Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “sensemaking”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

8 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2017

The Impact of Streaming Data on Sensemaking with Mixed-Initative Visual Analytics

Visual data analysis helps people gain insights into data via interactive visualizations. People generate and test hypotheses and questions about data in context of the domain. This process can generally be referred to as sensemaking. Much of the work on studying sensemaking (and creating visual analytic techniques in support of it) has been focused on static datasets. However, how do the cognitive processes of sensemaking change when data are changing? Further, what implication for design does this create for mixed-initiative visual analytics systems? This paper presents the results of a user study analyzing the impact of streaming data on sensemaking. To perform this study, we developed a mixed-initiative visual analytic prototype, the Streaming Canvas, that affords the analysis of streaming text data. We compare the sensemaking process of people using this tool for a static and streaming dataset. We present the results of this study and discuss the implications on future visual analytic systems that combine machine learning and interactive visualization to help people make sense of streaming data.

visualization↗
DOE OSTI2017

Sensemaking, stakeholder discord, and long-term risk communication at a US Superfund site

Abstract Introduction: Risk communication can help reduce exposures to environmental contaminants, mitigate negative health outcomes, and inform community-based decisions about hazardous waste sites. While communication best practices have long guided such efforts, little research has examined unintended consequences arising from such guidelines. As rhetoric informs stakeholder sensemaking, the language used in and reinforced by these guidelines can challenge relationships and exacerbate stakeholder tensions. Objectives: This study evaluates risk communication at a U.S. Superfund site to identify unintended consequences arising from current risk communication practices. Methods: This qualitative case study crystallizes data spanning 6 years from three sources: 1) local newspaper coverage of site-related topics; 2) focus-group transcripts from a multi-year project designed to support future visioning of site use; and 3) published blog entries authored by a local environmental activist. Constant comparative analysis provides the study’s analytic foundation, with qualitative data analysis software QSR NVivo 8 supporting a three-step process: 1) provisional coding to identify broad topic categories within datasets, 2) coding occurrences of sensemaking constructs and emergent intra-dataset patterns, and 3) grouping related codes across datasets to examine the relationships among them. Results: Existing risk communication practices at this Superfund site contribute to a dichotomous conceptualization of multiple and diverse stakeholders as members of one of only two categories: the government or the public. This conceptualization minimizes perceptions of capacity, encourages public commitment to stances aligned with a preferred group, and contributes to negative expectations that can become self-fulfilling prophecies. Conclusion: Findings indicate a need to re-examine and adapt risk communication guidelines to encourage more pluralistic understanding of the stakeholder landscape.

Environmental Sciences & Ecology↗
DOE OSTI2021

Beyond Visual Analytics: Human-Machine Teaming for AI-Driven Data Sensemaking

"Detect the expected, discover the unexpected" was the founding principle of the field of visual analytics. This mantra implies that human stakeholders, like a domain expert or data analyst, could leverage visual analytics techniques to seek answers to known unknowns and discover unknown unknowns in the course of the data sensemaking process. We argue that in the era of AI-driven automation, we need to recalibrate the roles of humans and machines (e.g., a machine learning model) as teammates. We posit that by realizing human-machine teams as a stakeholder unit, we can better achieve the best of both worlds: automation transparency and human reasoning efficacy. However, this also increases the burden on analysts and domain experts towards performing more cognitively demanding tasks than what they are used to. In this paper, we reflect on the complementary roles in a human-machine team through the lens of cognitive psychology and map them to existing and emerging research in the visual analytics community. We discuss open questions and challenges around the nature of human agency and analyze the shared responsibilities in human-machine teams.

Sensemaking, human-machine teaming, agency, artifi↗
DOE OSTI2015

Mixed Initiative Visual Analytics Using Task-Driven Recommendations

Visual data analysis is composed of a collection of cognitive actions and tasks to decompose, internalize, and recombine data to produce knowledge and insight. Visual analytic tools provide interactive visual interfaces to data to support tasks involved in discovery and sensemaking, including forming hypotheses, asking questions, and evaluating and organizing evidence. Myriad analytic models can be incorporated into visual analytic systems, at the cost of increasing complexity in the analytic discourse between user and system. Techniques exist to increase the usability of interacting with such analytic models, such as inferring data models from user interactions to steer the underlying models of the system via semantic interaction, shielding users from having to do so explicitly. Such approaches are often also referred to as mixed-initiative systems. Researchers studying the sensemaking process have called for development of tools that facilitate analytic sensemaking through a combination of human and automated activities. However, design guidelines do not exist for mixed-initiative visual analytic systems to support iterative sensemaking. In this paper, we present a candidate set of design guidelines and introduce the Active Data Environment (ADE) prototype, a spatial workspace supporting the analytic process via task recommendations invoked by inferences on user interactions within the workspace. ADE recommends data and relationships based on a task model, enabling users to co-reason with the system about their data in a single, spatial workspace. This paper provides an illustrative use case, a technical description of ADE, and a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the approach.

active data↗
DOE OSTI2022

The Influence of Visual Provenance Representations on Strategies in a Collaborative Hand-off Data Analysis Scenario

