Next Article in Journal
Flexibility by Design: A Methodological Approach to Assessing Electrical Asset Potential Inspired by Smart Readiness Concepts
Previous Article in Journal
Finite Element Method-YOLO: Lightweight Steel Strip Surface Defect Detection Algorithm
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 21
10.3390/app152111327
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Study on Perceptual Design of Hierarchical Graphic Information in Interfaces Based on Gestalt Principles

by
Jiayang Ma
College of Art & Design, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(21), 11327; https://doi.org/10.3390/app152111327
Submission received: 18 September 2025 / Revised: 19 October 2025 / Accepted: 21 October 2025 / Published: 22 October 2025
Versions Notes

Abstract

The representation of visual hierarchy remains a central concern in contemporary design research and practice. Current design guidelines advocate establishing hierarchical relationships through dimensions such as size or distance, yet concrete and effective integration strategies remain elusive. This study, grounded in Gestalt principles, investigates the impact of design layouts on hierarchical perception under the interaction of proximity and similarity. This experiment systematically controls the size (1:1, 1:3/4 and 1:1/2, respectively) and distance (namely 1/4 R, 1/2 R, 3/4 R, 1 R, 5/4 R and 3/2 R) of two circular objects, employing a 3 × 6 two-way ANOVA. The results indicate that the interaction between size and distance can exert a significant influence on the perception of hierarchy. Among these factors, structural type emerges as the dominant element shaping hierarchical perception, with overlapping structures showing pronounced hierarchical suggestive characteristics that significantly outperform tangential and separated structures. Size can partially regulate this effect. When dimensions are equal, tangential and separated structures show no significant difference in perceived hierarchy. However, with the aid of size disparity, the hierarchical sense of separated structures can be markedly enhanced, yielding an effect stronger than that produced by shared edges.

1. Introduction

In an information-overloaded digital environment, users rely on the information filtering and integration mechanisms provided by interface layouts. A well-designed and effective layout can guide users to quickly access key information, while also influencing visual attention processes and usage efficiency [1]. Information hierarchy visualisation is typically practised in accordance with relevant graphic design principles [2,3], whilst Gestalt psychology provides the theoretical framework for visual presentation [4,5]. The principles of similarity and proximity encompassed within Gestalt theory have been corroborated by empirical research demonstrating human tendencies to group visually similar and proximally located elements [6,7]. However, current research still lacks explicit discussion on how the interaction between varying degrees of “similarity” and “proximity” influence hierarchical perception.
Differences in graphic dimensions and relative distances both influence hierarchical perception. Tree diagrams achieve this by arranging graphics of varying sizes but identical form to represent hierarchical affiliations of information [8,9,10]. Circular or radial layout structures offer advantages in terms of perceived information hierarchy, whilst circular fill layouts can also yield more compact and flexible typesetting arrangements [11]. Complex circular layouts are inherently composed of multiple localised elements. Based on this understanding, this study concretises the principles of “similarity” and “proximity” into two variables: “size” and “distance”. By controlling variations in graphic size and distance to compare perceptual differences, it aims to provide relatively clear and precise design references for hierarchical information layouts in interfaces. This finding provides quantifiable evidence for the application of Gestalt psychology in interface design, information architecture, and visual presentation.

2. Related Work

2.1. Hierarchical Cognitive Mechanisms in Information Classification

When confronted with vast quantities of information, hierarchical information design forms the foundation of interface presentation. Information classification serves as the pivotal mechanism for achieving this objective, playing a crucial role as the intermediary between external hierarchical structures and users’ internal cognitive processes. Kossman posits that by delineating similarities and differences between graphical representations, information classification facilitates information discovery [12]. When information is so abundant that it cannot be fully accommodated within fixed screen dimensions, content must be organised and laid out judiciously. This is crucial for users to generate effective hierarchical perception more efficiently [13]. Qiu believed that enhanced efficiency could promote memory economy and clearly reveal interconnections between information [14]. However, Pu pointed out that interfaces struggle to display hierarchical relationships among relevant information [15]. The more complex the information, the more essential it becomes to design its structure rationally, thereby reducing the time required for users to form cognitive models. Conducting in-depth research into information hierarchies from the perspectives of perceptual categorisation and mental model construction constitutes a fundamental issue in information visualisation.
The core principle of information hierarchy design lies in leveraging the synergy between visual and interactive elements to facilitate users’ construction of mental models of the system, thereby optimising retrieval and classification activities [16]. Research by Krieglstein et al. indicates that the structure and complexity of concept maps influence cognitive processes, with hierarchical organisation effectively facilitating the transmission of fundamental knowledge units—the “concepts” [17]. Wittgenstein’s theory of “family resemblance” demonstrates that humans establish “concepts” by recognising shared characteristics [18], while the “prototype theory” in cognitive science further develops this concept [19]. Although “prototype theory” is frequently applied within the field of linguistics, its core principle of “categorisation” is equally applicable to visual perception and structural classification. The generation and recognition of concepts are achieved through perceptual prototypes possessing shared characteristics [20]. Despite the blurred boundaries of concepts, objects closer to the centre are more suitable as conceptual prototypes [21]. Serving as connecting links between different infographics, concepts effectively group similar content to reduce cognitive load.
However, “structure” aids in elucidating the hierarchical relationships between “concepts”, and the effective design of information hierarchies constitutes a key means of achieving mental model construction. Mental models represent the ways in which users understand and predict phenomena within their minds. As users rapidly locate and comprehend information through clearly defined hierarchical structures, design must account for the mental models of the target audience to optimise subsequent user experience [22]. In graphic design practice, designers guide users’ visual sequences and attention through layout arrangements [23,24], or construct hierarchical structures to direct user experience [25]. Lévi-Strauss and Leighton, who explored this principle in depth, proposed that employing similar graphics within layered designs enables users to assimilate crucial information through modular forms [26]. The modular structure’s characteristic of information chunking facilitates memory simplification [27,28]. Graphic design research confirms that strong visual hierarchies guide audience attention towards information, while visual comfort further enhances aesthetic experience [29]. Consequently, this study focuses on the organisational design of interface layouts and the characteristics of users’ structured perception.

