In Chapter 2, we introduced a series of examples of how cartography selects and depicts terrestrial, celestial, and human biological features of physical phenomena. Geographic and oceanographic maps help us to find our way on land and sea. Star maps help us to explore the universe. In this chapter, we turn our attention inwards and explore the design of mind maps, maps that represent our thought, our experience, and our knowledge. In traditional cartography, a thematic map always has a base map and a thematic overlay. For many physical phenomena, a geographic map is probably the best base map we may ever have: intuitive, solid, and real. Now we want to produce a map of the mind. In this category of phenomena, a geographic connection may no longer be valid. A geographic base map cannot be taken for granted. What metaphor do we use to hold something as fluid as our thought together? What are the design principles in constructing a metaphoric base map that can adequately represent what is by its nature invisible, intangible, and intractable?


Random Graph Concept Mapping Principal Component Analysis Minimum Span Tree Semantic Network 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abello, J, Pardalos, PM, and Resende, MGC (1999). On maximum clique problems in very large graphs. In: J Abello and J Vitter (eds), External Memory Algorithms. American Mathematical Society, pp. 119–30.Google Scholar
  2. Albert, A, Jeong, H, and Barabási, A-L (1999). Diameter of the World Wide Web. Nature, 401, 130–1. Albert, R, Jeong, H, and Barabási, A-L (2000). Attack and error tolerance in complex networks.Nature, 406, 378–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. lbert, R, Jeong, H, and Barabási, A-L (2000). Attack and error tolerance in complex networks.Nature, 406, 378–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barabási, A-L, Albert, R, Jeong, H, and Bianconi, G (2000). Power-law distribution of the World Wide Web. Science, 287, 2115a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basalaj, W (2001). Proximity visualization of abstract data. Technical Report 509, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, January 2001. Scholar
  6. Batagelj, V, and Mrvar, A (1998). Pajek: a program for large network analysis. Connections, 21(2),47–57.Google Scholar
  7. Biglan, A (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borg, I, and Groenen, P (1997). Modern Multidimensional Scaling. New York: Springer-Verlag.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Botafogo, R, Rivlin, E, and Shneiderman, B (1992). Structural analysis of hypertexts: Identifying hierarchies and useful metrics, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 10(2), 142–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burt, RS (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Burt, RS (2002). The social capital of structural holes. In: NF Guillen, R Collins, P England and M Meyer (eds), The New Economic Sociology: Development in an Emerging Field. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  12. Bush, V (1945). As we may think. Atlantic Monthly, 176(1), 101–8.Google Scholar
  13. Canter, D, Rivers, R, and Storrs, G (1985). Characterizing user navigation through complex data structures. Behaviour and Information Technology, 4(2), 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, C, and Czerwinski, M (1997). Spatial ability and visual navigation: an empirical study. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 3, 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collins, AM, and Quillian, MR (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conklin, J (1987). Hypertext: an introduction and survey. IEEE Computer, 20(9), September, 17–41.Google Scholar
  17. Darken, RP, Allard, T, and Achille, LB (1998). Spatial orientation and wayfinding in large-scale virtual spaces: an introduction. Presence, 7(2), 101–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Donoho, D, and Ramos, E (1982). PRIMDATA: Data sets for use with PRIM-H (retrieved 5 November 2001). Scholar
  19. Everitt, BS (1980). Cluster Analysis. New York: Halsted Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Everitt, BS, and Rabe-Hesketh, S (1997). The Analysis of Proximity Data. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  21. Granovetter, M (1973). Strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 8, 1360–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greenacre, MJ (1993). Correspondence Analysis in Practice. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hayes, B (2000a). Graph theory in practice: Part I. American Scientist, 88(1), 9–13.Google Scholar
  24. Hayes, B (2000b). Graph theory in practice: Part II. American Scientist, 88(2), 104–9.Google Scholar
  25. Helm, CE (1964). Multidimensional ratio scaling analysis of perceived color relations. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 54, 256–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ingram, R, and Benford, S (1995). Legibility enhancement for information visualisation. Proceedings of the 6th Annual IEEE Computer Society Conference on Visualization, October 1995, Atlanta, GA,USA, pp. 209–16.Google Scholar
  27. Kleinberg, J (1998). Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the ACM, 46(5),604–32.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kochen, M (ed.) (1989). The Small World: A Volume of Recent Research Advances Commemorating Ithiel de Sola Pool, Stanley Milgram, Theodore Newcomb. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  29. Krumhansl, CL (1978). Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similar data: the interrelationship between similarity and spatial density. Psychological Review, 85(5), 445–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kruskal, JB (1977). The relationship between multidimensional scaling and clustering. In: J van Ryzin (ed.), Classification and Clustering. New York: Academic Press, pp. 17–44.Google Scholar
  31. Kruskal, JB, and Wish, M (1978). Multidimensional Scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Levine, M, Jankovic, IN, and Palij, M (1982). Principles of spatial problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(2), 157–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levine, M, Marchon, I, and Hanley, G (1984). The placement and misplacement of You-Are-Here maps. Environment and Behavior, 16(2), 139–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lynch, K (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. McCallum, RC (1974). Relations between factor analysis and multidimensional scaling. Psychological Bulletin, 81(8), 505–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Milgram, S (1967). The small world problem. Psychology Today, 2, 60–7.Google Scholar
  37. Miller, GA (1969). A psychological method to investigate verbal concepts. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 6, 169–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morris, TA, and McCain, K (1998). The structure of medical informatics journal literature. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 5(5), 448–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rapoport, A, and Horvath, WJ (1961). A study of a large sociogram. Behavioural Science, 6(4), 279–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roweis, ST, and Saul, LK (2000). Nonlinear dimensionality reduction by locally linear embedding.Science, 290(5500), 2323–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Small, H (1986). The synthesis of specialty narratives from co-citation clusters. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37(3), 97–110.Google Scholar
  42. Small, H (2000). Charting pathways through science: exploring Garfield’s vision of a unified index to science. In: B Cronin and HB Atkins (eds), Web of Knowledge - A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield. Washington: ASIST, pp. 449–73.Google Scholar
  43. Steyvers, M (2000). Multidimensional scaling. In: Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. London:Macmillan Reference.Google Scholar
  44. Steyvers, M, and Tenenbaum, J (2001). Small worlds in semantic networks (retrieved December 2001). Scholar
  45. Tenenbaum, JB, Silva, Vd, and Langford, JC (2000). A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. Science, 290(5500), 2319–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thorndyke, P, and Hayes-Roth, B (1982). Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 560–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tolman, EC (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 55, 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trochim, W (1989). Concept mapping: soft science or hard art? Evaluation and Program Planning, 12,87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trochim, W (1993). Reliability of concept mapping. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association, Dallas, Texas. November, 1993. Available at Scholar
  50. Trochim, W, and Linton, R (1986). Conceptualization for evaluation and planning. Evaluation and Program Planning, 9, 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trochim, W, Cook, J, and Setze, R (1994). Using concept mapping to develop a conceptual framework of staffs views of a supported employment program for persons with severe mental illness.Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(4), 766–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tversky, A (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Watts, DJ (1999). Small Worlds: The Dynamics of Networks between Order and Randomness.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Watts, DJ, and Strogatz, SJ (1998). Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature, 393, 440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zahn, CT (1917). Graph-theoretical methods for detecting and describing Gestalt clusters. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C20, 68–86.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chaomei Chen
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Information Science and TechnologyDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations