Articles | Volume 6, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-111-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-111-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
06 Sep 2023
Research article |
| 06 Sep 2023
| 06 Sep 2023
Understanding representations of uncertainty, an eye-tracking study – Part 2: The effect of expertise
Louis Williams
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
ICMA Centre, Henley Business School, University of Reading,
Whiteknights, P.O. Box 242, Reading, RG6 6BA, UK
School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, Earley Gate,
University of Reading, Whiteknights Road, P.O. Box 238, Reading, RG6 6AL, UK
Kelsey J. Mulder
Department of Meteorology, Earley Gate, University of Reading,
Whiteknights Road, P.O. Box 243, Reading, RG6 6BB, UK
Liberty Specialty Markets, 20 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M 3AW, UK
Andrew Charlton-Perez
Department of Meteorology, Earley Gate, University of Reading,
Whiteknights Road, P.O. Box 243, Reading, RG6 6BB, UK
Matthew Lickiss
Department of Typography and Graphic Communication, School of Arts,
English and Communication Design, No. 2 Earley Gate, University of Reading,
Whiteknights Road, P.O. Box 239, Reading, RG6 6AU, UK
Alison Black
Department of Typography and Graphic Communication, School of Arts,
English and Communication Design, No. 2 Earley Gate, University of Reading,
Whiteknights Road, P.O. Box 239, Reading, RG6 6AU, UK
Rachel McCloy
School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, Earley Gate,
University of Reading, Whiteknights Road, P.O. Box 238, Reading, RG6 6AL, UK
Eugene McSorley
School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, Earley Gate,
University of Reading, Whiteknights Road, P.O. Box 238, Reading, RG6 6AL, UK
Joe Young
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Utah, 115, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, United States
Related authors
Kelsey J. Mulder, Louis Williams, Matthew Lickiss, Alison Black, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Rachel McCloy, and Eugene McSorley
Geosci. Commun., 6, 97–110, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-97-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-97-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
It is vital that uncertainty in environmental forecasting is graphically presented to enable people to use and interpret it correctly. Using novel eye-tracking methods, we show that where people look and the decisions they make are both strongly influenced by construction of forecast representations common in presentations of environmental data. This suggests that forecasters should construct their presentations carefully so that they help people to extract important information more easily.
Kelsey J. Mulder, Louis Williams, Matthew Lickiss, Alison Black, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Rachel McCloy, and Eugene McSorley
Geosci. Commun., 6, 97–110, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-97-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-97-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
It is vital that uncertainty in environmental forecasting is graphically presented to enable people to use and interpret it correctly. Using novel eye-tracking methods, we show that where people look and the decisions they make are both strongly influenced by construction of forecast representations common in presentations of environmental data. This suggests that forecasters should construct their presentations carefully so that they help people to extract important information more easily.
Zachary D. Lawrence, Marta Abalos, Blanca Ayarzagüena, David Barriopedro, Amy H. Butler, Natalia Calvo, Alvaro de la Cámara, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Etienne Dunn-Sigouin, Javier García-Serrano, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Neil P. Hindley, Liwei Jia, Martin Jucker, Alexey Y. Karpechko, Hera Kim, Andrea L. Lang, Simon H. Lee, Pu Lin, Marisol Osman, Froila M. Palmeiro, Judith Perlwitz, Inna Polichtchouk, Jadwiga H. Richter, Chen Schwartz, Seok-Woo Son, Irene Erner, Masakazu Taguchi, Nicholas L. Tyrrell, Corwin J. Wright, and Rachel W.-Y. Wu
Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 977–1001, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-977-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-977-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Forecast models that are used to predict weather often struggle to represent the Earth’s stratosphere. This may impact their ability to predict surface weather weeks in advance, on subseasonal-to-seasonal (S2S) timescales. We use data from many S2S forecast systems to characterize and compare the stratospheric biases present in such forecast models. These models have many similar stratospheric biases, but they tend to be worse in systems with low model tops located within the stratosphere.
