Non-photorealistic 3D Visualization in City Maps: An Eye-Tracking Study

  • Stanislav Popelka
  • Jitka Doležalová
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


The paper describes an eye-tracking study focused on evaluation of 2D and 3D visualization techniques in cartography. Three-dimensional visualization is used by an increasing number of visualization applications and systems. However, there is still too little known about when it is appropriate to do so, and how 3D can be used in visualization most efficiently. The case study contained maps of the cities, where 3D effect was illustrated by 3D buildings. Eye-tracking study was performed to compare user perception of these two types of visualization in maps of the cities. SMI RED 250 eye-tracker with sample frequency of 120 Hz was used in the study. Set of static image stimuli was used for the experiment. Study was performed in within-subject design. For the avoidance of the learning effect, stimuli were modified a bit. Point symbols are placed in different locations, but their number is the same for each pair of stimuli. For evaluation of results, statistical analyses of selected eye-tracking metrics were used, as well as the visual analytics of eye-tracking data. Eye-tracking experiment was enhanced with a questionnaire, examining the respondent’s subjective opinions about each visualization technique. It was found, that 3D effect in city maps without tilt has no influence on map reading. Searching for point symbols was not different between maps with and without 3D effect.


3D visualization City maps Evaluation Eye-tracking Search Visual analytics 


  1. Andrienko G, Andrienko N, Burch M, Weiskopf D (2012) Visual analytics methodology for eye movement studies. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 18(12):2889–2898Google Scholar
  2. Cartwright W, Peterson MP, Gartner G (2007) Multimedia cartography. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  3. Döllner J, Buchholz H (2005) Non-photorealism in 3D geovirtual environments. In: Proceedings of AutoCarto, ACSM, Las Vegas, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  4. Durand F (2002) An invitation to discuss computer depiction. In: Symposium on non-photorealistic animation and rendering (NPAR)Google Scholar
  5. Fuhrmann S, Komogortsev O, Tamir D (2009) Investigating hologram-based route planning. Trans GIS 2009:177–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldberg JH, Stimson MJ, Lewenstein M, Scott N, Wichansky AM (2002) Eye tracking in web search tasks: design implications. In: Proceedings of the eye tracking research and applications symposium, New Orleans, 25–27 March, pp 51–58Google Scholar
  7. Haber RB, McNabb DA (1990) Visualization idioms: a conceptual model for scientific visualization systems. In: Nielson G, Shriver B, Rosenblum L (eds) Visualization in scientific computing. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, pp 74–93Google Scholar
  8. Haeberling C (2004) Topografische 3D-Karten ñ Thesen für kartografische Ge-staltungsgrundsaetze. Dissertation, Institut für Kartographie der ETH Zuerich, ZuerichGoogle Scholar
  9. Herman L, Reznik T (2013) Web 3D visualization of noise mapping for extended INSPIRE buildings model. In: Hrebicek J et al (eds) ISESS 2013, IFIP AICT 413, pp 414–424Google Scholar
  10. Irvankoski K, Torniainen J, Krause CM (2012) Visualisation of elevation information on maps: an eye movement study. In: Conference proceedings, The Scandinavian Workshop on Applied Eye Tracking (SWAET), Karolinska Instituet, Stockholm, 56 pGoogle Scholar
  11. Jedlicka K, Cerba O, Hajek P (2013) Creation of information-rich 3D model in geographic information system – case study at the Castle Kozel. In: Conference proceedings, informatics, geoinformatics and remote sensing, vol I. STEF92 Technology Ltd., Sofia, pp 685–692Google Scholar
  12. Komogortsev O, Khan J (2009) Predictive compression for real time multimedia communication using eye movement analysis. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications 6Google Scholar
  13. Konečný M, Kubíček P, Stachoň Z, Šašinka C (2011) The usability of selected base maps for crises management – users’ perspectives. Appl Geomatics 3(4):189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kraak MJ (1988) Computer-assisted cartographic three-dimensional imaging techniques. In: Raper J (ed) Three dimensional applications in geographical information systems. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 99–114Google Scholar
  15. Ooms K, De Maeyer P, Fack B (2014) Study of the attentive behavior of novice and expert map users using eye tracking. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 41(1):37–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Petrovic D, Masera P (2006) Analysis of user’s response on 3D cartographic presentations. In: Proceedings of 5th ICA mountain cartography workshop, BohinjGoogle Scholar
  17. Popelka S, Brychtová A (2013) Eye-tracking study on different perception of 2D and 3D terrain visualisation. Cartogr J 50(3):240–246s. ISSN: 1743–2774 (Maney Publishing)Google Scholar
  18. Popelka S, Voženílek V (2012) Specifying of requirements for spatio-temporal data in map by eye-tracking and space-time-cube. In: Proceedings of international conference on graphic and image processing, Singapore, 5 pGoogle Scholar
  19. Popelka S, Brychtová A, Voženílek V (2012) Eye-tracking a jeho využití při hodnocení map. Geografický časopis Geografický ústav SAV, pp 71–87Google Scholar
  20. Salvucci DD, Goldberg JH (2000) Identifying fixations and saccades in eye tracking protocols. Eye tracking research and applications symposium. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Savage DM, Wiebe EN, Devine HA (2004) Performance of 2D versus 3D topographic representations for different task types. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 48(16):1793–1797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schobesberger D, Patterson T (2008) Exploring of effectiveness of 2D vs. 3D trail-head maps. In: Proceedings of 6th ICA mountain cartography workshop, Lenk im SimmentalGoogle Scholar
  23. Upson C, Faulhaber T, Kamins D, Schlegel D, Laidlaw D, Vroom J, Gurwitz R, van Dam A (1989) The application visualization system: a computational environment for scientific visualization. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 9(4):30–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilkening J, Fabrikant SI (2013) How users interact with a 3D geo-browser under time pressure. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 40(1):40–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wood J, Kirschenbauer S, Döllner J, Lopes A, Bodum L (2005) Using 3D in visualization. In: Dykes J, MacEachren AM, Kraak M-J (eds) Exploring geovisualization. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 295–312Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeoinformaticsPalacký UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations