The Effect of Exploration Mode and Frame of Reference in Immersive Analytics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The design space for user interfaces for Immersive Analytics applications is vast. Designers can combine navigation and manipulation to enable data exploration with ego- or exocentric views, have the user operate at different scales, or use different forms of navigation with varying levels of physical movement. This freedom results in a multitude of different viable approaches. Yet, there is no clear understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of each choice. Our goal is to investigate the affordances of several major design choices, to enable both application designers and users to make better decisions. In this article, we assess two main factors, exploration mode and frame of reference, consequently also varying visualization scale and physical movement demand. To isolate each factor, we implemented nine different conditions in a Space-Time Cube visualization use case and asked 36 participants to perform multiple tasks. We analyzed the results in terms of performance and qualitative measures and correlated them with participants' spatial abilities. While egocentric room-scale exploration significantly reduced mental workload, exocentric exploration improved performance in some tasks. Combining navigation and manipulation made tasks easier by reducing workload, temporal demand, and physical effort.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".