Peter Hitchcock, Amy Butler, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Tim Stockdale, James Anstey, Dann Mitchell, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Tongwen Wu, Yixiong Lu, Daniele Mastrangelo, Piero Malguzzi, Hai Lin, Ryan Muncaster, Bill Merryfield, Michael Sigmond, Baoqiang Xiang, Liwei Jia, Yu-Kyung Hyun, Jiyoung Oh, Damien Specq, Isla R. Simpson, Jadwiga H. Richter, Cory Barton, Jeff Knight, Eun-Pa Lim, and Harry Hendon
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5073–5092, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5073-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5073-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes an experimental protocol focused on sudden stratospheric warmings to be carried out by subseasonal forecast modeling centers. These will allow for inter-model comparisons of these major disruptions to the stratospheric polar vortex and their impacts on the near-surface flow. The protocol will lead to new insights into the contribution of the stratosphere to subseasonal forecast skill and new approaches to the dynamical attribution of extreme events.
Adam A. Scaife, Mark P. Baldwin, Amy H. Butler, Andrew J. Charlton-Perez, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Steven C. Hardiman, Peter Haynes, Alexey Yu Karpechko, Eun-Pa Lim, Shunsuke Noguchi, Judith Perlwitz, Lorenzo Polvani, Jadwiga H. Richter, John Scinocca, Michael Sigmond, Theodore G. Shepherd, Seok-Woo Son, and David W. J. Thompson
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2601–2623, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2601-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2601-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Great progress has been made in computer modelling and simulation of the whole climate system, including the stratosphere. Since the late 20th century we also gained a much clearer understanding of how the stratosphere interacts with the lower atmosphere. The latest generation of numerical prediction systems now explicitly represents the stratosphere and its interaction with surface climate, and here we review its role in long-range predictions and projections from weeks to decades ahead.
Hannah C. Bloomfield, David J. Brayshaw, Paula L. M. Gonzalez, and Andrew Charlton-Perez
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 2259–2274, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-2259-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-2259-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Energy systems are becoming more exposed to weather as more renewable generation is built. This means access to high-quality weather forecasts is becoming more important. This paper showcases past forecasts of electricity demand and wind power and solar power generation across 28 European countries. The timescale of interest is from 5 d out to 1 month ahead. This paper highlights the recent improvements in forecast skill and hopes to promote collaboration in the energy–meteorology community.
Graeme Marlton, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Giles Harrison, Inna Polichtchouk, Alain Hauchecorne, Philippe Keckhut, Robin Wing, Thierry Leblanc, and Wolfgang Steinbrecht
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6079–6092, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6079-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6079-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A network of Rayleigh lidars have been used to infer the upper-stratosphere temperature bias in ECMWF ERA-5 and ERA-Interim reanalyses during 1990–2017. Results show that ERA-Interim exhibits a cold bias of −3 to −4 K between 10 and 1 hPa. Comparisons with ERA-5 found a smaller bias of 1 K which varies between cold and warm between 10 and 3 hPa, indicating a good thermal representation of the atmosphere to 3 hPa. These biases must be accounted for in stratospheric studies using these reanalyses.
Graeme Marlton, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Giles Harrison, Inna Polichtchouk, Alain Hauchecorne, Philippe Keckhut, and Robin Wing
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2020-254, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2020-254, 2020
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
A network of Rayleigh lidars have been used to infer the middle atmosphere temperature bias in ECMWF ERA-5 and ERA-interim reanalyses during 1990–2017. Results show that ERA-interim exhibits a cold bias of −3 to −4 K between 10 and 1 hPa. Comparisons with ERA-5 found a smaller bias of 1 K which varies between cold and warm between 10 and 3 hPa, indicating a good thermal representation of the atmosphere to 3 hPa. These biases must be accounted for in stratospheric studies using these reanalyses.