2.2. Layout of Information Visualisation

Roger Wolcott Sperry was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1981 for proposing visual thinking. According to Sperry, visual thinking resulted from the biological evolution of the human eye and is an innate talent of human beings. Graphics facilitate accurate transmission of information and memory usage. However, faced with increasingly complex data, visual design can further improve information presentation and processing. Reasonable visual effects have made significant progress as interface navigation and in providing modular content and enhancing information comprehension [30,31]. Visual concept maps have also long been used to represent interrelationships between concepts [32,33,34].
Design implies communication, and a good design enhances user experience from the level of spiritual attributes, such as sensory value and trust [35,36]. Visual hierarchy refers to the visual sequence in which viewers perceive graphic elements [29]. Its objective is to present abstract information clearly through graphic combinations in interface design. Kwasnik proposed that hierarchical structures can clearly demonstrate classification relationships and are more suitable for mature, familiar domains [37]. For instance, bubble trees employ the inherent properties of trees to achieve hierarchical presentation of subset content [38], demonstrating the principles of proximity and similarity within Gestalt theory. They utilise spatial layout and variations in size to convey hierarchical relationships. The use of bubble cluster graphics for layout in interface visual design has been demonstrated to aid in conveying clustering concepts. Empirical evaluations of Treemap visualisation performance in early studies indicated that, within specific task contexts, Treemaps exhibited superior efficiency and task performance [39]. However, visualising such static hierarchical structures presents significant challenges, as treemaps struggle to depict hierarchical relationships across time [40]. Moreover, circles possess distinct visual contours, and the arrangement of multiple circles is regarded as aesthetically significant in visual design [41,42]. International patent research indicates that employing geometric objects can assist users in expanding their thinking and creativity [43], while their enclosed nature effectively conveys independent information concepts. In particular, stacked design elements embody the principle of “grouping similar items”, stemming from the human tendency to decompose visual elements into semantic modules during visual perception [5]. Such designs prove especially crucial for highlighting the inclusion or association between secondary nodes [44,45,46]. Therefore, the effectiveness and efficiency of different layouts at the perceptual level depend on the usage scenario, while their respective advantages hinge upon the task content [47]. Although existing information visualisation layouts have achieved certain results in both theory and practice, there remains a gap between empirical support for “element layout” and “hierarchical perception”. They have failed to elucidate the specific manner in which design layout paradigms guide subjective hierarchical perception. It is therefore necessary to investigate how different layout characteristics—such as size, distance, and density—influence the construction of perceived hierarchies.

2.3. Gestalt Psychology and Perception of Interfaces

From the perspective of human perception, the reason why users have a perceptual sense of product use is related to the process of generating individual past experience and knowledge [48]. The reason why individuals have an “intuitive” sense of interface elements is that users accumulate relevant experiences in the process of continuous use of digital products, and “intuition” is the feedback provided by experience on interface use. However, from a theoretical viewpoint, intuition actually originates from the information processing approaches in the human brain, including “top-down processing” and “bottom-up processing” [49]. The latter is input through sensory stimuli to trigger internal cognition, while the former refers to the perceptual judgement based on existing experience. Consequently, both information processing methods are derived from perception.
In the design related to layout, Gestalt principles are often applied to the organisation of information modules [50], and the visual guidance and content suggestibility it produces become a design approach that can directly convey information concepts [51,52,53]. This theory indicates that human perceptual experience will naturally organise some incomplete figures or information to form a complete form [54], and includes the principles of subjectivity, proximity, similarity, continuity, closeness and balance. The Gestalt principles of “similarity” and “proximity” are employed to guide users in grouping elements, thereby conveying a sense of hierarchy within the interface. In chart design, the application of these principles significantly impacts both comprehension accuracy and reaction time, demonstrating that visual groupings formed through effective layout optimise the perception of information acquisition [55]. Clear layering delivers a fluid visual experience; the greater the user’s sensitivity to proximity, the more pronounced the attraction effect becomes. This finding is corroborated by research into the visual perception of architectural facades, where proximity-designed facades prove more readily accepted and are processed visually at a faster rate [56,57]. In studies concerning information processing and visual memory, two principles were found to be mutually constraining: visual tasks are only effectively facilitated when similar elements are positioned close to one another. These two principles jointly govern the hierarchical recognition process of visual perception [6]. Although some empirical studies have confirmed the foundational role of Gestalt principles in perception, the majority of research has focused on verifying the validity or universality of these principles. There is a lack of studies that translate these principles into research variables and the design of practical applications. In summary, Gestalt principles are extensively applied in visual design, yet most research remains confined to theoretical exploration and comprehensive practice, lacking empirical studies that map Gestalt principles onto design variables. Therefore, this study centres on group relations, translating certain elements into research variables: the proximity principle governs spacing between information graphics, while the similarity principle shapes conceptual perception through internal graphic attributes such as size.

3. Experimental Design

To investigate the influence of different layout modes of graphics on level perception, this experiment simulates the hierarchical relationship between different graphics using icon A and icon B (both of which are circular), and setting “icon size” and “centre-to-centre distance” as variables. We attempted different methods of presenting information hierarchy by controlling these two variables.

