Editing Mind map (section)

==Research==

===Effectiveness===
Cunningham (2005) conducted a user study in which 80% of the students thought "mindmapping helped them understand concepts and ideas in science".<ref name="Cunningham05">{{cite thesis| type=Ph.D.| first=Glennis Edge |last=Cunningham| title=Mindmapping: Its Effects on Student Achievement in High School Biology| year=2005| publisher=The University of Texas at Austin |citeseerx=10.1.1.399.5818 |hdl=2152/2410}}</ref> Other studies also report some subjective positive effects of the use of mind maps.<ref name="Holland2004">{{cite book| first1=Brian |last1=Holland|first2=Lynda |last2=Holland|first3=Jenny |last3=Davies| title=An investigation into the concept of mind mapping and the use of mind mapping software to support and improve student academic performance| year=2004 | publisher=University of Wolverhampton |hdl=2436/3707|isbn=9780954211646 }}</ref><ref name="Antoni2006">{{cite journal| author1=D'Antoni, A.V.
|author2= Zipp, G.P.| title=Applications of the Mind Map Learning Technique in Chiropractic Education: A Pilot Study and Literature| year=2006 |journal=Journal of Chiropractic Humanities |volume=13 |pages=2–11 |doi=10.1016/S1556-3499(13)60153-9}}</ref> Positive opinions on their effectiveness, however, were much more prominent among students of art and design than in students of computer and information technology, with 62.5% vs 34% (respectively) agreeing that they were able to understand concepts better with mind mapping software.<ref name="Holland2004" /> Farrand, Hussain, and Hennessy (2002) found that [[spider diagram]]s (similar to concept maps) had limited, but significant, impact on memory recall in undergraduate students (a 10% increase over baseline for a 600-word text only) as compared to preferred study methods (a 6% increase over baseline).<ref name= Farrand2002>{{cite journal |author=Farrand, P. |author2=Hussain, F. |author3=Hennessy, E.  |year=2002 |title=The efficacy of the mind map study technique |journal=Medical Education |volume=36 |issue=5 |pages=426–431 |doi=10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01205.x |pmid=12028392|s2cid=29278241 }}</ref> This improvement was only robust after a week for those in the diagram group and there was a significant decrease in motivation compared to the subjects' preferred methods of [[Note-taking|note taking]]. A meta study about [[concept map]]ping concluded that concept mapping is more effective than "reading text passages, attending lectures, and participating in class discussions".<ref name="Nesbit06">{{cite journal| author1=Nesbit, J.C.|author2= Adesope, O.O.| title=Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis| journal=Review of Educational Research| year=2006| volume=76| number=3| pages=413–448| publisher=Sage Publications| doi=10.3102/00346543076003413|s2cid= 122082944|url= https://zenodo.org/record/894664}}</ref> The same study also concluded that concept mapping is slightly more effective "than other constructive activities such as writing summaries and outlines". However, results were inconsistent, with the authors noting "significant heterogeneity was found in most subsets". In addition, they concluded that low-ability students may benefit more from mind mapping than high-ability students.

===Features===
Joeran Beel and Stefan Langer conducted a comprehensive analysis of the content of mind maps.<ref name="Beel2011d">{{cite book |first1=Joeran |last1=Beel |first2=Stefan |last2=Langer |chapter=An Exploratory Analysis of Mind Maps| title=Proceedings of the 11th ACM Symposium on Document Engineering (DocEng'11)| year=2011| publisher=ACM| chapter-url=http://docear.org/papers/An%20Exploratory%20Analysis%20of%20Mind%20Maps%20--%20preprint.pdf |pages=81–84 |isbn=978-1-4503-0863-2 }}</ref> They analysed 19,379 mind maps from 11,179 users of the mind mapping applications [[:de:SciPlore MindMapping|SciPlore MindMapping]] (now [[:de:Docear|Docear]]) and [[MindMeister]]. Results include that average users create only a few mind maps (mean=2.7), average mind maps are rather small (31 nodes) with each node containing about three words (median). However, there were exceptions. One user created more than 200 mind maps, the largest mind map consisted of more than 50,000 nodes and the largest node contained ~7,500 words. The study also showed that between different mind mapping applications (Docear vs MindMeister) significant differences exist related to how users create mind maps.

===Automatic creation===
There have been some attempts to create mind maps automatically. Brucks & Schommer created mind maps automatically from full-text streams.<ref name="Brucks2008">{{cite arXiv |first1=Claudine |last1=Brucks |first2=Christoph |last2=Schommer| title=Assembling Actor-based Mind-Maps from Text Stream| year=2008| eprint=0810.4616| class=cs.CL}}</ref> Rothenberger et al. extracted the main story of a text and presented it as mind map.<ref name="Rothenberger2008">{{cite arXiv |author1=Rothenberger, T|author2= Oez, S|author3= Tahirovic, E|author4=Schommer, Christoph| title=Figuring out Actors in Text Streams: Using Collocations to establish Incremental Mind-maps| eprint=0803.2856| year=2008 |class= cs.CL}}</ref> There is also a patent application about automatically creating sub-topics in mind maps.<ref>{{cite patent|title=Software tool for creating outlines and mind maps that generates subtopics automatically|country=US|number=2009119584|status=application|pubdate=2009-05-07|inventor1-last=Herbst|inventor1-first=Steve}}, since abandoned.</ref>