Related subject area
Subject: Geoscience engagement | Keyword: Public communication of science
Designing and evaluating a public engagement activity about sea level rise
Rocks Really Rock: electronic field trips via Web Google Earth can generate positive impacts in attitudes toward Earth sciences in middle- and high-school students
A spectrum of geoscience communication: from dissemination to participation
Understanding representations of uncertainty, an eye-tracking study – Part 1: The effect of anchoring
GC Insights: Nature stripes for raising engagement with biodiversity loss
Exploring TikTok as a promising platform for geoscience communication
How to get your message across: designing an impactful knowledge transfer plan in a European project
Magnetic to the Core – communicating palaeomagnetism with hands-on activities
Communicating uncertainties in spatial predictions of grain micronutrient concentration
The Met Office Weather Game: investigating how different methods for presenting probabilistic weather forecasts influence decision-making
The takeover of science communication: how science lost its leading role in the public discourse on carbon capture and storage research in daily newspapers in Germany
Building bridges between experts and the public: a comparison of two-way communication formats for flooding and air pollution risk
Nieske Vergunst, Tugce Varol, and Erik van Sebille
Geosci. Commun., 8, 67–80, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-8-67-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-8-67-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We developed and evaluated a board game about sea level rise to engage young adults. We found that the game positively influenced participants' perceptions of their impact on sea level rise, regardless of their prior familiarity with science. This study suggests that interactive and relatable activities can effectively engage audiences on climate issues, highlighting the potential for similar approaches in public science communication.
Carolina Ortiz-Guerrero and Jamie Loizzo
Geosci. Commun., 7, 101–119, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-101-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-101-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper tackles K-12 Earth science (ES) education challenges, introducing the Rocks Really Rock electronic field trip. Utilizing multimedia and storytelling via Web Google Earth shows a significant positive shift in attitudes towards geology, careers, and literacy. Findings endorse EFT effectiveness, supporting dissemination in schools and homeschooling to enhance ES education.
Sam Illingworth
Geosci. Commun., 6, 131–139, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-131-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-131-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In this article, I explore the various ways the geosciences can be communicated to a wider audience. I focus on creative methods that range from sharing information to involving the public in the research process. By using examples from my own work and the wider literature, I demonstrate how these approaches can engage diverse communities and promote greater recognition for geoscience communication.
Kelsey J. Mulder, Louis Williams, Matthew Lickiss, Alison Black, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Rachel McCloy, and Eugene McSorley
Geosci. Commun., 6, 97–110, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-97-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-97-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
It is vital that uncertainty in environmental forecasting is graphically presented to enable people to use and interpret it correctly. Using novel eye-tracking methods, we show that where people look and the decisions they make are both strongly influenced by construction of forecast representations common in presentations of environmental data. This suggests that forecasters should construct their presentations carefully so that they help people to extract important information more easily.
Miles Richardson
Geosci. Commun., 6, 11–14, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-11-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-11-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
There has also been a stark loss of wildlife since 1970, yet climate change receives far greater attention. The
warming stripeshave shown how simple graphics can engage broad audiences. The
nature stripesshow how the loss of wildlife and biodiversity can also be presented in a similar way for positive effects.
Emily E. Zawacki, Wendy Bohon, Scott Johnson, and Donna J. Charlevoix
Geosci. Commun., 5, 363–380, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-363-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-363-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
To determine the best strategies for geoscience communication on TikTok, we created a TikTok account called
Terra Explore. We produced 48 educational geoscience videos and evaluated each video’s performance. Our most-viewed videos received nearly all of their views from TikTok’s algorithmic recommendation feed, and the videos that received the most views were related to a recent newsworthy event (e.g., earthquake) or explained the geology of a recognizable area.
Sara Pasqualetto, Luisa Cristini, and Thomas Jung
Geosci. Commun., 5, 87–100, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-87-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-87-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Many projects in their reporting phase are required to provide a clear plan for evaluating the results of those efforts aimed at translating scientific results to a broader audience. This paper illustrates methodologies and strategies used in the framework of a European research project to assess the impact of knowledge transfer activities, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and provides recommendations and hints for developing a useful impact plan for scientific projects.