3.1. Prototype and Apparatus

Research on the usability of touch screen shows that when the icon size is designed to be equal to or greater than 40 pt × 40 pt, its performance is the best; however, 30 pt × 30 pt is also acceptable [16,58]. In view of this, the size of icon A was fixed at 60 pt × 60 pt, and that of icon B was designed to regularly change: 60 pt × 60 pt, 45 pt × 45 pt, and 30 pt × 30 pt. Consequently, their proportions were 1:1, 1:3/4, and 1:1/2, respectively. Conversely, when setting the centre distance of the two icons, the principle of regular change was followed; their centre distances were set to 1/4R, 1/2R, 3/4R, 1R, 5/4R, and 3/2R, respectively. As shown in Table 1, after pairing different “sizes” and “distances,” a 3 × 6 matrix can be formed, with a total of 18 compositions.
Gestalt psychology posits that the human brain possesses a mechanism for perceptually completing incomplete figures, although this applies only to partial visual occlusion. Tufte and Ware even advocate avoiding occlusion that interferes with information in design [3,59]. However, when two icons have a size ratio of 1:1/2 and a centre-to-centre distance of 1/4R, Icon A completely obscures Icon B. Under these conditions, the user cannot obtain any visual cues about the obscured object; Icon B becomes visually imperceptible. Consequently, this combination was excluded from the experimental sample [60].
To ensure other factors did not influence the results, interference elements such as colour preferences and textual content were excluded during sampling. A total of 17 prototypes were created using the Adobe Illustrator CC (2017) software, with graphic elements rendered in pure black against a pure white background. Contrast was controlled to the greatest extent possible, whilst ensuring all graphics maintained high fidelity. Prototype dimensions range from 30 pt to 60 pt, exported at a 1:1 scale in PNG format with a resolution of 72 ppi. To ensure dimensional harmony between the experimental subjects and their display medium, the iPhone 11 (1792 × 828) was employed to showcase various graphic layouts. To guarantee fidelity of the experimental samples, all specimens underwent 1:1 comparative testing. The experimental equipment underwent colour calibration, with brightness maintained at a constant 80%.
This study employed black and white as the experimental prototypes for illustration, facilitating control over confounding variables. However, as the experimental samples comprised solely abstract and simplified graphics, the generalisability of the findings is somewhat limited. Nevertheless, the research aims to translate complex presentations encountered in real-world usage contexts into a set of quantifiable design principles, thereby providing clear guidelines for information architecture and layout.

3.2. Participants and Experimental Design

With the advent of the digital age, people increasingly access information via touchscreens. This study commenced following approval by the academic ethics review board of the researcher’s institution. It recruited adult users with stable perceptual abilities who regularly utilise digital products in their daily life to investigate how different graphical layouts influence the perception of hierarchical information within interfaces.
This experiment employed a 3 × 6 within-subjects repeated-measures design, with a prior power analysis conducted using G*Power 3.1. Results indicated a minimum sample size of 10, whereas the actual sample size (N = 57) substantially exceeded this minimum requirement, achieving an efficiency of 82.3%. This study recruited participants through online advertisements, social media, and campus noticeboards. Inclusion criteria were adults aged 18 to 55 who spent over two hours per day retrieving or browsing information via touchscreens, with normal vision or vision corrected to normal. A total of 57 participants took part in this experiment. The majority were aged between 20 and 29, with a near-equal split between males and females. All participants held secondary school level or above qualifications. These characteristics ensured that participants’ perceptual judgements remained unaffected by usage background, cognitive understanding, or visual sensitivity.
This experiment employed a one-to-one approach to collect perceptual data, ensuring all participants had full exposure to the 17 experimental samples, thereby minimising individual differences to the greatest extent possible. Prior to the experiment commencing, participants were required to provide basic information such as age and gender (all collected data were processed using a fully anonymised method). Subsequently, the facilitator provided the participants with a detailed explanation of the experiment’s objectives, operational procedures, and assessment criteria. Illustrative diagrams were presented to clarify the concept of hierarchical relationships. The experiment commenced only after full comprehension had been confirmed. To avoid sequence and learning effects, the 17 prototypes in the experimental setup were presented in a completely random order, ensuring each prototype had an equal probability of appearing at any point in the sequence. Participants were required to observe and examine each sample individually, assessing their perceived information hierarchy according to questionnaire items. After evaluating six samples, participants were afforded a five-second interval for rest. The questionnaire offers three perceived hierarchy options: Icon A is of a higher level than Icon B; Icon A is of the same level as Icon B; Icon B is of a higher level than Icon A. These correspond to numbers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Only one option may be selected per assessment. This experiment primarily relied on participants’ subjective perceptions for judgement, presenting low difficulty and limited quantity. Participants spent approximately 10–15 s evaluating and judging each prototype, with most completing the entire experiment within 5 min.

