Data Representation

Dr. Sjoerd Stuit

 This is me
❖ Sjoerd Stuit
❖ Experimentele Psychology
❖ S.M.Stuit@uu.nl
❖ Teaching:
❖ Psychology, Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Neuroscience
❖ Research:
❖ How basic visual properties evoke emotional responses
 Today
❖ Data representations
❖ Goals
❖ Meaning and Options
❖ Practice
❖ What to pay attention to
❖ Link to Psychology
❖ Feedback own Projects (if you want it)
 Data Representation

❖ Why it matters:
❖ You will argue your case with data
❖ Your data will likely be public
❖ Reports
❖ Publications
❖ Open Source Data
Open Source Data
 Representation Goals
❖ Reduce reading time
❖ Explaining your process/analysis
❖ Show you data
❖ Provide insight into your statistical analysis
❖ Convince
❖ Through insight
❖ Not by overwhelming the reader/audience
 Dependent of Target Audience

❖ Today’s suggestions are mainly based on a scientific

target audience
❖ Non-Science / Corporate: more liberal, more flashy
❖ Non-Science / Novice: more liberal, less = more
 Independent of Target Audience

❖ Clarity: Take the reader by the hand

 Independent of Target Audience

❖ Clarity: Take the reader by the hand

Explain it to me like
I’m a 5-year old
 Stimulus
❖ All details required to recreate a stimulus
…Specifically, the rivalling images consisted of horizontal and vertical sine-wave gratings
or parts of faces presented to one eye, paired with plaids presented to the other eye. The
gratings were presented at a Michelson contrast of 49.7% with a space-average luminance
of 25 cd/m2. The gratings had a spatial frequency of 4.1 cpd. For the parts of the neutral faces
we used a male and a female taken from the Ekman and Friesen (1976) face stimuli set.
Plaids were presented at 74.4% Michelson contrast and had the same spatial frequency as the
gratings. All interocular pairs were shown in circular apertures with a radius of 1.9° of
visual angle whose edges were softened by a cosine ramp of 0.2° of visual angle, and
were presented on a random pixel noise background of 98% (Michelson) contrast (25 cd/
m2) that was identical in both eyes. The half-images were presented within square white
frames. We used four basic stimulus arrangements in our experiments (Figure 1): 1) matching
images in the same hemifield – in the same eye, 2) matching images in different hemifields – in
the same eye, 3) matching images in the same hemifield – in different eyes, and 4) matching
images in different hemifields – in different eyes. The distance from the fixation point to the
centre of the target was 2.1° of visual angle and identical for all targets in all conditions.
 Stimulus
❖ All details required to recreate a stimulus
…Specifically, the rivalling images consisted of horizontal and vertical sine-wave gratings or parts
of faces presented to one eye, paired with plaids presented to the other eye. The gratings were
presented at a Michelson contrast of 49.7% with a space-average luminance of 25 cd/m2. The
gratings had a spatial frequency of 4.1 cpd. For the parts of the neutral faces we used a male and a
female taken from the Ekman and Friesen (1976) face stimuli set. Plaids were presented at 74.4%
Michelson contrast and had the same spatial frequency as the gratings. All interocular pairs were
shown in circular apertures with a radiusE of 1.9° of visual angle whose edges were softened by a
cosine ramp of 0.2° of visual angle, and were presented on a random pixel noise background of
98% (Michelson) contrast (25 cd/m2) that was identical in both eyes. The half-images were presented
within square white frames. We used four basic stimulus arrangements in our experiments (Figure
1): 1) matching images in the same hemifield – in the same eye, 2) matching images in different
hemifields – in the same eye, 3) matching images in the same hemifield – in different eyes, and 4)
matching images in different hemifields – in different eyes. The distance from the fixation point to the
centre of the target was 2.1° of visual angle and identical for all targets in all conditions.

H
 Complete vs Clear

❖ Complete: Openness of data, showing it all…

❖ Clear: Readable
Stuit et al.
Complete vs Clear What is grouping du

FIGURE 2 | Group means of the dominance fractions. The targets are split between the eyes. The bias toward groupi
average fraction of simultaneous dominance across observers for increased when identical targets are presented within the
Complete vs Clear
Stuit et al.

FIGURE 4 | Percept durations per grouping cue. The average cu

median duration of each particular perceptual outcome, represented hi
for each grouping cue. All durations are normalized to each observer’s ot
Complete vs Clear
Stuit et al.