Annique van der Boon, Andrew J. Biggin, Greig A. Paterson, and Janine L. Kavanagh
Geosci. Commun., 5, 55–66, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-55-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-55-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present the Magnetic to the Core project, which communicated palaeomagnetism to members of the general public through hands-on experiments. The impact of the project was tested with an interactive quiz, which shows that this outreach event was successful in impacting visitors’ learning. We hope our Magnetic to the Core project can serve as an inspiration for other Earth science laboratories looking to engage a wide audience and measure the success and impact of their outreach activities.
Christopher Chagumaira, Joseph G. Chimungu, Dawd Gashu, Patson C. Nalivata, Martin R. Broadley, Alice E. Milne, and R. Murray Lark
Geosci. Commun., 4, 245–265, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-245-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-245-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Our study is concerned with how the uncertainty in spatial information about environmental variables can be communicated to stakeholders who must use this information to make decisions. We tested five methods for communicating the uncertainty in spatial predictions by eliciting the opinions of end-users about the usefulness of the methods. End-users preferred methods based on the probability that concentrations are below or above a nutritionally significant threshold.
Elisabeth M. Stephens, David J. Spiegelhalter, Ken Mylne, and Mark Harrison
Geosci. Commun., 2, 101–116, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-101-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-101-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
The UK Met Office ran an online game to highlight the best methods of communicating uncertainty in their online forecasts and to widen engagement in probabilistic weather forecasting. The game used a randomized design to test different methods of presenting uncertainty and to enable participants to experience being
luckyor
unluckywhen the most likely scenario did not occur. Over 8000 people played the game; we found players made better decisions when provided with forecast uncertainty.
Simon Schneider
Geosci. Commun., 2, 69–82, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-69-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-69-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
CCS media coverage in Germany was dominated by other stakeholders than science itself. If science will remain a proactive element of science communication, new approaches for future science PR have be deduced. Among these is a more differentiated understanding of target audiences and regional concerns. Furthermore, science communication has to gain a better understanding of sociocultural contexts to become more effective and successful.
Maria Loroño-Leturiondo, Paul O'Hare, Simon J. Cook, Stephen R. Hoon, and Sam Illingworth
Geosci. Commun., 2, 39–53, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-39-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-39-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Urban centres worldwide are adversely affected by flooding and air pollution. Effective communication between experts and citizens is key to understanding and limiting the impact of these hazards, as citizens have valuable knowledge based on their day-to-day experiences. In this study, we compare five different communication formats that can facilitate the required dialogue and explore the best ways and optimal circumstances in which these can be implemented.
Cited articles
Ash, K. D., Schumann III, R. L., and Bowser, G. C.: Tornado warning
trade-offs: Evaluating choices for visually communicating risk, Weather
Clim. Soc., 6, 104–118, 2014.
Antes, J.: The time course of picture viewing, J. Exp.
Psychol., 103, 62–70, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036799, 1974.
Baguley, T.: Serious stats: A guide to advanced statistics for the
behavioural sciences, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-36355-7, 2012.
Bosetti, V., Weber, E., Berger, L., Budescu, D. V., Liu, N., and Tavoni, M.:
COP21 climate negotiators' responses to climate model forecasts, Nat.
Clim. Change, 7, 185–190, 2017.
Bostrom, A., Morss, R. E., Lazo, J. K., Demuth, J. L., Lazrus, H., and
Hudson, R.: A Mental Models Study of Hurricane Forecast and Warning
Production, Communication, and Decision-Making, Weather Clim.
Soc., 8, 111–129, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-15-0033.1, 2016.
Broad, K., Leiserowitz, A., Weinkle, J., and Steketee, M.:
Misinterpretations of the “cone of uncertainty” in florida during the 2004
hurricane season, B. Am. Meteorol. Society, 88,
651–668, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-88-5-651, 2007.
Broad, K., Demuth, J. L., Morss, R. E., Hearn-Morrow, B, and Lazo, J. L.:
Creation and communication of hurricane risk information, B. Am. Meteorol. Society, 93, 1133–1145, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00150.1, 2012.
Buswell, G. T.: How people look at pictures, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ISBN 0598831339, 1935.