4. Results

Following data collection, each questionnaire response underwent manual screening, resulting in the exclusion of one invalid questionnaire. To examine the influence of size and distance on hierarchical perception, the 56 manually pre-screened questionnaires were imported into SPSS (V26) for a two-way analysis of variance. It is worth noting that this experiment employed a 3-point scale to assess hierarchical relationships. Due to the limited range of values, the data could not strictly satisfy the assumption of normal distribution (p < 0.05 *). To ensure robustness, the findings were validated using an ordinal regression model once the results were generated. The results of the ANOVA analysis are presented in Table 2: The effect of different distances on stratification judgement reached a level of significant difference (F = 53.959, p < 0.01 **), having a large effect size (η2 = 0.224); The effect of different graphic sizes on layered judgement also reached a level of significant difference (F = 20.637, p < 0.01 **), with a medium effect size (η2 = 0.042); under the interaction of the two factors, layered judgement showed significant differences (F = 4.801, p < 0.01 **), with a medium effect size (η2 = 0.044). The descriptive statistics are presented in Table 3. The mean values for 1/4R with 1:3/4, 1/2R with 1:1/2, 1/2R with 1:3/4, and 3/4R with 1:3/4 all fell below 1.30, providing preliminary evidence that participants perceived these pairings as being more consistent with Icon A’s hierarchical superiority over Icon B. Conversely, the mean values for 1R and 1:1, 5/4R and 1:1, and 3/2R and 1:1 all exceeded 2.00. This indicates that participants perceived Icon A and Icon B as being of equal hierarchical status, or even that Icon B held a slightly higher position than Icon A.
Building upon this foundation, the data relating to size and distance were segmented for separate analysis. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to compare the hierarchical perception effects across different combinations. To ensure the rigour of the experimental findings, LSD post hoc tests were conducted for pairwise comparisons. When the distance is 1/4R, pairwise comparisons cannot be conducted as fewer than three groups are present. Comparison results for the remaining five centre distances and three icon sizes are shown in Table 4: At a centre distance of 1/2R, all configurations show an overlapping structure. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed in pairwise comparisons of the three icon sizes, indicating no perceptual variation in information hierarchy across different icon dimensions. At a distance of 3/4R, pairwise comparisons of different size combinations revealed significant differences in mean values between 1:3/4 and 1:1/2 (MD = −0.393, p < 0.05 *), as well as between 1:1 and 1:1/2 (MD = −0.232, p < 0.05 *). The 1:1/2 ratio presents a tangential structure between two icons, whilst the 1:1 and 1:3/4 ratios display overlapping structures.
Combining the average results reveals that overlapping structures convey a stronger perception of hierarchy than tangential structures. Comparisons of the two overlapping structures (1:3/4 and 1:1) did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05), preliminarily indicating that alterations in size within overlapping structures do not affect hierarchical perception. At a distance of 1R, the mean difference between 1:1 and 1:1/2 was significantly different (MD = 0.304, p < 0.05 *), and the mean difference between 1:1 and 1:3/4 was also significantly different (MD = 0.339, p < 0.05 *). Here, the 1:1 configuration exhibits a tangential structure, whereas both 1:3/4 and 1:1/2 are separated.
The combined means indicate that separated structures with dimensional differences convey a stronger sense of hierarchy than tangential structures. However, no significant hierarchical difference was observed between the two separated structures (1:1/2 and 1:3/4) (p > 0.05). At distances of 5/4R and 3/2R, the mean differences between these two distances and the 1:1 and 1:1/2 ratios, respectively, reached statistical significance (MD = 0.321, p < 0.05 *). Comparisons of the 1:1 and 1:3/4 dimensions yielded difference values of 0.250 and 0.304, respectively, also meeting the significance criterion (p < 0.05 *). It is demonstrated that within separated layouts, graphic elements exhibiting dimensional disparity differ in perceived visual hierarchy from those of equal size. Combining these findings with the mean values indicates that dimensional variation can create a pronounced perception of hierarchy. Both 1:1/2 and 1:3/4 ratios possess the characteristic of dimensional disparity within separated layouts, yet the hierarchical distinction is not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
Based on the comparison results for icon dimensions, the LSD pairwise test results are presented in Table 5. When the two icon dimensions were 1:1/2, the mean values for the 1/2R distance compared with the 3/4R, 1R, 5/4R, and 3/2R graphic structures were 0.429, 0.464, 0.411, and 0.464, respectively, all having significant differences (p < 0.05 *). This indicates that overlapping structures exhibit hierarchical perceptual differences compared to tangential and separated structures. Pairwise comparisons of the 3/4R configuration and the 1R, 5/4R, and 3/2R graphic structures revealed no significant differences (p > 0.5). This indicates that tangential and separated structures with consistent dimensions but differing distances elicit no perceptual distinction in hierarchical perception.
Separated structures with a central distance of 1R showed no significant differences (p > 0.5) when compared with separated structures of 5/4R and 3/2R. This indicates that distance does not influence the hierarchical perception of separated structures. Combining the mean values revealed that, compared to tangential and separated structures, overlapping structures consistently provide users with a stronger sense of hierarchy. Under the dimension ratio of 1:3/4, when comparing separated structures with centre distances of 1R, 5/4R, and 3/2R against the overlapping structure with a centre distance of 1/2R, the respective mean differences were 0.429, 0.428, and 0.428, respectively. The mean differences between 3/4R and 1R, 5/4R, and 3/2R were 0.393, 0.446, and 0.446, respectively, all meeting the significance criteria (p < 0.05 *). When comparing 1/4R with 1R, 5/4R, and 3/2R, respectively, the mean difference values were −0.411, −0.464, and −0.464.
Combined with the mean values, it is evident that the layered structure conveys a stronger sense of hierarchy than the separated structure. However, when comparing icons with centre distances of 3/4R and 1/4R against the 1/2R icon, the mean differences failed to reach statistical significance (p > 0.5). Similarly, no significant difference was observed between 3/4R and 1/4R (p > 0.5). This indicates that within overlapping structures, the perceived hierarchy remains unaffected, regardless of the distance between elements. Comparisons of 1R and 5/4R, 1R and 3/2R, as well as between 5/4R and 3/2R individually all failed to meet the significance criterion (p > 0.5). This indicates that under a separated structure, distance does not influence hierarchical perception. At a size ratio of 1:1, comparing icon sets with centre distances of 1R, 5/4R, and 3/2R against a 1/2R icon set yielded average differences of 0.625, 0.589, and 0.643, respectively. The mean differences between 1/4R and 1R, 5/4R, and 3/2R were −0.696, −0.661, and −0.714, respectively, with all values reaching statistical significance (p < 0.05 *). Based on the average values, it can be observed that the perceived hierarchy of overlapping structures is stronger than that of tangential and separated structures.
Consistent with the above findings, pairwise comparisons of three partially overlapping icon combinations (e.g., at distances of 1/4R, 1/2R, and 3/4R) revealed no significant differences (p > 0.5). Similarly, pairwise comparisons of fully separated icon states (5/4R and 3/2R) also failed to reach statistical significance (p > 0.5). This indicates that, when icons are of equal size, distance does not influence hierarchical perception. Notably, the comparison results between the icon combination with a centre distance of 1R and those with 5/4R and 3/2R, respectively, showed no significant difference (p > 0.5). This indicates that, under conditions of equal size, there is no perceptual difference in hierarchy between tangential and separated structures.
Finally, this study employed ordinal regression as supplementary validation for the ANOVA results. The chi-square test yielded a value of 99.247, meeting the criterion for statistical significance (p = 0.00 *), explaining approximately 36.3% of the variance. Pearson’s chi-square significance was 0.00, while the bias chi-square significance was 0.064 (p > 0.05). This indicates slight discrepancies between observed and expected values, suggesting the model could be further refined. Nevertheless, the results remain valuable for validating the ANOVA findings. The results demonstrate the following: The interactions between 1/4R and 1:3/4 (B = 2.934, p = 0.01 **), 1/2R and 1:1/2 (B = 2.713, p = 0.02 *), 1/2R and 1:3/4 (B = 2.624, p = 0.02 *), as well as 3/4R and 1:3/4 (B = 2.532, p = 0.03 *) all reached significant interaction standards. This indicates that the interaction combinations can greatly enhance the perception of element A being hierarchically superior to element B. These combinations are all overlapping structures, corresponding to the strong sense of hierarchy produced by the overlapping structures in the earlier stage. The interaction between 3/4R and 1:1/2 also reached statistical significance (B = 4.279, p = 0.00 **). This tangential structure exhibits a dimensional disparity that accentuates its hierarchical nature, indicating that scale can influence the perception of hierarchy—consistent with earlier findings. The comparisons of 1R and 1:1/2, 1R and 1:3/4, 3/4R and 1:1/2, 5/4R and 1:3/4, 3/2R and 1:1/2, as well as 3/2R and 1:3/4 failed to meet the significance criteria (p > 0.05), indicating that the separated structure in a general sense presents considerable difficulty in hierarchical recognition. Consequently, the ordinal regression results validate the robustness of the ANOVA findings.

