We regularly consult and construct visual displays that are intended to communicate important information. The power of these displays and the instructional messages we attempt to comprehend when using them emerge from the information included in the display and by their spatial arrangement. In this article, we identify common types of visual displays and the kinds of inferences that each type of display is designed to promote. In particular, we outline different types of semantic and pictorial displays. Then, we describe four main ways in which visual displays can affect cognitive processing including selection, organization, integration, and processing efficiency and how semantic and pictorial displays support these types of processing. We conclude with seven recommendations for designing visual displays and possible directions for future research.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.
Ainsworth, S. E., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27(4), 669–681.
Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working memory, thought and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182–197.
Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400. doi:10.1037/a0031084.
Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 5–26.
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.965823.
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149–210.
Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 59–74. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.10.002.
de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 113–140.
de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in learning from a complex animation: seeing is understanding? Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 111–122.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning and comprehension by using effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–58.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: eight learning strategies that promote understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fyfe, E. R., McNeil, N. M., Son, J. Y., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014). Concreteness fading in mathematics and science instruction: a systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 9–25. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9249-3
Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: a meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511–525.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
Guitèrrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 5, 19–25.
Gutierrez, A. P., Schraw, G., & Stefik, A. (2015). Design principles for visual displays: past, present, and future. In M. T. McCrudden, G. Schraw, & C. Buckendahl (Eds.), Use of visual displays in research and testing: Coding, interpreting, and reporting data (pp. 17–46). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Hegarty, M., Canham, M., & Fabrikant, S. (2010). Thinking about the weather: how display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 37–53. doi:10.1037/a0017683.
Hinze, S. R., Rapp, D. N., Williamson, V. M., Shultz, M. J., Deslongchamps, G., & Williamson, K. C. (2013). Beyond the ball-and-stick: students’ processing of novel STEM visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 26, 12–21.
Höffler, T. N. (2010). Spatial ability: its influence on learning with visualizations—a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 245–269. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9126-7.
Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: a meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722–738.
Hollan, J. D., Hutchins, E. L., & Weitzman, L. (1984). Steamer: an interactive inspectable simulation-based training system. AI Magazine, 5(2), 15–27.
Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). Helping students soar to success on computers: an investigation of the SOAR study method for computer-based learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 601–614.
Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. A. (1993). Structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
Kauffman, D. F., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). What makes a matrix so effective? An empirical test of the relative benefits of signaling, extraction, and localization. Instructional Science, 38, 679–705.
Kiewra, K. A. (2012). IDEA Paper 51: using graphic organizers to improve teaching and learning. Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center.
Kiewra, K. A., Kauffman, D. F., Robinson, D., DuBois, N., & Staley, R. K. (1999). Supplementing floundering text with adjunct displays. Journal of Instructional Science, 27, 373–401.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1985). Graphics and human information processing: a review of five books. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 80, 499–513.
Kozhevnikov, M., Evans, C., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2014). Cognitive styles as environmentally sensitive individual differences in cognition: a modern synthesis and applications in education, business, and management. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15(1), 3–33.
Kriz, S., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 911–930. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.06.005.
Lane, D. M. (2015). Guidelines for making graphs easy to perceive, easy to understand, and information rich. In M. T. McCrudden, G. Schraw, & C. Buckendahl (Eds.), Use of visual displays in research and testing: Coding, interpreting, and reporting data (pp. 47–81). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–100.
Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 157–176.
Lowe, R. K., & Boucheix, J. M. (2008). Learning from animated diagrams: how are mental models built. In G. Stapleton, J. Howse, & J. Lee (Eds.), Theory and applications of diagrams (pp. 266–281). Berlin: Springer.
Marley, S. C., & Carbonneau, K. J. (2014). Future directions for theory and research with instructional manipulatives: commentary on the special issue papers. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 91–100. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9259-1.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., & Pluchino, P. (2013). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60, 95–109.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2013). Fostering learning with visual displays. In G. Schraw, M. T. McCrudden, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 47–73). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 380–386.
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). The use of adjunct displays to facilitate comprehension of causal relationships in expository text. Instructional Science, 37(1), 65–86. doi:10.1007/s11251-007-9036-3.
McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J., & Schraw, G. (2011). The effects of diagrams on online reading processes and memory. Discourse Processes, 48(2), 69–92. doi:10.1080/01638531003694561.
McCrudden, M. T., Hushman, C., & Marley, S. (2014). Exploring the boundary conditions of the redundancy principle. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82(4), 537–554. doi:10.1080/00220973.2013.813368.
McElhaney, K., Chang, H., Chiu, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science curriculum materials. Studies in Science Education. doi:10.1080/03057267.2014.984506.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: the role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.
Nesbit, J. C., & Adelsope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448. doi:10.3102/00346543076003413.
Newcombe, N., & Shipley, T. F. (2012). Thinking about spatial thinking: new typology, new assessments. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Studying visual and spatial reasoning for design creativity. Berlin: Springer.
Novick, L. R., & Hurley, S. M. (2001). To matrix, network, or hierarchy, that is the question. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 158–216.
O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: a memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1200–1210.
O’Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Guéraud, S. (2010). Accessibility of outdated information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 979–991.
O’Donnell, A., Dansereau, D., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 71–86.
Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 110e117. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.001.
Park, B., Flowerday, T., & Brünken, R. (2015). Cognitive and affective effects of seductive details in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 267–278.
Pastor, D. A., & Finney, S. J. (2013). Using visual displays to enhance understanding of quantitative research. In G. Schraw, M. T. McCrudden, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 387–415). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Hayward, E. (2009). Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 31–61.
Ponce, H. R., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Qualitatively different cognitive processing during online reading primed by different study activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 121–130.
Rapp, D. N., & Taylor, H. A. (2004). Interactive dimensions in the construction of mental representations for text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 988–1001.
Robinson, D. H. (1998). Graphic organizers as aids to text learning. Reading Research and Instruction, 37, 85–105.
Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 455–467.
Robinson, D. H., & Schraw, G. (1994). Computational efficiency through visual argument: do graphic organizers communicate relations in text too effectively? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 399–415.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.
Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34, 344–355.
Sauter, M., Uttal, D. H., Rapp, D. N., Downing, M., & Jona, K. (2013). Getting real: the authenticity of remote labs and simulations for science learning. Distance Education, 34(1), 37–47.
Schnotz, W. (2002). Commentary—towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101–120.
Shah, P., & Hoeffner, J. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 47–69.
Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M., & Minnaert, A. (2015). What motivates early adolescents for school? A longitudinal analysis of associations between observed teaching and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 129–140.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.
Tversky, B., Zacks, J., Lee, P., & Heiser, J. (2000). Lines, blobs, crosses, and arrows: diagrammatic communication with schematic figures. In M. Anderson, P. Cheng, & V. Haarslev (Eds.), Theory and application of diagrams (pp. 221–230). Berlin: Springer.
Van Meter, P. N., Waters, J. R., & Cameron, C. (2015, April). The effects of self-explanation prompts and diagram comprehension ability on task performance in multimedia learning. Poster presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14, 261–312.
Winn, W. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 211–247.
Wylie, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (2014). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 413–432). New York: Cambridge University Press.
About this article
Cite this article
McCrudden, M.T., Rapp, D.N. How Visual Displays Affect Cognitive Processing. Educ Psychol Rev 29, 623–639 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9342-2
- Visual display
- Graphic organizer
- Visual representation
- Cognitive processing
- Multimedia learning