Charness, N., Reingold, E. M., Pomplun, M., and Stampe, D. M.: The
perceptual aspect of skilled performance in chess: Evidence from eye
movements, Mem. Cognition, 29, 1146–1152, https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206384, 2001.
Correll, M. and Gleicher, M.: Error bars considered harmful: Exploring
alternate encodings for mean and error, IEEE T. Vis.
Comput. Gr., 20, 2142–2151, https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346298, 2014.
Denes-Raj, V. and Epstein, S.: Conflict between intuitive and rational
processing: when people behave against their better judgment, J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol., 66, 819–829, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.819, 1994.
Doyle, E. E., McClure, J., Johnston, D. M., and Paton, D.: Communicating
likelihoods and probabilities in forecasts of volcanic eruption, J.
Volcanol. Geoth. Res., 272, 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2013.12.006, 2014.
Feldman-Stewart, D., Brundage, M. D., and Zotov, V.: Further insight into
the perception of quantitative information: judgments of gist in treatment
decisions, Med. Decis. Making, 27, 34–43, 2007.
Fischhoff, B., Brewer, N. T., and Downs, J. S. (Eds.): Communicating risks and benefits: an evidence-based user’s guide, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RiskCommunication/default.htm (last access: 25 April 2023), 2011.
Fuchs, S., Spachinger, K., Dorner, W., Rochman, J., and Serrhini, K.:
Evaluating cartographic design in flood risk mapping, Environ.
Hazards, 8, 52–70, https://doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2009.0007, 2009.
Fundel, V. J., Fleischhut, N., Herzog, S. M., Göber, M., and Hagedorn,
R.: Promoting the use of probabilistic weather forecasts through a dialogue
between scientists, developers and end-users, Q. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc., 145, 210–231, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3482, 2019.
Galesic, M., Garcia-Retamero, R., and Gigerenzer, G.: Using icon arrays to
communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy, Health Psychol., 28,
210–216, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014474, 2009.
Garcia-Retamero, R., Galesic, M., and Gigerenzer, G.: Do icon arrays help
reduce denominator neglect?, Med. Decis. Making, 30, 672–684, https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X10369000, 2010.
Gigerenzer, G. and Hoffrage, U.: How to improve Bayesian reasoning without
instruction: Frequency formats, Psychol. Rev., 102, 684–704, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.684, 1995.
Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M., and
Woloshin, S.: Helping doctors and patients make sense of health
statistics, Psychol. Sci. Publ. Int., 8, 53–96, 2007.
Glaholt, M. G. and Reingold, E. M.: The time course of gaze bias in visual
decision tasks, Vis. Cogn., 17, 1228–1243, https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280802362962, 2009.
Goldberg, J. H. and Helfman, J. I.: Comparing information graphics: a
critical look at eye tracking, in: Proceedings of the 3rd BELI'10 Workshop:
Beyond time and errors: novel evaluation methods for Information
Visualization, 71–78, https://doi.org/10.1145/2110192.2110203, 2010.
Gustafson, A. and Rice, R. E.: The Effects of Uncertainty Frames in Three
Science Communication Topics, Sci. Commun., 41, 679–706, https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019870811, 2019.
Harold, J., Lorenzoni, I., Shipley, T. F., and Coventry, K. R.: Cognitive
and psychological science insights to improve climate change data
visualization, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 1080–1089, 2016.
Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., and Van de Weijer, J.: Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, ISBN 10: 0198738595, 2011.
Hullman, J.: Why Authors Don't Visualize Uncertainty, IEEE T. Vis. Comput. Gr., 26, 130–139, https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934287, 2019.
Joslyn, S. L. and Nichols, R. M.: Probability or frequency? Expressing
forecast uncertainty in public weather forecasts, Meteorol.
Appl., 16, 309–314, https://doi.org/10.1002/met.121, 2009.
Joslyn, S. and Savelli, S.: Visualizing Uncertainty for Non-Expert End
Users: The Challenge of the Deterministic Construal Error, Frontiers in
Computer Science, 2, 590232, https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2020.590232, 2021.