5. Discussion

Feature Integration Theory (FIT) posits that shape and size, as fundamental graphic characteristics, undergo rapid processing during the pre-attentive stage [61]. Size contrast is frequently employed to denote hierarchical relationships between elements, such as in tree diagrams where proportional scaling highlights informational connections [8,9,10]. Regarding the visual prominence of icons, whilst Yan et al. established stringent requirements for absolute icon dimensions relative to screen resolution, thereby providing fundamental assurance for visual recognition, users’ perception of hierarchical relationships constitutes a more intricate process [62]. This study aimed to investigate how different combinations influence visual hierarchy perception by controlling two variables: “size” and “distance”. The findings revealed that structure is the dominant factor affecting hierarchical perception, while size serves a supplementary role in reinforcing the sense of hierarchy.
This study defines structural effects in hierarchical perception to reinforce the primacy of layout structures in visual attention, employing size modulation to accentuate hierarchy. Different structural types influence how users scan and process information [63], thereby affecting hierarchical perception. Among these, the hierarchical communication capability of overlapping structures far surpasses that of tangential and separated structures, making it a structure with potent hierarchical influence. The core of overlapping structures lies in the introduction of graphic occlusion, where occlusion provides “clues” such that the brain perceives the obscured object as background and the obscuring element as foreground [4], automatically filling in the missing parts of the graphic. For instance, the GRo app reinforces the concept of a collective by presenting group concepts with uniformly sized user portraits that partially overlap.
This finding also resonates with Gestalt’s principle of closure. The spatial depth generated by foreground and background elements maximises the implication of hierarchical relationships. This occurs because human estimation of area relies on the cognitive characteristic of graphic span perception [64]. Overlapping layouts diminish the perceived span of obscured objects, thereby reinforcing hierarchical concepts through the mechanism of selective attention. The Gestalt principle of continuity corresponds to the tangential structure, emphasising the principle that “adjacent stimuli are more readily fused than separated stimuli”.
The most striking feature of human visual perception lies in its capacity to directly grasp the overall structure without focusing on each constituent part of an object; even elements of differing forms can be interconnected into a unified whole. Tangential layouts enable users to perceive the unity of two icons through visual continuity, directing attention towards the whole rather than towards individual elements with hierarchical distinctions. This structure also serves as a critical point for perceived integration or separation. For instance, in app design, designers often arrange two buttons side-by-side with shared edges to imply their structural unity as “parallel yet related” entities. Consequently, the perceptual characteristics mapped by the “tangential structure” results provide design boundaries within hierarchical perceptual construction, necessitating particular attention to the detailed handling of spacing in design practice. Perceptual grouping guided by Gestalt principles influences users’ selective attention and cognitive load.
Studies on gaze sequences indicate that the smaller the relative visual distance between elements, the greater the temporal similarity in users’ eye-tracking trajectories [65]. Conversely, the inability of separated layouts to form stable perceptual groupings stems from the “subjective nature” of human vision. When visual perception focuses on a portion of an object within the field of view, the object of visual attention is termed the figure and receives focus, while the remaining parts constitute the background. When two objects are separated, selective attention triggers the “subjective principle” whereby one object is designated as the primary focus. Separated structures display distinct boundaries and negative space, reflecting the cognitive foundation of visual partitioning based on perceived distance within Gestalt psychology. Negative space effectively enhances distance perception, prompting the visual system to recognise each graphic as an independent entity [3]. For instance, the Vision Pro interface employs a fully separated design layout, conveying a consistent hierarchy among icons while maintaining their distinct individuality, thereby ensuring visual clarity.
It is noteworthy that indistinct or unclear boundaries exert a significant influence on hierarchical organisation [39]. Shared boundaries within tangential structures compel users to expend additional effort in discerning element dimensions and boundary positions, resulting in a less pronounced perception of hierarchy compared to separated structures featuring dimensional differentiation. In other words, separation structures can enhance a sense of hierarchy by adjusting dimensional proportions. However, without the support of dimensional variation, even reduced distances cannot convey a perception of hierarchy. In summary, the “synergy” arising from the proximity principle and similarity principle is not without its limits. Once the structure is established, dimensional variations scarcely exert any regulatory effect whereas dimension, as a supplementary visual encoding, relies upon the hierarchical benefits derived from contrast.