Conducting data analysis tasks rarely occur in isolation. Especially in intelligence analysis scenarios where different experts contribute knowledge to a shared understanding, members must communicate how insights develop to establish common ground among collaborators. The use of provenance to communicate analytic sensemaking carries promise by describing the interactions and summarizing the steps taken to reach insights. Yet, no universal guidelines exist for communicating provenance in different settings. Our work here focuses on the presentation of provenance information and the resulting conclusions reached and strategies used by new analysts. In an open-ended, 30-minute, textual exploration scenario, we qualitatively compare how adding different types of provenance information (specifically data coverage and interaction history) affects analysts' confidence in conclusions developed, propensity to repeat work, filtering of data, identification of relevant information, and typical investigation strategies. We see that data coverage (i.e., what was interacted with) provides provenance information without limiting individual investigation freedom. On the other hand, while interaction history (i.e., when something was interacted with) does not significantly encourage more mimicry, it does take more time to comfortably understand, as represented by less confident conclusions and less relevant information-gathering behaviors. In conclusion, our results contribute empirical data towards understanding how provenance summarizations can influence analysis behaviors.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2017

Rethinking Visual Analytics for Streaming Data Applications

In the age of data science, the use of interactive information visualization techniques has become increasingly ubiquitous. From online scientific journals to the New York Times graphics desk, the utility of interactive visualization for both storytelling and analysis has become ever more apparent. As these techniques have become more readily accessible, the appeal of combining interactive visualization with computational analysis continues to grow. Arising out of a need for scalable, human-driven analysis, primary objective of visual analytics systems is to capitalize on the complementary strengths of human and machine analysis, using interactive visualization as a medium for communication between the two. These systems leverage developments from the fields of information visualization, computer graphics, machine learning, and human-computer interaction to support insight generation in areas where purely computational analyses fall short. Over the past decade, visual analytics systems have generated remarkable advances in many historically challenging analytical contexts. These include areas such as modeling political systems [Crouser et al. 2012], detecting financial fraud [Chang et al. 2008], and cybersecurity [Harrison et al. 2012]. In each of these contexts, domain expertise and human intuition is a necessary component of the analysis. This intuition is essential to building trust in the analytical products, as well as supporting the translation of evidence into actionable insight. In addition, each of these examples also highlights the need for scalable analysis. In each case, it is infeasible for a human analyst to manually assess the raw information unaided, and the communication overhead to divide the task between a large number of analysts makes simple parallelism intractable. Regardless of the domain, visual analytics tools strive to optimize the allocation of human analytical resources, and to streamline the sensemaking process on data that is massive, complex, incomplete, and uncertain in scenarios requiring human judgment.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2017

User-Centered Evaluation of Visual Analytics

Visual analytics systems are becoming very popular. More domains now use interactive visualizations to analyze the ever-increasing amount and heterogeneity of data. More novel visualizations are being developed for more tasks and users. We need to ensure that these systems can be evaluated to determine that they are both useful and usable. A user-centered evaluation for visual analytics needs to be developed for these systems. While many of the typical human-computer interaction (HCI) evaluation methodologies can be applied as is, others will need modification. Additionally, new functionality in visual analytics systems needs new evaluation methodologies. There is a difference between usability evaluations and user-centered evaluations. Usability looks at the efficiency, effectiveness, and user satisfaction of users carrying out tasks with software applications. User-centered evaluation looks more specifically at the utility provided to the users by the software. This is reflected in the evaluations done and in the metrics used. In the visual analytics domain this is very challenging as users are most likely experts in a particular domain, the tasks they do are often not well defined, the software they use needs to support large amounts of different kinds of data, and often the tasks last for months. These difficulties are discussed more in the section on User-centered Evaluation. Our goal is to provide a discussion of user-centered evaluation practices for visual analytics, including existing practices that can be carried out and new methodologies and metrics that need to be developed and agreed upon by the visual analytics community. The material provided here should be of use for both researchers and practitioners in the field of visual analytics. Researchers and practitioners in HCI and interested in visual analytics will find this information useful as well as a discussion on changes that need to be made to current HCI practices to make them more suitable to visual analytics. A history of analysis and analysis techniques and problems is provided as well as an introduction to user-centered evaluation and various evaluation techniques for readers from different disciplines. The understanding of these techniques is imperative if we wish to support analysis in the visual analytics software we develop. Currently the evaluations that are conducted and published for visual analytics software are very informal and consist mainly of comments from users or potential users. Our goal is to help researchers in visual analytics to conduct more formal user-centered evaluations. While these are time-consuming and expensive to carryout, the outcomes of these studies will have a defining impact on the field of visual analytics and help point the direction for future features and visualizations to incorporate. While many researchers view work in user-centered evaluation as a less-than-exciting area to work, the opposite is true. First of all, the goal is user-centered evaluation is to help visual analytics software developers, researchers, and designers improve their solutions and discover creative ways to better accommodate their users. Working with the users is extremely rewarding as well. While we use the term “users” in almost all situations there are a wide variety of users that all need to be accommodated. Moreover, the domains that use visual analytics are varied and expanding. Just understanding the complexities of a number of these domains is exciting. Researchers are trying out different visualizations and interactions as well. And of course, the size and variety of data are expanding rapidly. User-centered evaluation in this context is rapidly changing. There are no standard processes and metrics and thus those of us working on user-centered evaluation must be creative in our work with both the users and with the researchers and developers.

intelligence analysis↗