FIGURE 5 | Effect sizes of the different grouping cues. The data Note
 Complete vs Clear Stuit et al. What is grouping d

❖ Completeness with Stuit et al. What is group

complexe designs
ruins clarity
❖ Start complete, end Stuit et al.
FIGURE 2 | Group means of the dominance fractions. The
average fraction of simultaneous dominance across observers for
What is grouping during binocular rivalry?
targets are split between the eyes. The bias toward group
increased when identical targets are presented within the
all possible grouped percepts. Error bars represent SEM. Fractions are well as to the same eye. However, when identical targets

clear
plotted for each condition. Each bar represents the fraction of dominance for
two targets. The dotted line represents unbiased dominance. The results
show that when identical rival targets are presented to the same eye, there is
a bias toward orientation-based grouping. This is not the case when identical
different eyes, the bias is decreased (a bias away from gr
presentation in the same compared to different hemifield
suggest a strong preference for visual information presen
simultaneously dominant.

Each fraction of simultaneous dominance of identical orien- large individual differences in dominance du
tations was subsequently tested for a bias toward orientation- to be common as well (e.g., Aafjes et al., 1966)
❖ Alternative: Appendix, based grouping using paired samples t -tests. The results show latter, all durations were normalized to each
FIGURE 4that | Percept
median duration
when durations
of each
per groupingwere
identical orientations
particular perceptual
cue. The
outcome,
averageto the same eye, cues
presented
represented
associated
median
hierarchy
dominance
to
with each
illustrate
there was a bias toward grouping for both the same and dif- neous dominance of the same of different orie
for each grouping cue. All durations are normalized to each observer’s
the
perceptual
duration
relative
outcome.
across
potency
The
all trials,
of certain
ferent hemifield conditions [t (7) = 16.83, p < 0.001, d = 5.95; others. (A) Displays the results for our main experim
conditions.

supplemental
average median epoch duration of all trials, percepts, and conditions. Error orientations. (B) Displays the results for grouping w
t (7) = 6.47, p = 0.001, d = 2.29 respectively]. However, when are used. Throughout the experiment, simultaneous
bars represent SEM. The data are arranged based on the number of grouping
the identical orientations were presented to different eyes, targets can reflect grouping based on multiple c
there was no bias toward grouping based on orientation hemifield, and orientation (Figure 3). The c
[same hemifield,
cardinal orientations biasedthis
confirm awaybyfrom orientation-based
showing that different cues ηaverage
grouping: 2 = 0.196].
p
duration of each
These of these
results showperceptual
that ca

materials
t (7)to= −3.35, p = 0.048, d effect
= −1.18; different hemifields, used to estimate the
unbi- more readily grouped than oblique strength of each grouping
can combine have a synergistic on the duration of group- orien
t (7) =To−0.60, p = nature = −0.21]. tions for each perceptual outcome were com
ing duringased: rivalry. test the 0.965, d of These results
this synergistic showwe
effect, that dominance. Furthermore, the
(eye) by two (orientation) by two (hemifie lack of grou
there is only a bias toward grouping identical orientations
first took the duration of simultaneous dominance of a horizon- orientations when suggests thata main
having identica
they are presented to the same eye. sures ANOVA. We found effect for ey
tal and a vertical oriented target presented to different
The analysis of the fractions of simultaneous dominance sug-
eyes (the sufficient
p < 0.001, for
η 2 grouping
p = 0.898] asduring
well as rivalry
for dom
orientatio
left most bar in Figure 4A) as the baseline duration for
gests that grouping during rivalry primarily occurs between tar- grouping. p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.868], but not for hemifi
p
Next, we gets
FIGURE 5 | Effect sizes of the different grouping cues.
subtracted
Thepresented
data
this baseline
to the same from
Note eye.
the
However,
that the
durations
identical
sum of both
of
singlefractions
cues doescan GENERAL
simul-not differp= 0.461,
from DISCUSSION
η2p = 0.172]. As was true for the a
the dominance
taneous
from Figure 4, displayed as difference scores dominance
result from based
by subtracting on duration
either
very different one
whenor
distributions more
both grouping
of dominance
cues are cues.
epochs.
simultaneously We tion
present. investigated
We simultaneous
suggest the cue perceptual
dominance grouping
of identicaloftart
the baseline dominance duration: the duration of dominance
These To get when no
a more
difference-scores detailed
show effects are independent
thepicture and have
of thecontribution
additional effect additive
of grouping
to theeffects on
on rival dominance
interaction durations.
targetsbetween
under aeye and hemifield
variety of spatial[Farran
(1,7)
grouping cues are present. The difference-scores represent
duration perceptualthe added
of grouping dominance,
associatedweShow
(A) the datathe
compared
with each forcuecardinal orientations.
dominance
(Figure durations
5A). A η2p the
(B) Shows
targets data
= were for oblique
0.619]. This interaction
presented to the same reflects
or tothe
dif
percept duration and are represented as a function of cue effect. orientations.
paired sample t -test showed that the sum of the added dura- the same or in different hemifields. For we
for each combination of grouped targets (identical or different hemifield-effect when the same orientations ca
orientations). same eye versus when they were presented to di
tions of simultaneous dominance based on image-content and found a bias toward grouping when iden
 Complete vs Clear

