An Attention Based Theory to Explore Affordances of Textual and Diagrammatic Proofs

  • Peter Coppin
  • Jim Burton
  • Stephen Hockema
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6170)


Shimojima and Katagiri have demonstrated that diagrams reduce “inferential load” during reasoning by scaffolding visual-spatial aspects of memory. In response, we wondered why, if this is true, that proofs are usually text based? The purpose of this paper is to explore ergonomic affordances of text that may encourage its use in the communication of proofs by building on prior work in attention. We claim that textual notations may focus a reasoner’s “spotlight” of attention through serialized sequential chunks, whereas many diagrams may “diffuse” attention and that a diagrammatic notation system that serialized information in chunks amenable to focused attention could leverage the power of textual notations. We present such an example through a case study focused on generalized constraint diagrams, a visual logic with attributes that may support focused attention and extract ergonomic principles that may transcend each notation system.


attention visual thinking proof logic geometry 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ballard, D.H., Hayhoe, M.M., Pook, P.K., Rao, R.P.N.: Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20, 723–767 (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barwise, J., Etchemendy, J.: Visual information and valid reasoning. In: Logical Reasoning with Diagrams, pp. 3–25. Oxford University Press, Inc., Oxford (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coppin, P., Hockema, S.: A cognitive exploration of the “non-visual” nature of geometric proofs. In: Cox, P., Fish, A., Howse, J. (eds.) Visual Languages and Logic, pp. 81–95 (September 2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gil, J., Howse, J., Kent, S.: Towards a formalization of constraint diagrams. In: Proc. IEEE Symposia on Human-Centric Computing (HCC 2001), Stresa, Italy, pp. 72–79. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11(1), 65–100 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lemon, O., de Rijke, M., Shimojima, A.: Editorial: Efficacy of diagrammatic reasoning. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 8(3), 265–271 (1999)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mumma, J.: Ensuring generality in euclid’s diagrammatic arguments. In: Diagrammatic Representation and Inference, pp. 222–235 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mumma, J.: Proofs, pictures, and euclid. In: Synthese (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scholl, B.J.: Objects and attention: The state of the art. Cognition 80(1-2), 1–46 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shimojima, A., Katagiri, Y.: An Eye-Tracking study of exploitations of spatial constraints in diagrammatic reasoning. In: Diagrammatic Representation and Inference, pp. 74–88 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spivey, M.J., Geng, J.J.: Oculomotor mechanisms activated by imagery and memory: eye movements to absent objects. Psychological Research 65(4), 235–241 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stapleton, G., Delaney, A.: Evaluating and generalizing constraint diagrams. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 19(4), 499–521 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tennant, N.: The withering away of formal semantics? Mind & Language 1(4), 302–318 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Treisman, A.M., Gelade, G.: A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology 12(1), 97–136 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Coppin
    • 1
  • Jim Burton
    • 2
  • Stephen Hockema
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of InformationUniversity of TorontoOntarioCanada
  2. 2.Visual Modeling Group, CMISUniversity of BrightonUK

Personalised recommendations