Cognitive Processing

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 43–52 | Cite as

Visualizing space, time, and agents: production, performance, and preference

  • Angela KessellEmail author
  • Barbara Tversky
Research Report


Visualizations of space, time, and agents (or objects) are ubiquitous in science, business, and everyday life, from weather maps to scheduling meetings. Effective communications, including visual ones, emerge from use in the field, but no conventional visualization form has yet emerged for this confluence of information. The real-world spiral of production, comprehension, and use that fine-tunes communications can be accelerated in the laboratory. Here, we do so in search of effective visualizations of space, time, and agents. Users’ production, preference, and performance aligned to favor matrix representations with time as rows or columns and space and agents as entries. Overall, performance and preference were greater for matrices with discrete dots representing cell entries than for matrices with lines, but lines connecting cells may provide an advantage when evaluating temporal sequence. Both the diagram type and the technique have broader applications.


Diagram Production Comprehension Preference Space Time 



We are grateful for the support of the Stanford Regional Visualization and Analysis Center, NSF REC-0440103, NSF IIS-0725223, NSF IIS-0855995, and NSF HHC 0905417.


  1. Boroditsky L (2001) Does language affect thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cogn Psychol 43:1–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark HH (1973) Space, time, semantics, and the child. In: Moore TE (ed) Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark HH (1996) Using language. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Heiser J, Phan D, Agrawala M, Tversky B, Hanrahan P (2004) Identification and validation of cognitive design principles for automated generation of assembly instructions. Proceedings of the working conference on advanced visual interfaces. Gallipoli, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  5. Hurley SM, Novick LR (2006) Context and structure: the nature of students’ knowledge about three spatial diagram representations. Think Reason 12(3):281–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Larkin J, Simon H (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth 10,000 words. Cogn Sci 11:65–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Novick LR (2006) Understanding spatial diagram structure: an analysis of hierarchies, matrices, and networks. Q J Exp Psychol 59:1826–1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Novick LR, Hurley S, Francis M (1999) Evidence for abstract, schematic knowledge of three spatial diagram representations. Mem Cognit 27:288–308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Taylor HA, Tversky B (1997) Indexing events in memory: evidence for index dominance. Memory 5:509–542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Tversky B (1981) Distortions in memory for maps. Cogn Psychol 13:407–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tversky B (2001) Spatial schemas in depictions. In: Gattis M (ed) Spatial schemas and abstract thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 79–112Google Scholar
  12. Tversky B, Lee PU (1998) How space structures language. In: Freksa C, Habel C, Wender KF (eds) Spatial cognition: an interdisciplinary approach to representation and processing of spatial knowledge. Springer, Berlin, pp 157–175Google Scholar
  13. Tversky B, Lee PU (1999) Pictorial and verbal tools for conveying routes. In: Freksa C, Mark DM (eds) Spatial information theory: cognitive and computational foundations of geographic information science. Springer, Berlin, pp 51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tversky B, Kugelmass S, Winter A (1991) Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions. Cogn Psychol 23:515–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tversky B, Zacks J, Lee PU, Heiser J (2000) Lines, blobs, crosses, and arrows: diagrammatic communication with schematic figures. In: Anderson M, Cheng P, Haarslev V (eds) Theory and application of diagrams. Springer, Berlin, pp 221–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tversky B, Agrawala M, Heiser J, Lee PU, Hanrahan P, Phan D, Stolte C, Daniel M-P (2006) Cognitive design principles for automated generation of visualizations. In: Allen GL (ed) Applied spatial cognition: from research to cognitive technology. Psychology Press, New York, pp 53–73Google Scholar
  17. Wagenaar WA (1986) My memory: a study of autobiographical memory over six years. Cogn Psychol 18:225–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zacks J, Tversky B (1999) Bars and lines: a study of graphic communication. Mem Cognit 27(6):1073–1079CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Zwaan RA, Radvansky GA (1998) Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychol Bull 123:162–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.San Jose State University, NASA Ames Research CenterSan JoseUSA
  3. 3.Columbia Teachers CollegeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations