Perception of means, sums, and areas

In this age of data visualization, it is important to understand our perception of the symbols that are used. For example, does the perceived size of a disc correspond most closely to its area, diameter, circumference, or some other measure? When multiple items are present, this becomes a question of ensemble perception. Here, we compare observers’ performance across three different tasks: judgments of (i) the mean diameter, (ii) the total diameter, or (iii) the total area of ( N = 1, 2, 3, or 7) test circles compared with a single reference circle. We draw a parallel between Anne Treisman’s feature integration theory and Daniel Kahneman’s cognitive systems, comparing the preattentive stage to System 1, and the focused attention stage to System 2. In accordance with Kahneman’s prediction, average size (diameter) of the geometric figures can be judged with considerable accuracy, but the total diameter of the same figures cannot. Like the total length, the cumulative area covered by circles was also judged considerably less accurately than the mean diameter. Differences in efficiency between these three tasks illustrate powerful constraints upon visual processing: The visual system is well adapted for the perception of the mean size while there are no analogous mechanisms for the accurate perception of the total length or cumulative area. Thus, in visualizing data, using bubble charts proportional to area may be misleading as our visual system seems better adapted to perceive disc size by the radius rather than the area.