Background: As data volume expands, the efficacy of business intelligence relies not on data storage, but on the user's ability to perceive and interpret visual information. Despite advances in rendering technology, dashboard design often neglects fundamental principles of human visual perception, leading to cognitive overload and decision latency.

Methods: This study investigates the intersection of cognitive psychology and information visualization. We conducted a controlled experiment with 200 participants to evaluate two distinct dashboard design paradigms: a "feature-rich" layout prioritizing density, and a "cognitively optimized" layout prioritizing preattentive attributes and Gestalt grouping. Participants performed data extraction and trend analysis tasks while response time and accuracy were measured.

Results: The optimized layout demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in time-to-insight (p < .001) and a 15% increase in interpretation accuracy. Specifically, the use of hue for categorical distinction outperformed geometric form, aligning with theories of texture segregation. Furthermore, excessive interactive animation was found to introduce a "change blindness" effect, degrading performance in exploratory data analysis.

Conclusion: The findings suggest that effective dashboard design must treat human cognitive capacity as a finite resource. By aligning visualization techniques with biological constraints—specifically the "what" and "where" visual pathways—designers can significantly enhance data comprehension.

Data Visualization, Visual Perception, Preattentive Processing, Cognitive Load

The Psychology of Visual Perception in Data Dashboards: Designing for Impact. (2025). International Journal of Data Science and Machine Learning, 5(02), 79-86.

https://doi.org/10.55640/ijdsml-05-02-07

Abarbanel, R. (1993) Problem solving with and without visualization. (Ed. G. Nielsen and D. Bergeron) Proceedings of Visualization '93, 343-

IEEE Computer Society Press: Washington.

Attneave, F. Apparent motion and the what- where connection. Psychologia, 17, 108-120.

Bertin, J. (1983) The semiology of graphics. Univ. Wisconsin Press: Madison, Wisc.

Callaghan, T. (1989) Interference and dominance in texture segregation: Hue, geometric form and line orientation. Perception and Psychophysics, 36, 299-311.

Cleveland, W. (1984) The elements of graphing data. Wadsworth: Monterey, Ca.

De Valois, R. and De Valois, K. (1988). Spatial Vision. New York: Oxford Press.

De Yoe, E. A. & van Essen, D. C. (1988). Concurrent processing streams in monkey visual cortex. Trends in Neuroscience, 5, 219- 226.

Garner, W. (1974) The processing of information and structure. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, N. J.

Abukhodair, F. A., Riecke, B. E., Erhan, H. I., & Shaw, C. D. (2013). Does interactive animation control improve exploratory data analysis of animated trend visualization? In Visualization and Data Analysis 2013 (Vol. 8654, p. 86540I). International Society for Optics and Photonics. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2001874

Ajani, K., Lee, E., Xiong, C., Knaflic, C. N., Kemper, W., & Franconeri, S. (2021). Declutter and focus: Empirically evaluating design guidelines for effective data communication. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer The Science of Visual Data Communication 151 Graphics.

Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2021.3068337

Akl, E. A., Oxman, A. D., Herrin, J., Vist, G. E., Terrenato, I., Sperati, F., Costiniuk, C., Blank, D., & Schünemann, H. (2011). Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2011(3), Article CD006776. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006776.pu b2

Albers, D., Correll, M., & Gleicher, M. (2014). Task-driven evaluation of aggregation in time series visualization. In CHI ’14: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 551–560). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557200