❖ Clarity: Take the reader by the hand

❖ Presentations and figure captions
 Presenting Data: Build up
2
Females

Males
Y

0
1 2 3

X
 Presenting Data: Build up
2
A

B
Y

0
1 2 3

X
 Presenting Data: Build up
2
A

B
Y

0
1 2 3

X
 Presenting Data: Build up
2
A

B
Y

0
1 2 3

X
 Presenting Data: Build up
2
A

B
Y

0
1 2 3

X
Presenting Data: Build up
A
2
B
Y

0
1 2 3

X
 Captions
❖ Whats on the axes
❖ What is the data
❖ What should the reader notice
❖ What does it mean

❖ Note: not everyone likes complete captions so check

with your audience.
 Caption Example
Within Subject Generlisation

0.6

0.5
Figure 9
Figure 9 shows the average decoding performance
Fraction Correct

0.4
across participants (y-axis) for different train and
test data combination (x-axis). HOGd2s refers to
0.3 … The dotted line represents chance level
performance. Errorbars reflect the sem. Note that
0.2 performance for all conditions exceeds chance
level.
0.1

0
HOGd2s HOGs2d SFd2s SFs2d
Analysis
 Graphs: What to use?

❖ Many different types

❖ Focus on the most common ones
❖ Principles generalize
 Graphs: What to use?

❖ Most common
❖ Pie-chart
❖ Bar Graph
❖ Line Graph
❖ Scatter plot
 Graphs: What to use?
Note: For different data types!
❖ Most common
❖ Pie-chart
❖ Bar Graph
❖ Line Graph
❖ Scatter plot
 Graphs: What to use?
Note: For different data types!
❖ Most common
❖ Pie-chart: Percentages, Fractions
❖ Bar Graph
❖ Line Graph
❖ Scatter plot
 Graphs: What to use?

❖ Adds up to 100% (or 1

in case of fractions)
 Graphs: What to use?
Note: For different data types!
❖ Most common
❖ Pie-chart: Percentages, Fractions
❖ Bar Graph: Discrete conditions
❖ Line Graph
❖ Scatter plot
 Graphs: What to use?
Note: For different data types!
❖ Most common
❖ Pie-chart: Percentages, Fractions
❖ Bar Graph: Discrete conditions
❖ Line Graph: ‘As a function of…’, continuous
❖ Scatter plot
 Graphs: What to use?

❖ Errorbars
❖ Normality
assumption
 Graphs: What to use?

❖ Individual data
❖ Non-normal
 Graphs: What to use?
Note: For different data types!
❖ Most common
❖ Pie-chart: Percentages, Fractions
❖ Bar Graph: Discrete conditions
❖ Line Graph: ‘As a function of…’, continuous
❖ Scatter plot: Correlations
 Graphs: What to use?

❖ Individual data
❖ Trendlines
 Making a decent figure

❖ A good figure stems from a good analysis

❖ A good analysis can start with a good figure…
❖ ‘Figure first’ helps to crystallise the realism (and
pitfalls) of your analysis
This wasn’t a figure first case…
Stuit et al. What is grouping du

FIGURE 2 | Group means of the dominance fractions. The targets are split between the eyes. The bias toward groupi
average fraction of simultaneous dominance across observers for increased when identical targets are presented within the
 What will you focus on?

❖ Same data can be represented multiple ways

❖ Representation influences where to focus will be
 What will you focus on?
❖ Question:
❖ Is there a difference between males and females in their relationship
between age and reaction time on the Posner Cueing Task?
❖ Data Reaction time on stroop task
❖ 2 Genders (Males / Females)
❖ 3 Age Groups (6-8, 10-12, 14-16)
❖ How would you represent this data?
❖ Make multiple expected results figures
❖ Indicate, per figure, where the focus lies
Context: Posner Cueing Task
 What will you focus on?
❖ Question:
❖ Is there a difference between males and females in their relationship
between age and reaction time on the Posner Cueing Task?
❖ Data Reaction time on stroop task
❖ 2 Genders (Males / Females)
❖ 3 Age Groups (6-8, 10-12, 14-16)
❖ How would you represent this data?
❖ Make multiple expected results figures
❖ Indicate, per figure, where the focus lies
 Focus on Groups
2
Average Median Reaction Time (s)

Females

Males

0
6-8 10-12 14-16 6-8 10-12 14-16

Age Group
 Focus on Group-differences
2
Average Median Reaction Time (s)

Females

Males

0
6-8 10-12 14-16

Age Group
 Focus on Group-differences
.4
Difference RT males-females (s)

.2

0
6-8 10-12 14-16

Age Group
Focus on Relationship

Average Median Reaction Time (s) 2 Females

Males

0
6-8 10-12 14-16

Age Group
Focus on relationship differences

Average Slope (s/y)

.1

0
Females Males

Age Group
 Advice

❖ Stick to the focus of your statistical analysis

❖ Think: How is my question phrased?
 Cleaning up

❖ Cleaning up your figures and why

❖ Attention
❖ Reading Direction
❖ Crowding
❖ Grouping
❖ Color
Why Attention? Limited Resource

!52
Attention: Limited Resource

!53
Attention: Costs and Benefits

!54
Attention: Costs and Benefits

!55
 To Much info
Journal of Vision (2016) 16(10):3, 1–15 Wutz, Drewes, & Melcher 8

Figure 3. Methods and results for Experiment 3. (A) Illustration of the trial sequence in Experiment 3. In separate blocks, either static
(red) or dynamic inducing sequences (blue) were presented (0–3.6 s), followed by one full rotation cycle with annuli þ gratings (3.6–
To Much info
 Problem: Attention

❖ Attention has a limited in capacity

❖ Same hold for visual awareness
❖ Scenes with lots of information require selective spatial
attention to understand
❖ This takes time, motivation and energy
Less is More
 Reading Direction
Journal of Vision (2016) 16(10):3, 1–15 Wutz, Drewes, & Melcher 8

Figure 3. Methods and results for Experiment 3. (A) Illustration of the trial sequence in Experiment 3. In separate blocks, either static
(red) or dynamic inducing sequences (blue) were presented (0–3.6 s), followed by one full rotation cycle with annuli þ gratings (3.6–
 Reading Direction
Journal of Vision (2016) 16(10):3, 1–15 Wutz, Drewes, & Melcher 8

Figure 3. Methods and results for Experiment 3. (A) Illustration of the trial sequence in Experiment 3. In separate blocks, either static
(red) or dynamic inducing sequences (blue) were presented (0–3.6 s), followed by one full rotation cycle with annuli þ gratings (3.6–
 Problem: Reading Direction

❖ Heat map
reading
behaviour
 Reading Direction
Journal of Vision (2016) 16(10):3, 1–15 Wutz, Drewes, & Melcher
????? 8

Figure 3. Methods and results for Experiment 3. (A) Illustration of the trial sequence in Experiment 3. In separate blocks, either static
(red) or dynamic inducing sequences (blue) were presented (0–3.6 s), followed by one full rotation cycle with annuli þ gratings (3.6–
 Reading Direction

❖ Guide your audience in a manner that is natural to them

 Element distance
Journal of Vision (2016) 16(10):3, 1–15 Wutz, Drewes, & Melcher 8

Figure 3. Methods and results for Experiment 3. (A) Illustration of the trial sequence in Experiment 3. In separate blocks, either static
(red) or dynamic inducing sequences (blue) were presented (0–3.6 s), followed by one full rotation cycle with annuli þ gratings (3.6–
 Problem: Crowding

❖ Crowding:
❖ Interference due to spatially
proximate items with
similar features
 Crowind

❖ Distinct items/subparts require spacing

❖ Amount of spacing depends on their similarity
Alignment
 Problem: Gestalt Grouping

❖ Symmetry
 Probleem: Gestalt Grouping
❖ Proximity
 Probleem: Gestalt Grouping

❖ Similarity
 Probleem: Gestalt Grouping

❖ Good continuation
 Probleem: Gestalt Grouping

❖ Grouping cues
combine automatically
Auditory Grouping

Good continuation
(Sound restoration)

!75
 Grouping

❖ Use the principle of grouping to separate unrelated

information and bring relate information together
❖ Create a meaningful organisation
 The Color Problem

❖ Problem?
❖ Red-Green color
Y
blindness
❖ Black and white printing

X
The Color Problem
 The Color Problem
❖ Color Blindness

L-cone M-cone S-cone

missing missing missing
protanopia deuteranopia tritanopia
 The Color Problem

❖ Avoid excluding part of your audience by adding color

❖ If you want to use color, make sure the luminance of
the colours differ
 Concluding thoughts

❖ Target Audience Matters!

❖ What is the standerd for your audience?
❖ Adapt, but never sacrifice clarity!
 Your Stuff

❖ Thanks!
❖ Feel free to stick around to get feedback / help