ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Comparing distributed knowledge: the effects of visualization format and comparison strategy on task performance.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. 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
Introduction: Teams can benefit from collaboration tools that make distributed knowledge more accessible and comparable when sharing and integrating information. Comparative knowledge visualizations serve this function by presenting multiple knowledge profiles within a shared display. This allows users to distinguish shared information from unshared information. Despite the widespread use of knowledge visualizations in collaborative settings, comparatively little is known about how specific design choices support comparing multiple knowledge profiles. This study examined how comparative knowledge visualizations support users' understanding of distributed knowledge. The study focused on two core design decisions: how to represent conceptual knowledge and how to arrange multiple profiles within a shared display. Methods: We manipulated two core design decisions in comparative knowledge visualizations, each of which was implemented in two variants: knowledge representation format (concept maps versus proposition lists) and visual comparison strategy (juxtaposition versus superimposition). We also varied task complexity to test whether design advantages increase as comparison demands rise. In a 2 × 2 × 3 mixed-design experiment ( Results: Comparison strategy showed a robust effect: superimposition yielded faster responses overall and higher accuracy under medium and high complexity. Knowledge format did not affect performance. Usability ratings indicated complementary advantages: superimposition was perceived as more helpful for comparing profiles and accessing group-level knowledge, whereas juxtaposition was rated clearer and more supportive for identifying individual knowledge. Discussion: The effectiveness of comparative knowledge visualizations depends on how multiple profiles are perceptually aligned and separated to match the epistemic goal (integrative comparison vs. source-specific inspection) and the processing demands of the task. The results provide evidence-based guidance for designing comparative displays that support identification of shared and unshared knowledge in collaborative work.
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.