6. Conclusions

This study examines the combined effects of dimensional variation and spatial distance on hierarchical perception within overlapping, tangential, and separated structures. Key findings indicate that design priorities should first focus on structural layout, alongside the conditional nature of dimensional adjustments in enhancing hierarchical perception. Consequently, precise boundaries and design principles are established for the synergistic interaction between structure and scale in hierarchical perception. In design practice, designers may opt for overlapping structures to maximise the communication of hierarchy, whereas in scenarios requiring clear hierarchical communication, tangential structures should be employed with caution; dimensional differences may be effectively utilised within separated structures.

Funding

This work was supported by Basic Research Programme of Jiangsu Education Department [grant number 2023SJYB0171].

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (1975, revised in 2013). According to the Implementation of Ethical Review Measures for Human-Related Life Science and Medical Research issued by the Chinese government, ethical approval is not required for studies that utilise anonymised data (Article 32). Our study was entirely questionnaire-based, and all collected data were completely anonymous to protect the privacy of participants.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Tullis, T.S. Predicting the Usability of Alphanumeric Displays; Rice University: Houston, TX, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bertin, J. Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps; University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ware, C. Information Visualization: Perception for Design, 3rd ed.; Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.: Burlington, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  4. Palmer, S.E. Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  5. Wagemans, J.; Elder, J.H.; Kubovy, M.; Palmer, S.E.; Peterson, M.A.; Singh, M.; von der Heydt, R. A Century of Gestalt Psychology in Visual Perception: I. Perceptual Grouping and Figure—Ground Organization. Psychol. Bull. 2012, 138, 1172–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Peterson, D.J.; Berryhill, M.E. The Gestalt Principle of Similarity Benefits Visual Working Memory. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2013, 20, 1282–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Johansson, R.C.G.; Ulrich, R. Serial Processing of Proximity Groups and Similarity Groups. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 2024, 86, 1303–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Schulz, H.J. Treevis.net: A Tree Visualization Reference. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2011, 31, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tee, T.S.; Ma, K.L. RINGS: A Technique for Visualizing Large Hierarchies. In International Symposium on Graph Drawing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  10. Schulz, H.J.; Hadlak, S.; Schumann, H. The Design Space of Implicit Hierarchy Visualization: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2011, 17, 393–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Görtler, J.; Schulz, C.; Weiskopf, D. Bubble Treemaps for Uncertainty Visualization. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2017, 24, 719–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Koshman, S. Categorization and Classification Revisited: A Review of Concept in Library Science and Cognitive Psychology. Curr. Stud. Librariansh. 1993, 26–41. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hinson, R.; Kinsella, A.; Propper, R. So Much Information, So Little Screen Space: Assessing the Usability of Hierarchical Data Visualizations in Tableau. Usability and User Experience. In Proceedings of the AHFE (2022) International Conference, New York, NY, USA, 24–28 July 2022; pp. 310–318. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chiu, T.H. The Application of Classification Structures in Knowledge Organization and Representation. Natl. Taiwan Univ. J. Libr. Inf. Stud. 2002, 17, 123–137. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hsiao, T.P. An Empirical Study on User-Oriented Association Analysis of Library Classification Schemes. Natl. Taiwan Univ. J. Libr. Inf. Sci. 2002, 17, 81–94. [Google Scholar]
  16. Doi, T. Effects of Asymmetry between Design Models and User Models on Subjective Comprehension of User Interface. Symmetry 2021, 13, 795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Krieglstein, F.; Schneider, S.; Beege, M.; Rey, G.D. How the Design and Complexity of Concept Maps Influence Cognitive Learning Processes. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2022, 70, 99–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations, 4th ed.; Wiley-Blackwell Publishing: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  19. Rosch, E. Prototype theory. In Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 1973; pp. 111–144. [Google Scholar]
  20. Brumby, D.P.; Zhuang, S. Visual Grouping in Menu Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 18–23 April 2015; pp. 4203–4206. [Google Scholar]
  21. Frege, G.; Geach, P.T.; Black, M. On Concept and Object. Mind 1951, 60, 168–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Norman, D. The Design of Everyday Things, Revised and Expanded Edition; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  23. Collins, W.; Hass, A.; Jeffery, K.; Martin, A.; Medeiros, R.; Tomljanovic, S. Graphic Design and Print Production Fundamentals; BCcampus: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hagen, R.; Golombisky, K. White Space Is Not Your Enemy: A Beginner’s Guide to Communicating Visually Through Graphic, Web, & Multimedia Design, 3rd ed.; Taylor & Francis Group: Abingdon, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lupton, E.; Phillips, J.C. Graphic Design: The New Basics, 2nd ed.; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  26. Levi-Strauss, C. Structural Anthropology; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1963. [Google Scholar]
