Examining perceptions of astronomy images across mobile platforms: Does This iPad Make My Asteroid Look Fat?Arcand, K.K. (SAO); Watzke, M (SAO); Smith, L.F. (Univ. Otago); Smith, J.K. (Univ. of Otago); Smith, R.K (SAO); Bookbinder, J (SAO)

BAckgrounD Images of the cosmos provide snapshots of various phases of life and death, different physical phenomena, found in locations across the known Universe. Today, some 400 years after Galileo created his, modern telescopes have enabled us to “see” what the human eye cannot. This new generation of ground- and space-based telescopes has created an explosion of images for experts and non-experts to explore.

The Aesthetics & Astronomy project studies the perception of multi-wavelength astronomical imagery and the effects of the scientific and artistic choices in processing astronomical data. The images come from a variety of space and ground-based observatories, including NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory, Hubble Space Telescope, Spitzer Space Telescope, the Solar Dynamics Observatory, the Very Large Array, and many others. Evaluation of such data can benefit astronomy across the electromagnetic spectrum of astronomical images, and may help visualization of data in other scientific disciplines.

Aesthetics from a psychological perspective is the study of all things beautiful whether art or not, and all things art whether beautiful or not.

DETAiLs oF rEsEArchThe Aesthetics & Astronomy (A&A) team consists of a unique combination of professional astronomy communicators, astrophysicists, and aesthetics experts from the discipline of psychology, or whom a major goal is to explore how best to convey scientific information with non-expert audiences. In this study, funded by the Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Studies Program, an online survey and two focus groups were used to explore whether mobile platforms affect perception of astronomy images.

The online study, conducted in December of 2010, resulted in 2,384 usable responses, in which participants on their mobile devices were randomly assigned to view 1 of 12 astronomy images. We collected demographic data, information about the type of mobile device, reactions to the image shown, and viewing latencies for how long viewers looked at the image. Additionally, two focus groups were conducted, one with 12 experts (astrophysicists/astronomers) and one with 10 non-expert volunteers from the public.

Both experts and non-experts were presented

with 3 deep space images across 3 platforms:

a large projection screen, an iPad, and a small

mobile device (e.g., an iPhone). Although this

was part of a larger study, we report here just

on the mobile platform.

Results indicated that there was support for Smith

& Smith’s (2001) concept of facsimile accommodation

in that, as might be expected, bigger was better

except in the absence of a comparison, where

participants adapted to the platform size. The

results raise questions as to both size and quality

of images on mobile platforms in a rapidly changing

technological world.

Summary of fascimile accommodation (Smith & Smith, 2001):Participants are able to `look past’ the limitations of the selected medium. When participants looked, for example, on a small smart phone screen, they accommodated to the screen image and focused their attention on the astronomy image. Smith & Smith speculate that people adjust to the limitations of the facsimile they are viewing and concentrate on the information in the image.

FinDingsA multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to see if there were significant differences in ratings for the two questions: (1) How much did you like this image? And (2) How well could you explain this image to another person? The independent variables were Image (12 different images were presented to participants), and Type of Device Used (participants told us what device they were using—we limited the analysis here to Blackberry, iPhone, and iPad). The analysis yielded significant differences for Image (using Wilks’ Lambda, F [22, 1784] = 2.32, p < .001), but not for Type of Device Used, nor for the interaction of Type of Device Used and Image. Univariate analyses of the significant finding for Type of Device indicate that the question, How well could you explain this image to another person was significant at p < .001, but the question, How much do you like this image? fell short of significance (p = .078).

rEFErEncEsArcand, K.K., Watzke, M., Smith, L.F., Smith, J.K. “Surveying Aesthetics & Astronomy: A project exploring the public’s perception of astronomy images and the science within” Communicating Astronomy with the Public. Issue 10 December 2010.

Smith, L.F., Smith, J.K., Arcand K.K., Smith, R.K., Holterman Ten Hove, K. Aesthetics and Astronomy: Studying the public’s perception and understanding of imagery from space. Science Communication Journal. August 2010.

Locher, P.J., Smith, L.F., Smith, J.K., The influence of presentation format and viewer training in the visual arts on the perception of pictorial and aesthetic qualities of paintings. Perception, volume 30. 2001.

AcknowledgementsThis project was developed with funding from the Smithsonian Scholarly Studies Program. Additional funding was provided by the Hinode X-ray Telescope, performed under NASA contract NNM07AB07C, with in-kind contributions from the Education and Outreach group for NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory, operated by SAO under NASA Contract NAS8-03060.

smithsonian Astrophysical observatory (sAo) authors:

60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

Phone: 617.218.7196

kkowal@cfa.harvard.edu Twitter: @kimberlykowal (Kimberly K. Arcand)

mwatzke@cfa.harvard.edu (Megan Watzke)

rsmith@cfa.harvard.edu (Randall K. Smith)

jbookbinder@cfa.harvard.edu (Jay Bookbinder)

contact information for University of otago authors:

University of Otago – College of Education

145 Union Street, East Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand

lisa.smith@otago.ac.nz (Lisa F. Smith)

Jeffrey.smith@otago.ac.nz (Jeffrey K. Smith)

Error bar chart of responses to “How much do you like this image?” by the image presented. Circle represents mean response, and bars represent 95% confidence interval for the mean.

Preferences: Ratings of images by survey participants.

Error bar chart of responses to “How well could you explain this image to another person?” by the image presented. Circle represents mean response, and bars represent 95% confidence interval for the mean.

Error bar chart of responses to “How much do you like this image?, and How well could you explain this image to another person” by the type of device used. Circle represents mean response, and bars represent 95% confidence interval for the mean.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Research questions for Aesthetics & Astronomy include: - How much do variations in presentation

of color, explanation, and scale affect comprehension of astronomical images?

- What are the differences between various populations (experts, novices, students) in terms of what they learn from the images?

- What misconceptions do the non-experts have about astronomy and the images they are exposed to?

Previous Aesthetics & Astronomy studies demonstrate a need for strong narrative and textual context when presenting science images, for explicit discussion of the colors and what they represent in science images, and for a clear sense of physical scale that is helpful for comprehension, across all levels of expertise (Arcand, et al., 2010; Smith, et al., 2010).

http://astroart.cfa.harvard.edu