{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023414634146341463, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018536585365853658, 'mean_word_length': 5.294478527607362, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparing 2D and 3D Displays for Trend Estimation: The Effects of Display Augmentation

The proximity compatibility principle (PCP) predicts that integrated displays will show superior performance to separated displays for integrated tasks. Hollands, Pierce, and Magee (1998) compared 2D and 3D displays for a trend estimation task and found that 2D displays were better than 3D displays for integrated tasks. These results were inconsistent with the predictions of the PCP. The present study added line and mesh connections to the integrated display format to make existing emergent features more salient. Four display formats were tested: 2D, 3D Control, 3D Lines, and 3D Mesh. Twenty-four participants completed 256 trials evaluating the effect of display format, vergence rate, vergence direction, and starting distance on trend estimation. Results showed advantages for the 3D Mesh and 3D Line displays. A general advantage was found for faster vergence rates, and converging trends when the lines start closer together.