  27. Baddeley, A.D.; Hitch, G. Working Memory. Science 1992, 255, 556–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Freyhoff, H.; Gruber, H.; Ziegler, A. Expertise and Hierarchical Knowledge Representation in Chess. Psychol. Res. 1992, 54, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Urano, Y.; Kurosu, A.; Henselman-Petrusek, G.; Todorov, A. Visual Hierarchy Relates to Impressions of Good Design. In Proceedings of the EMICS ’21: ACM CHI ’21 Workshop on Eye Movements as an Interface to Cognitive State, Yokohama, Japan, 14 May 2021. [Google Scholar]
  30. Meyer, J.; Thomas, J.; Diehl, S.; Fisher, B.; Keim, D.A.; Laidlaw, D.; Miksch, S.; Mueller, K.; Ribarsky, W.; Preim, B.; et al. From Visualization to Visually Enabled Reasoning. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zent. Fuer Inform. 2010, 1, 227–245. [Google Scholar]
  31. Shaw, R.S. A Study of Learning Performance of E-Learning Materials Design with Knowledge Maps. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 253–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gaines, B.R.; Shaw, M.L.G. Concept Maps as Hypermedia Components. Hum. Comput. Stud. 1995, 43, 323–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Melancon, G.; Marshall, M.S. Graph Visualization and Navigation in Information Visualization: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2000, 6, 24–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Moore, J.P. Promoting Conceptual Understanding via Adaptive Concept Maps. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  35. Creusen, M.E.H.; Schoormans, J.P.L. The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2005, 22, 63–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tseng, K.T.; Tseng, Y.C. The Correlation between Visual Complexity and User Trust in Online Shopping: Implications for Design. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 22–27 June 2014; pp. 90–99. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kwasnik, B. The Role of Classification in Knowledge Representation and Discovery. Libr. Trends 1999, 48, 22–47. [Google Scholar]
  38. Boardman, R. Bubble Trees: The Visualization of Hierarchical Information Structures. In Proceedings of the CHI’00 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Hague, The Netherlands, 1–6 April 2000; pp. 315–316. [Google Scholar]
  39. Turo, D.; Johnson, B. Improving the Visualization of Hierarchies with Treemaps: Design Issues and Experimentation. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Visualization ‘92 (VIS ‘92), Boston, MA, USA, 19–23 October 1992; pp. 124–131. [Google Scholar]
  40. Bolte, F.; Nourani, M.; Ragan, E.D.; Bruckner, S. Split Streams: A Visual Metaphor for Evolving Hierarchies. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2021, 27, 3571–3584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hlawatsch, M.; Burch, M.; Weiskopf, D. Bubble Hierarchies. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Aesthetics, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 8–10 August 2014; pp. 77–80. [Google Scholar]
  42. Wu, T.; Zhang, L.; Yang, J. Automatic Generation of Aesthetic Patterns with Cloud Model. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Natural Computation, Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, Changsha, China, 13–15 August 2016; pp. 1077–1084. [Google Scholar]
  43. Victor, B.; Roos, J.; Rasmussen, R. Method and Materials for Encouraging Creative Thinking, Planning or Decision Making. U.S. Patent No. US20070031795A1, 8 February 2007. [Google Scholar]
  44. Collins, C.; Penn, G.; Carpendale, S. Bubble Sets: Revealing Set Relations with Isocontours over Existing Visualizations. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2009, 15, 1009–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Buisine, S.; Besacier, G.; Aoussat, A.; Vernier, F. How Do Interactive Tabletop Systems Influence Collaboration? Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gu, Y.; Wang, C.; Ma, J.; Nemiroff, R.J.; Kao, D.L.; Parra, D. Visualization and Recommendation of Large Image Collections toward Effective Sensemaking. Inf. Vis. 2017, 16, 21–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lamqaddam, H.; De Prekel, I.; Brosens, K.; Verbert, K. Perceptual Effects of Hierarchy in Art Historical Social Networks. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2201.09392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Blackler, A.; Popovic, V.; Mahar, D. The Nature of Intuitive Use of Products: An Experimental Approach. Des. Stud. 2023, 24, 491–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Atkinson, J.M.; Garner, H.C.; Gilmour, W.H. The Introduction and Evaluation of Community Care Orders. J. Ment. Health 2002, 11, 417–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Williams, R. The Non-Designer’s Design Book: Design and Typographic Principles for the Visual Novice; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sinico, M. To Communicate without Signs through Expressive Qualities. Gestalt. Theory 2019, 41, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Teuber, M.L. Blue Night by Paul Klee; Henle, M., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kennedy, J.M. Arnheim, Gestalt Theory and Pictures. Vis. Arts Res. 1985, 11, 23–44. [Google Scholar]
  54. Behrens, R.R. Art, Design and Gestalt Theory. Leonardo 1998, 31, 299–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lemon, E.B.; Allen, E.B.; Carver, J.C.; Bradshaw, G.L. An Empirical Study of the Effects of Gestalt Principles on Diagram Understandability. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2007), Madrid, Spain, 20–21 September 2007; pp. 156–165. [Google Scholar]
