69-76

Year of Publication: 2009

ISBN:978-1-60558-743-1

Authors

Taylor Sando	University of Manitoba
Melanie Tory	University of Victoria
Pourang Irani	University of Manitoba

Sponsor

SIGGRAPH: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 13, Downloads (12 Months): 13, Citation Count: 0

Additional Information:

abstract references index terms

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1620993.1621008 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Visualizations of 3D spatial structures use various techniques such as user controlled interactions or 2D projection views to convey the structure to users. Researchers have shown that motion cues can help assimilate the structure of 3D spatial data, particularly for discerning occluded parts of the objects. However, motion cues or smooth animations also have costs - they increase the viewing time. What remains unclear is whether any one particular viewing time. What remains unclear is whether any one particular viewing modality allows users to understand and operate on the 3D structure as effectively as a combination of 2D and 3D static views. To assess the effectiveness of understanding 3D structures, we carried out three experiments. In all three experiments we evaluated the effectiveness of perceiving 3D structures with either self controlled interactions, animated transitions, and 2D+3D static views. In the first experiment, subjects were given a task to estimate the relative distances of objects in a 3D scene. In the second experiment, subjects made judgements to discern and identify the existence of differences between 3D objects. In the third experiment, participants were required to reconstruct a 3D spatial structure based on the 3D models presented to them. Results of the three experiments reveal that participants were more accurate and performed the spatial tasks faster with smooth animations and self-controlled interactions than with 2D+3D static views. Our results overall suggest that the costs involved in interacting or animating a 3D spatial structure are significantly outweighed by the perceptual benefits derived from viewing and interacting in these modes of presentation.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Bederson, B. B., D., H. J., Perlin, K., Meyer, J., Bacon, D., and Furnas, G. W. 1996. Pad++: A zoomable graphical sketchpad for exploring alternate interface physics. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 7, 1, 3--32.
	2	Bederson, B. B., Hollan, J. D., Perlin, K., Meyer, J., Bacon, D., and Furnas, G. W. 2001. Rethinking the evaluation of algorithm animations as learning aids: an observational study. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 54, 265--284.
	3	Brooks, S., and Whalley, J. 2005. Pad++: A zoomable graphical sketchpad for exploring alternate interface physics. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques in Australasia and South East Asia, 323--330.
	4	Burd, E., Overy, D., and Wheetman, A. 2002. Evaluating using animation to improve understanding of sequence diagrams. In Program Comprehension, 2002. Proceedings. 10th International Workshop, 107--113.
	5	Byrne, M. D., Catrabone, R., and Stasko, J. T. 1996. Do Algorithm Animations Aid Learning? GVU Technical Report.
	6	Keehner, M. and Hegarty, M. and Cohen, C. and Khooshabeh, P. and Montello, D. R. 2008. Spatial reasoning with external visualizations: What matters is what you see, not whether you interact. Cognitive Sciences 32, 1099--1132.
	7	Liter, J. C., Braunstein, M. L., and Hoffman, D. D. 1993. Inferring structure from motion in two-view and multiview displays. Perception 22, 12, 1441--1465.
	8	M., S., Brecheisen, D. M., and Hynek, B. M. 1993. Can computer animations affect college biology students' conceptions about diffusion and osmosis? The American Biology Teacher 63, 2, 104--109.
	9	Mcclean, P., Johnson, C., Rogers, R., Daniels, L., Reber, J., Slator, B. M., Terpstra, J., and White, A. 2005. Molecular and cellular biology animations: development and impact on student learning. Cell Biology Education 4, 2, 169--179.
	10	Robertson, G. G., Card, S. K., and Mackinlay, J. D. 1993. Information visualization using 3D interactive animation. Communications of the ACM 36, 4, 56--71.
	11	Sanger, M. J., Phelps, A. J., and Fienhold, J. 2000. Using a computer animation to improve students' conceptual understanding of a can-crushing demonstration. Journal of Chemical Education 77, 11, 1517.
	12	Sollenberger, R. L., and Milgram, P. 1993. The effects of stereoscopic and rotational displays in a three-dimensional path-tracing task. Human Factors 35, 3, 483--500.
	13	St. John, M., Cowen, M. B., Smallman, H. S., and Oonk, H. M. 2001. The use of 2D and 3D displays for shape-understanding versus relative-position task. Human Factors 43, 1, 79--98.
	14	Stasko, J., Badre, A., and Lewis, C. 1993. Do algorithm animations assist learning?: An empirical study and analysis. In Proceedings of the INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 conference on Human factors in computing systems, 61--66.
	15	Tory, M., and Swindells, C. 2003. Comparing exovis, orientation icon, and in-place 3D visualization techniques. In Graphics Inteferface Proceedings, 57--64.
	16	Tory, M., Atkins, M. S., Moeller, T., and Kirkpatrick, A. E. 2004. Combining 2D and 3D views for orientation and relative position tasks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 73--80.
	17	Tory, M., Kirkpatrick, A. E., Atkins, M. S., and Moeller, T. 2006. Visualization task performance with 2D, 3D, and combination displays. In IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 12, 2--13.
	18	Tory, M. 2003. Mental registration of 2D and 3D visualizations (an empirical study). In Proceedings of IEEE Visualization, 371--378.
	19	Tresens, M. A., and Kuester, F. 2003. Hybrid-reality: A collaborative environment for biomedical data. In NSF Lake Tahoe Workshop on Collaborative Virtual Reality and Visualization.
	20	Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., and Betrancourt, M. 2002. Animation: can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 57, 247--262.
	21	Velez, M., Silver, D., and Tremaine, M. 2005. Understanding visualization through spatial ability differences. In Proceedings of IEEE Visualization.
	22	Wallach, H., and O'Conne U, D. N. 1953. The kinetic depth effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology 45, 205--217.
	23	Ware, C., and Franck, G. 1996. Evaluating stereo and motion cues for visualizing information nets in three dimensions. In ACM Transactions on Graphics, 121--140.
	24	Ware, C., Arthur, K., and Booth, K. S. 1993. Fish tank virtual reality. In Proceedings of the INTERACT'93 and CHI'93 conference on Human factors in computing systems, 37--42.
	25	Ware, C. 2006. 3D contour perception for flow visualization. In Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization, 101--106.