Kang, Z. and Landry, S. J.: Using scanpaths as a learning method for a
conflict detection task of multiple target tracking, Hum. Factors, 56, 1150–1162, https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814523066, 2014.
Kelton, A. S., Pennington, R. R., and Tuttle, B. M.: The effects of
information presentation format on judgment and decision making: A review of
the information systems research, Journal of Information Systems, 24,
79–105, 2010.
Kirschenbaum, S. S., Trafton, J. G., Schunn, C. D., and Trickett, S. B.:
Visualizing uncertainty: The impact on performance, Hum. Factors, 56,
509–520, https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813498093, 2014.
Kundel, H. L., Nodine, C. F., Krupinski, E. A., and Mello-Thoms, C.: Using
gaze-tracking data and mixture distribution analysis to support a holistic
model for the detection of cancers on mammograms, Acad. Radiol., 15,
881–886, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2008.01.023, 2008.
Kurz-Milcke, E., Gigerenzer, G., and Martignon, L.: Transparency in risk
communication: graphical and analog tools, Ann. NY Acad.
Sci., 1128, 18–28, https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1399.004, 2008.
Lipkus, I. M.: Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks:
suggested best practices and future recommendations, Med. Decis.
Making, 27, 696–713, 2007.
Lipkus, I. M. and Hollands, J. G.: The visual communication of risk, JNCI
Monographs, 149–163, 1999.
Locher, P.: The usefulness of eye movement recordings to subject an aesthetic episode with visual art to empirical scrutiny, Psych. Sci., 48, 106–114, 2006.
Locher, P., Krupinski, E. A., Mello-Thoms, C., and Nodine, C. F.: Visual interest in pictorial art during an aesthetic experience, Spatial Vision, 21, 55–77, 2008.
Locher, P. J.: The aesthetic experience with visual art “at first glance”, in: Investigations into the Phenomenology and the Ontology of the Work of Art: What Are Artworks and How Do We Experience Them, edited by: Bundgaard, P. and Stjernfeld, F., Springer Open, New York, 75–88, ISBN 3319140892, 2015.
Lorenz, S., Dessai, S., Forster, P. M., and Paavola, J.: Tailoring the
visual communication of climate projections for local adaptation
practitioners in Germany and the UK, Philos. T. R.
Soc. A, 373, 20140457, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0457, 2015.
Maturi, K. S. and Sheridan, H.: Expertise effects on attention and
eye-movement control during visual search: Evidence from the domain of music
reading, Atten. Percept. Psychophys., 82, 2201–2208, https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-01979-3, 2020.
Milne, A. E., Glendining, M. J. , Lark, R. M., Perryman, S. A., Gordon, T.,
and Whitmore, A. P.: Communicating the uncertainty in estimated greenhouse
gas emissions from agriculture, J. Environ. Manage., 160, 139–153, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.034, 2015.
Morss, R., Demuth, J. L., and Lazo, J. K.: Communicating uncertainty in
weather forecasts: A survey of the U.S. public, Weather Forecast., 23,
974–991, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008WAF2007088.1, 2008.
Morss, R. E., Demuth, J. L., Bostrom, A., Lazo, J. K., and Lazrus, H.: Flash
flood risks and warning decisions in Boulder, Colorado: A mental models
study of forecasters, public officials, and media broadcasters in Boulder,
Colorado, Risk Anal., 35, 2009–2028, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12403, 2015.
Morss, R. E., Demuth, J. L., Lazo, J. K., Dickinson, K., Lazrus, H., and Morrow, B. H.: Understanding public hurricane evacuation decisions and responses to forecast and warning messages, Weather Forecast., 31, 395–417, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01137.x, 2016.
Mulder, K., Williams, L., Lickiss, M., Black, A., Charlton-Perez, A., McCloy, R., and McSorley, E.: Eye Tracking of Vegetable Shipping Line Graph Testing Survey, University of Reading [data set], https://doi.org/10.17864/1947.110, 2018.
Mulder, K. J., Lickiss, M., Black, A., Charlton-Perez, A. J., McCloy, R.,
and Young, J. S.: Designing environmental uncertainty information for
experts and non-experts: Does data presentation affect users' decisions and
interpretations?, Meteorol. Appl., 27, e1821, https://doi.org/10.1002/met.1821, 2020.
Mulder, K. J., Williams, L., Lickiss, M., Black, A., Charlton-Perez, A., McCloy, R., and McSorley, E.: Understanding representations of uncertainty, an eye-tracking study – Part 1: The effect of anchoring, Geosci. Commun., 6, 97–110, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-97-2023, 2023.
Nadav-Greenberg, L. and Joslyn, S. L.: Uncertainty forecasts improve
decision making among nonexperts, Journal of Cognitive Engineering and
Decision Making, 3, 209–227, 2009.
Nadav-Greenberg, L., Joslyn, S. L., and Taing, M. U.: The effect of
uncertainty visualizations on decision making in weather forecasting,
Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2, 24–47, 2008.
Nelson, D. E., Hesse, B. W., and Croyle, R. T.: Making Data Talk: The Science
and Practice of Translating Public Health Research and Surveillance Findings
to Policy Makers, the Public, and the Press, Oxford University Press, ISBN: 9780195381535, 2009.
Nodine, C. F., Locher, P. J., and Krupinski, E. A.: The Role of Formal Art Training on Perception and Aesthetic Judgment of Art Compositions, Leonardo, 26, 219–227, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/606664/summary (last access: 25 April 2023), 1993.
Padilla, L., Hansen, G., Ruginski, I. T., Kramer, H. S., Thompson, W. B.,
and Creem-Regehr, S. H.: The influence of different graphical displays on
nonexpert decision making under uncertainty, J. Exp.
Psychol.-Appl., 21, 37–46, https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000037, 2015.
Peters, E.: Numeracy and the Perception and Communication of Risk, Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 1128, 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1399.001, 2008.
Peters, E., Hibbard, J., Slovic, P., and Dieckmann, N.: Numeracy skill and
the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit
information, Health Affair., 26, 741–748, 2007.
Reyna, V. F. and Brainerd, C. J.: Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator
neglect in judgments of risk and probability, Learn. Individ.
Differ., 18, 89–107, 2008.
Roulston, M. S. and Kaplan, T. R.: A laboratory-based study of understanding
of uncertainty in 5-day site-specific temperature forecasts, Meteorol. Appl., 16, 237–244, https://doi.org/10.1002/met.113, 2009.
Savelli, S. and Joslyn, S.: The advantages of predictive interval forecasts
for non-expert users and the impact of visualizations, Appl. Cognitive
Psych., 27, 527–541, 2013.
Schriver, A. T., Morrow, D. G., Wickens, C. D., and Talleur, D. A.:
Expertise differences in attentional strategies related to pilot decision
making, Hum. Factors, 50, 864–878, https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X374974, 2008.
Shepherd, T. G., Boyd, E., Calel, R. A., Chapman, S. C., Dessai, S.,
Dima-West, I. M., Fowler, H. J., James, R., Maraun, D., Martius, O., and
Senior, C. A.: Storylines: an alternative approach to representing
uncertainty in physical aspects of climate change, Climatic Change, 151,
555–571, 2018.
Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., and Scheier, C.: Gaze bias both
reflects and influences preference, Nat. Neurosci., 6,
1317–1322, https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1150, 2003.
Sillmann, J., Shepherd, T. G., van den Hurk, B., Hazeleger,W., Martius, O.,
Slingo, J., and Zscheischler, J.: Event-based storylines to address climate
risk, Earth's Future, 9, e2020EF001783, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001783, 2021.
Simion, C. and Shimojo, S.: Early interactions between orienting, visual
sampling and decision making in facial preference, Vision Res., 46,
3331–3335, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2006.04.019, 2006.
Skubisz, C., Reimer, T., and Hoffrage, U.: Communicating Quantitative Risk
Information, Annals of the International Communication Association, 33,
177–211, https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2009.11679087, 2009.
Speier, C.: The influence of information presentation formats on complex
task decision-making performance, International Journal of Human Computer
Studies, 64, 1115–1131, 2006.
Spiegelhalter. D.: Risk and uncertainty communication, Annu. Rev.
Stat. Appl., 4, 31–60, 2017.
Spiegelhalter, D., Pearson, M., and Short, I.: Visualizing uncertainty about
the future, Science, 333, 1393–1400, 2011.
St John, M., Callan, J., Proctor, S., and Holste, S.: Tactical
decision-making under uncertainty: Experiments I and II, Tech. Rep., Pacific
Sciences and Engineering Group Inc. San Diego CA, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA378170.pdf (last access: 25 April 2023), 2000.
Stephens, E. M., Edwards, T. L., and Demeritt, D.: Communicating probabilistic information from climate model ensembles–lessons from numerical weather prediction, WIREs Clim Change, 3, 409–426, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.187, 2012.
Susac, A., Bubic, A., Martinjak, P., Planinic, M., and Palmovic, M.:
Graphical representations of data improve student understanding of
measurement and uncertainty: An eye-tracking study, Physical Review Physics
Education Research, 13, 020125, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020125, 2017.
Tak, S., Toet, A., and van Erp, J.: The perception of visual uncertainty
representation by non-experts, IEEE T. Vis.
Comput. Gr., 20, 935–943, 2013.
Tak, S., Toet, A., and Van Erp, J.: Public understanding of visual
representations of uncertainty in temperature forecasts, Journal of
Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 9, 241–262, https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343415591275, 2015.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.: Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and
biases, Science, 185, 1124–1131, 1974.
Unema, P. J., Pannasch, S., Joos, M., and Velichkovsky, B. M.: Time course
of information processing during scene perception: The relationship between
saccade amplitude and fixation duration, Vis. Cogn., 12, 473–494, https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280444000409,
2005.
Visschers, V. H., Meertens, R. M., Passchier, W. W., and De Vries, N. N.: Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature, Risk Anal., 29, 267–287, 2009.
Wallsten, T. S., Budescu, D. V., Rapoport, A., Zwick, R., and Forsyth, B.:
Measuring the vague meaning of probabilistic terms, J. Exp.
Psychol.-Gen., 155, 348–365, 1986.
Walter, K. and Bex, P.: Cognitive load influences oculomotor behavior in
natural scenes, Scientific Reports, 11, 12405, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91845-5, 2021.
Wickens, C. D., Helton, W. S., Hollands, J. G., and Banbury, S.: Engineering psychology and human performance, 5th edn., Routledge, New York, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003177616, 2021.
Williams, L., McSorley, E., and McCloy, R.: The relationship between
aesthetic and drawing preferences, Psychol. Aesthet. Crea., 12, 259–271, https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000188, 2018.
Wu, H. C., Lindell, M. K., Prater, C. S., and Samuelson, C. D.: Effects of
track and threat information on judgments of hurricane strike
probability, Risk Anal., 34, 1025–1039, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12128, 2014.
Yarbus, A. L.: Eye Movements and Vision, Plenum Press, New York, ISBN 0306302985, 1967.
Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Fagerlin, A., and Ubel, P. A.: Improving Understanding of Adjuvant Therapy Options by Using Simpler Risk Graphics, Cancer, 113, 3382–3390, https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23959, 2008.
Short summary
When constructing graphical environmental forecasts involving uncertainty, it is important to consider the background and expertise of end-users. Using novel eye-tracking methods, we show that where people look and the decisions they make are both strongly influenced by prior expertise and the graphical construction of forecast representations common in presentations of environmental data. We suggest that forecasters should construct their presentations carefully, bearing these factors in mind.
When constructing graphical environmental forecasts involving uncertainty, it is important to...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint
Similar articles
Designing and evaluating a public...
Vergunst et al.
Rocks Really Rock: electronic field trips...
Ortiz-Guerrero et al.
A spectrum of geoscience communication:...
Illingworth