The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.06 - November/December (2009 vol.15)
pp: 1219-1226
Andrew Forsberg , Brown University
Jian Chen , Brown University
David Laidlaw , Brown University
ABSTRACT
In a user study comparing four visualization methods for three-dimensional vector data, participants used visualizations from each method to perform five simple but representative tasks: 1) determining whether a given point was a critical point, 2) determining the type of a critical point, 3) determining whether an integral curve would advect through two points, 4) determining whether swirling movement is present at a point, and 5) determining whether the vector field is moving faster at one point than another. The visualization methods were line and tube representations of integral curves with both monoscopic and stereoscopic viewing. While participants reported a preference for stereo lines, quantitative results showed performance among the tasks varied by method. Users performed all tasks better with methods that: 1) gave a clear representation with no perceived occlusion, 2) clearly visualized curve speed and direction information, and 3) provided fewer rich 3D cues (e.g., shading, polygonal arrows, overlap cues, and surface textures). These results provide quantitative support for anecdotal evidence on visualization methods. The tasks and testing framework also give a basis for comparing other visualization methods, for creating more effective methods, and for defining additional tasks to explore further the tradeoffs among the methods.
INDEX TERMS
3D vector fields, visualization, user study, tubes, lines, stereoscopic and monoscopic viewing
CITATION
Andrew Forsberg, Jian Chen, David Laidlaw, "Comparing 3D Vector Field Visualization Methods: A User Study", IEEE Transactions on Visualization & Computer Graphics, vol.15, no. 6, pp. 1219-1226, November/December 2009, doi:10.1109/TVCG.2009.126
REFERENCES
[1] Tecplot, Inc., http://www.tecplot.com/, last accessed: June 2009.
[2] Kitware, Inc., http://www.paraview.org/, last accessed: June 2009.
[3] D. Acevedo, C. Jackson, D. H. Laidlaw, and F. Drury, Using visual design experts in critique-based evaluation of 2D vector visualization methods. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 14 (4): 877–884, July 2008.
[4] D. A. Bowman, J. L. Gabbard, and D. Hix, A survey of usability evaluation in virtual environments: classification and comparison of methods. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environment, 11 (4): 404–424, 2002.
[5] C. Cruz-Neira, D. J. Sandin, and T. A. DeFanti, Surround-screen projection-based virtual reality: The design and implementation of the cave. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH, volume 27, pages 135–142. ACM, August 1993.
[6] C. Demiralp, C. D. Jackson, D. B. Karelitz, S. Zhang, and D. H. Laidlaw, Cave and fishtank virtual-reality displays: A qualitative and quantitative comparison. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 12 (3): 323–330, 2006.
[7] C. Demiralp and D. H. Laidlaw, Similarity coloring of DTI fiber tracts. In Proceedings of DMFC Workshop at MICCAI 2009, 2009.
[8] H. Q. Dinh, G. Turk, and G. Slabaugh, Reconstructing surfaces by volu-metric regularization using radial basis functions. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence archive, 24 (10): 1358–1371, 2002.
[9] A. S. Forsberg, J. Chen, and D. H. Laidlaw, Towards comparing 3D flow visualization methods: A user study. IEEE Visualization Poster, 2008.
[10] W. Hibbard and D. Santek, Interactivity is the key. In VVS '89: Proceedings of the 1989 Chapel Hill Workshop on Volume Visualization, pages 39–43, New York, NY, USA, 1989. ACM.
[11] J. Jeong and F. Hussain, On the identification of a vortex. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, pages 69–94, 285 1995.
[12] Kitware, Inc. The Visualization Toolkit User's Guide, January 2003.
[13] D. H. Laidlaw, R. M. Kirby, C. D. Jackson, J. S. Davidson, T. S. Miller, M. da Silva, W. H. Warren, and M. J. Tarr, Comparing 2D vector field visualization methods: A user study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 11 (1): 59–70, 2005.
[14] R. S. Laramee, D. Weiskopf, J. Schneider, and H. Hauser, Investigating swirl and tumble flow with a comparison of visualization techniques. In VIS '04: Proceedings of the Conference on Visualization '04, pages 51–58, Washington, DC, USA, 2004. IEEE Computer Society.
[15] R. J. Larsen and M. L. Marx, An Introduction to Mathematical Statistics and Its Applications. Prentice Hall, third edition, 2000.
[16] L. Li and H.-W. Shen, Image-based streamline generation and rendering. IEEE TVCG, 13 (3): 630–640, 2007.
[17] O. Mallo, R. Peikert, C. Sigg, and F. Sadlo, Illuminated lines revisited. IEEE Visualization Conference, 2005.
[18] O. Mattausch, T. Theussl, H. Hauser, and E. Groller, Strategies for interactive exploration of 3D flow using evenly-spaced illuminated streamlines. In SCCG '03, 2003.
[19] S. E. Maxwell and H. D. Delaney, Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective. Wadsworth, 1990.
[20] T. Munzner, C. Johnson, R. Moorhead, H. Pfister, P. Rheingans, and T. S. Yoo, NIH-NSF visualization research challenges report summary. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 26 (2): 20–24, 2006.
[21] Prabhat, A. Forsberg, M. Katzourin, K. Wharton, and M. Slater, A comparative study of desktop, fishtank, and cave systems for the exploration of volume rendered confocal data sets. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 14 (3): 551–563, 2008.
[22] J. Sobel, A. Forsberg, D. H. Laidlaw, R. Zeleznik, D. Keefe, I. Pivkin, G. Karniadakis, P. Richardson, and S. Swartz, Particle flurries: Synoptic 3D pulsatile flow visualization. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 24 (2): 76–85, March/April 2004.
[23] A. van Dam, A. Forsberg, D. H. Laidlaw, J. La Viola, and R. M. Simpson, Immersive VR for scientific visualization: A progress report. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 20 (6): 26–52, November/December 2000.
[24] J. J. van Wijk, Image based flow visualization. In SIGGRAPH '02: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, New York, NY, 2002.
[25] C. Ware, 3D contour perception for flow visualization. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization, 2006.
[26] C. Ware, K. Arthur, and K. S. Booth, Fish tank virtual reality. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 37–42, 1993.
[27] X. Ye, D. Kao, and A. Pang, Strategy for seeding 3D streamlines. In IEEE Visualization 2005, 2005.
[28] M. Zöckler, D. Stalling, and H.-C. Hege, Interactive visualization of 3D-vector fields using illuminated stream lines. In IEEE Visualization, 1996.
28 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool