The most salient ways in which data visualization and interactive techniques have been understood as the material basis of cognition in the emergent field of visual analytics are discussed. Three main dominant understandings have captured the imagination and theorizations of researchers and technicians in this field: data visualizations and interactive techniques as cognitive amplifiers, cognitive prostheses, and cognitive mediators. The analysis of this treatment of materiality in cognition provides an up-to-date report on whether remarks on the situated character of cognition and the active role of human agents have, in effect, been incorporated in this field or not. We argue that even though visual analytic researchers have incorporated some of the ideas of situated cognition and tempered traditional arguments of information processing from cognitive science, understandings of the role of materiality in cognition are still marked by universalisms and ascriptions of exacerbated agency to visual representations.
AlmNorman, AstellArlene, GowansGary, DyeRichard, EllisMaggie, VaughanPhillip, and NewellAlan F.2007. An Interactive Entertainment System Usable by Elderly People with Dementia. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction.
2.
ArnottJohn L., ZhangLeishi, O'MaraDavid, AlmNorman A., and TaylorAndrew.2006. Information Visualisation in the User Interface for Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Technology & Disability18(3): 147–161.
3.
BowkerGeoffrey C., and StarSusan L.1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
4.
CampbellBruce D., MeteHuseyin O., FurnessTom, WeghosrtSuzanne, and ZabinskyZelda.2008. Emergency Response Planning and Training through Interactive Simulation and Visualisation with Decision Support. IEEE Proc. Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security176–180.
5.
CardStuart K., MackinlayJock D., and SchneidermanBen, eds.1999. Readings in Information Visualisation: Using Vision to Think. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
6.
CooperJeffrey R.2005. Curing Analytic Pathologies: Pathways to Improved Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Intelligence.
7.
CzerwinskiMary, HorvitzEric, and WilhiteSusan.2004. A Diary Study of Task Switching and Interruptions. Proc. CHI 20046(1): 175–182.
8.
DourishPaul.2001. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
9.
DykesJason, MacEachrenAlan M., and KraakMenno-Jan.2005. Advancing Geovisualisation. In Exploring Geovisualisation, edited by DykesJason, MacEachrenAlan M. and KraakMenno-Jan,693–703. Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd.
10.
FoucaultMichel.1995. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.
11.
GotzDavid and ZhouMichelle X.2009. Characterizing Users’ Visual Analytic Activity for Insight Provenance. Information Visualisation8(1): 42–55.
12.
GrayWayne D., and FuWai-Tat.2004. Soft Constraints in Interactive Behavior: The Case of Ignoring Perfect Knowledge In-The-World for Imperfect Knowledge In-The-Head. Cognitive Science28(3): 359–382.
13.
GrayWayne D., SimsChris R., FuWai-Tai, SchoellesMichael J.2006. The Soft Constraints Hypothesis: A Rational Analysis Approach to Resource Allocation for Interactive Behavior. Psychological Review113(3): 461–482.
14.
GreenTera M., RibarskyWilliam, and FisherBrian.2009. Building and Applying a Human Cognition Model for Visual Analytics. Information Visualisation8(1), 1–13.
15.
GreenTera M., WakkaryRon, and Arias-HernandezRichard.2011. Expanding the Scope: Interaction Design Perspectives for Visual Analytics. Proc. of HICSS-44. Computer Society Press.
16.
HegartyMary.2011. The Cognitive Science of Visual–Spatial Displays: Implications for Design. Topics in Cognitive Science3(3), 446–474.
17.
HeuerRichards J.1999. The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Intelligence.
18.
HutchinsEdwin.1995. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
19.
JanneyRichard W.1997. The Prosthesis as Partner: Pragmatics and the Human–Computer Interface. Proc. IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Technology: 82–87.
20.
Johnson-LairdPhilip N.1986. Mental Models. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
21.
JohnstonRob.2005. Analytic Culture in the US Intelligence Community: an Ethnographic Study. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Intelligence.
22.
KaufmanE.L., LordM.W., ReeseT.W., and VolkmannJ.1949. The Discrimination of Visual Number. The American Journal of Psychology62(4): 498–525.
23.
KaptelininVictor and NardiBonnie A.2009. Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
24.
KeehnerMadeleine, HegartyMary, CohenCheryl, KhooshabehPeter, and MontelloDaniel R.2008. Spatial Reasoning With External Visualisations: What Matters Is What You See, Not Whether You Interact. Cognitive Science32(7): 1099–1132.
25.
KirshDavid and MaglioPaul.1994. On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Actions. Cognitive Science18(4), 513–549.
