Most visualization techniques have traditionally used two-dimensional, instead of three-dimensional representations to visualize multidimensional and multivariate data. In this article, a way to demonstrate the underlying superiority of three-dimensional, with respect to two-dimensional, representation is proposed. Specifically, it is based on the inevitable quality degradation produced when reducing the data dimensionality. The problem is tackled from two different approaches: a visual and an analytical approach. First, a set of statistical tests (point classification, distance perception, and outlier identification) using the two-dimensional and three-dimensional visualization are carried out on a group of 40 users. The results indicate that there is an improvement in the accuracy introduced by the inclusion of a third dimension; however, these results do not allow to obtain definitive conclusions on the superiority of three-dimensional representation. Therefore, in order to draw further conclusions, a deeper study based on an analytical approach is proposed. The aim is to quantify the real loss of quality produced when the data are visualized in two-dimensional and three-dimensional spaces, in relation to the original data dimensionality, to analyze the difference between them. To achieve this, a recently proposed methodology is used. The results obtained by the analytical approach reported that the loss of quality reaches significantly high values only when switching from three-dimensional to two-dimensional representation. The considerable quality degradation suffered in the two-dimensional visualization strongly suggests the suitability of the third dimension to visualize data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gracia et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: