ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2025
Dynamic data visualizations as events: effects of framing and change salience on segmenting dynamic maps.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Event segmentation theory, which explores how individuals divide continuous experiences into discrete events, has been extensively studied in naturalistic stimuli. We investigate whether key findings generalize to animated data visualizations, specifically dynamic thematic maps. Experiment 1 showed that inter-individual segmentation agreement in dynamic maps occurs above chance levels and is influenced by the direction of the depicted trend. Experiments 2 and 3 build on these findings by systematically varying the depicted trend in maps showing population changes of fictional insect species. In addition, we examined how conceptual (framing of the species as endangered or invasive) and perceptual factors (salience of directional change) interact to shape segmentation agreement. In Experiment 2, salience was manipulated using different color scales: Saturation-based scales as the high-salience condition and hue-based scales as the low-salience condition. We found a significant three-way interaction between trend, framing, and salience: Agreement was higher when the framing matched the trend direction, but only in the high-salience condition. In Experiment 3, salience was more subtly manipulated by showing the trend either spatially clustered (high salience) or spatially distributed (low salience) across the maps. The results partly replicate the findings of Experiment 2, showing a significant interaction between trend, framing, and spatial pattern on segmentation agreement, with higher agreement for negative trends when population decline was salient and framed as endangered. These findings suggest that symbolic visualizations are subject to event segmentation processes, provided both bottom-up perceptual features and top-down conceptual expectations support the formation and updating of internal event models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.