26.
KirshDavid.1995. The Intelligent Use of Space. Artificial Intelligence73(1–2): 31–68.
27.
LammingMik, BrownPeter, CarterKathleen, EldridgeMargery, FlynnMike, LouieGifford, RobinsonPeter, and SellenAbigail.1994. The Design of a Human Memory Prosthesis. The Computer Journal37(3): 153–163
28.
LarkinJill H., and SimonHerbert A.1987. Why a Diagram Is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science11(1): 65–100.
29.
LaveJean.1988. Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
LeontievA.1978. Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
31.
LiuZhicheng, NersessianNancy J., and StaskoJohn T.2008. Distributed Cognition as a Theoretical Framework for Information Visualisation. IEEE Transactions on Visualisation and Computer Graphics14(6): 1173–1180.
32.
LiuZhicheng and StaskoJohn T.2010. Mental Models, Visual Reasoning and Interaction in Information Visualisation: A Top-down Perspective. IEEE Transactions on Visualisation and Computer Graphics16(6): 999–1008.
33.
MatthewsTara.2006. Designing and Evaluating Glanceable Peripheral Displays. Proc. DIS 2006: 343–345.
34.
MillerGeorge A.1956. The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review63(2): 81–97.
35.
NardiBonnie A. (ed.).1996. Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-computer Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
NormanDonald A.1993. Things That Makes Us Smart: Defending Human Attributes in the Age of the Machine. New York: Addison–Wesley.
37.
NugentChris D., DaviesRichard J., DonnellyMark P., HallbergJosef, HarizMossaab, CraigDavid, MeilandFranka, MoelaertFerial, BengtssonJohan E., SavenstedtStefan, MulvennaMaurice, and DröesRose-Marie2008. The Development of Personalized Cognitive Prosthetics. Proc. IEEE EMBS Conference: 787–790.
38.
PattersonE. S., RothE. M., and WoodsD. D.2001. Predicting Vulnerabilities in Computer-Supported Inferential Analysis under Data Overload. Cognition, Technology & Work3(4): 224–237.
39.
PikeWilliam, BruceJoe, BaddeleyBob, BestDaniel, FranklinLyndsey, MayRichard, RiceDouglas, RienscheRick, and YounkinKatarina.2009. The Scalable Reasoning System: Lightweight Visualisation for Distributed Analytics. Information Visualisation8(1): 71–84.
40.
PirolliPeter and CardStuart K.2005. The Sensemaking Process and Leverage Points for Analyst Technology as Identified Through Cognitive Task Analysis. Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligence Analysis. McLean, VA: Mitre.
41.
PylyshynZenon W.2003. Return of the mental image: are there really pictures in the brain?. Trends in Cognitive Science7(3): 113–118.
42.
PylyshynZenon W.1989. The Role of Location Indexes in Spatial Perception: A Sketch of the FINST Spatial-Index Model. Cognition32(1): 65–97.
43.
ThomasJames J. and CookKristin A., eds.2005. Illuminating the Path: the Research and Development Agenda for Visual Analytics. Los Alamitos: IEEE.
44.
ScaifeMike and RogersYvonne.1996. External Cognition: How Do Graphical Representations Work?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies45(2): 185–213.
45.
ShrinivasanYedendra B., and van WijkJarke J.2009. Supporting Exploration Awareness in Information Visualisation. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications29(5): 34–43.
46.
SuchmanLucy.1987. Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.
47.
VygotskyL.1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
48.
WangXiao-yue, and MuYan.2009. Visualisation Based on Concept Maps: An Efficient Way to Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Discovery in E-science Environment. Proc. IEEE FSKD 2009: 144–147
49.
WareColin.2004. Information Visualisation: Perception for Design. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
50.
WongPak Chung and ThomasJim.2004. Visual Analytics. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications24(5): 20–21.
51.
YiJi Soo, ah KangYoun, StaskoJohn T.2007. Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Role of Interaction in Information Visualisation. IEEE Transactions on Visualisation and Computer Graphics13(6): 1224–1231.
52.
ZhangJianping, ZhongDa, and ZhangJiahua.2010. Knowledge Visualisation: An Effective Way of Improving Learning. Proc. IEEE 2nd Int. Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science1: 598–601.
53.
ZhangJiaje and NormanDonald A.1994. Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks. Cognitive Science181): 87–122.
54.
ZhaoJ., ForerP. and HarveyA.S.2008. Activities, ringmaps and geovisualisation of large human movement fields. Information Visualisation7: 198–209.