  56. Izakson, L.; Zeevi, Y.; Levy, D.J. Attraction to Similar Options: The Gestalt Law of Proximity Is Related to the Attraction Effect. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0240937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Beder, D.; Pelowski, M.; Imamoğlu, Ç. Influence of Complexity and Gestalt Principles on Aesthetic Preferences for Building Façades: An Eye Tracking Study. J. Eye Mov. Res. 2024, 17, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. DeKoning, B.B.; Tabbers, H.K.; Rikers, R.M.; Paas, F. Towards a Framework for Attention Cueing in Instructional Animations: Guidelines for Research and Design. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2009, 21, 113–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tufte, E.R. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information; Graphics Press: Cheshire, CT, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kanizsa, G.; Legrenzi, P.; Bozzi, P. Organization in Vision: Essays on Gestalt Perception; Praeger Punlisher Inc.: Westport, CT, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  61. Treisman, A.M.; Gelade, G. A feature-integration theory of attention. Cogn. Psychol. 1980, 12, 97–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Yan, W.; Zhang, X.; Deng, L.; Liu, Z. Research on the Generality of Icon Sizes Based on Visual Attention. Eng. Rep. 2023, 5, e12577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jiang, Y.; Leiva, L.A.; Rezazadegan Tavakoli, H.; RBHoussel, P.; Kylmälä, J.; Oulasvirta, A. UEyes: Understanding Visual Saliency across User Interface Types. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘23), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 23–28 April 2023; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  64. Qi, G.; Jing, Z. The Quantitative Research on Length and Area Perception: A Guidance on Shape Encoding in Visual Interface. Displays 2022, 75, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Schwab, M.; Strobelt, H.; Tompkin, J.; Fredericks, C.; Huff, C.; Higgins, D.; Strezhnev, A.; Komisarchik, M.; King, G.; Pfister, H. Booc.io: An Education System with Hierarchical Concept Maps and Dynamic Non-Linear Learning Plans. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2016, 23, 571–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Experimental Prototype.
Table 1. Experimental Prototype.
1/4R1/2R3/4R1R5/4R3/2R
1:1Applsci 15 11327 i001Applsci 15 11327 i002Applsci 15 11327 i003Applsci 15 11327 i004Applsci 15 11327 i005Applsci 15 11327 i006
OverlappingOverlappingOverlappingTangentialSeparatedSeparated
1:3/4Applsci 15 11327 i007Applsci 15 11327 i008Applsci 15 11327 i009Applsci 15 11327 i010Applsci 15 11327 i011Applsci 15 11327 i012
OverlappingOverlappingOverlappingSeparatedSeparatedSeparated
1:1/2Applsci 15 11327 i013Applsci 15 11327 i014Applsci 15 11327 i015Applsci 15 11327 i016Applsci 15 11327 i017Applsci 15 11327 i018
/OverlappingTangentialSeparatedSeparatedSeparated
Table 2. The impact of ratio and distance.
Table 2. The impact of ratio and distance.
Independent VariablesSSdfMSFpη2
Distance50.935510.18753.9590.0000.224
Size7.79223.89620.6370.0000.042
Distance × Size8.15790.9064.8010.0000.044
Table 3. Results of Descriptive Statistics.
Table 3. Results of Descriptive Statistics.
DistanceSizeMeanSD
1/4R1:3/41.270.447
1:11.320.441
1/2R1:1/21.250.437
1:3/41.250.437
1:11.390.562
3/4R1:1/21.680.471
1:3/41.290.456
1:11.450.537
1R1:1/21.710.456
1:3/41.680.471
1:12.020.134
5/4R1:1/21.660.456
1:3/41.730.471
1:12.020.134
3/2R1:1/21.710.456
1:3/41.730.447
1:12.040.187
Table 4. Hierarchical Perception Evaluation Results Using ‘Distance’ as the Comparative Dimension.
Table 4. Hierarchical Perception Evaluation Results Using ‘Distance’ as the Comparative Dimension.
DistanceRatioSchematic Diagram
1:1/21:3/41:1
1/2R1:1/2---Applsci 15 11327 i019
1:3/40.000--
1:10.1430.143-
3/4R1:1/2---Applsci 15 11327 i020
1:3/4−0.393 *--
1:1−0.232 *0.161-
1R1:1/2---Applsci 15 11327 i021
1:3/40.036--
1:10.304 *0.339 *-
5/4R1:1/2---Applsci 15 11327 i022
1:3/40.071--
1:10.321 *0.250 *-
3/2R1:1/2---Applsci 15 11327 i023
1:3/40.018--
1:10.321 *0.304 *-
(p < 0.05 *).
Table 5. Hierarchical Perception Evaluation Results Using ‘Size’ as the Comparative Dimension.
Table 5. Hierarchical Perception Evaluation Results Using ‘Size’ as the Comparative Dimension.
RatioDistanceSchematic Diagram
1/2R3/4R1R5/4R3/2R
1:1/21/2R-----Applsci 15 11327 i024
3/4R0.429 *----
1R0.464 *0.036---
5/4R0.411 *−0.018−0.054--
3/2R0.464 *0.0360.0000.054-
1:3/41/2R-----Applsci 15 11327 i025
3/4R0.036----
1R0.429 *0.393 *---
5/4R0.428 *0.446 *0.054--
3/2R0.428 *0.446 *0.0540.000-
1/4R0.018−0.018−0.411 *−0.464 *−0.464 *
1:11/2R-----Applsci 15 11327 i026
3/4R0.054----
1R0.625 *0.571 *---
5/4R0.589 *0.536 *−0.036--
3/2R0.643 *0.589 *0.0180.054-
1/4R−0.071−0.125−0.696 *−0.661 *−0.714 *
(p < 0.05 *).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ma, J. A Study on Perceptual Design of Hierarchical Graphic Information in Interfaces Based on Gestalt Principles. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 11327. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152111327

AMA Style

Ma J. A Study on Perceptual Design of Hierarchical Graphic Information in Interfaces Based on Gestalt Principles. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(21):11327. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152111327

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ma, Jiayang. 2025. "A Study on Perceptual Design of Hierarchical Graphic Information in Interfaces Based on Gestalt Principles" Applied Sciences 15, no. 21: 11327. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152111327

APA Style

Ma, J. (2025). A Study on Perceptual Design of Hierarchical Graphic Information in Interfaces Based on Gestalt Principles. Applied Sciences, 15(21), 11327. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152111327

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop