Stimulus-response compatibility with pure and mixed mappings in a flight task environment

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 207-222

  Yamaguchi, Motonori ^a,b   Proctor, Robert W ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Interface design; Mixing cost; Response selection; Sequential effect; Simulated flight environment; Stimulus response compatibility

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AIRCRAFT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COLOR VISION; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION MAKING; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AIRCRAFT; ATTENTION; COLOR PERCEPTION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA DISPLAY; DECISION MAKING; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 33845637927     PISSN: 1076898X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1076-898X.12.4.207     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Adam, J. J., Boon, B., Paas, F. G. W. C., & Umiltà, C. (1998). The up-right/down-left advantage for vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: A dual-strategy hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1582-1595.
2. Alluisi, E. A., & Warm, J. S. (1990). Things that go together: A review of stimulus-response compatibility and related effects. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 3-30). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
3. 3I-90-1). Savoy: University of Illinois Aviation Research Laboratory.
4. Ballin, M., Hoekstra, J., Wing, D., & Lohr, G. (2002, October). NASA Langley and NLR research of distributed air/ground traffic management. Paper presented at the AIAA Aircraft Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Los Angeles, CA.
5. Brebner, J. (1973). S-R compatibility and changes in RT with practice. Acta Psychologica, 37, 93-106.
6. Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2001). Effect of an initiating action on the up-right/down-left advantage for vertically arrayed stimuli and horizontally arrayed responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 472-484.
7. Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 45-73.
8. Cohen, D., Otakeno, S., Previc, F. H., & Ercoline, W. R. (2001). Effect of "inside-out" and "outside-in" attitude displays on off-axis tracking in pilots and nonpilots. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 72, 170-176.
9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. De Jong, R. (1995). Strategical determinants of compatibility effects with task uncertainty. Acta Psychologica, 88, 187-207.
11. De Jong, R., Liang, C.-C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731-750.
12. Dutta, A., & Proctor, R. W. (1992). Persistence of stimulus-response compatibility effect with extended practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 801-809.
13. Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, R. L. (1954). S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 482-483.
14. Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199-210.
15. Funk, K., Lyall, B., Wilson, J., Vint, R., Niemczyk, M., Suroteguh, C., & Owen, G. (1999). Flight deck automation issues. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 109-123.
16. Granada, S., Dao, A. Q., Wong, D., Johnson, W. W., & Battiste, V. (2005). Development and integration of a human-centered volumetric cockpit display for distributed air- ground operations. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 229-284). Dayton, OH: Wright State University.
17. Guiard, Y. (1983). The lateral coding of rotations: A study of the Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 15, 331-342.
18. Hasbroucq, T., Guiard, Y., & Ottomani, L. (1990). Principles of response determination: The list-rule model of S-R compatibility. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 327-330.
19. Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 291-345.
20. Heister, G., & Schroeder-Heister, P. (1994). Spatial S-R compatibility: Positional instruction vs. compatibility instruction. Acta Psychologica, 85, 15-24.
21. Heister, G., Schroeder-Heister, P., & Ehrenstein, W. H. (1990). Spatial coding and spatio-anatomical mapping: Evidence for a hierarchical model of spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 117-143). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
22. Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research, 56, 261-268.
23. Hommel, B., & Prinz, W. (Eds.). (1997). Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
24. Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68, 1-17.
25. Johnson, W. W., Battiste, V., Granada, S., Johnson, N., Dao, A. Q., Wong, D., & Tang, A. (2005). A simulation evaluation of a human-centered approach to flight deck procedures and automation for en route free maneuvering. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 338-343). Dayton, OH: Wright State University.
26. Johnson, W. W., Battiste, V., & Holland, S. (2000). A cockpit display designed to enable limited flight deck separation responsibility. SAE Transactions - Journal of Aerospace, 108, 1999-01-5567.
27. Johnson, W. W., Bilimoria, K. D., Thomas, L. C., Hilda, Q. L., & Battiste, V. (2003, August). Comparison of pilot and automation generated conflict resolutions. Paper presented at the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, Austin, TX.
28. Jukes, M. (2004). Aircraft display systems. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
29. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
30. Lee, P., Mercer, J., Martin, L., Prevôt, T., Shelden, S., Verma, S., et al. (2003, June). Free maneuvering, trajectory negotiation, and self-spacing concepts in distributed air-ground traffic management. Paper presented at the proceedings of the Fifth EuroControl/FAA ATM R & D Conference, Budapest, Hungary.
31. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174-207.
32. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134-140.
33. O'Hare, D. (2006). Cognitive functions and performance shaping factors in aviation accidents and incidents. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 16, 145-156.
34. Pew, R. W. (1994). Paul Morris Fitts, 1912-1965. In H. L. Taylor (Ed.), Division 21 members who made distinguished contributions to engineering psychology (pp. 23-44), Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
35. Previc, F. H., & Ercoline, W. R. (1999). The "outside-in" attitude display concept revisited. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 377-401.
36. Prinzel, L. J., III, Pope, A., & Freeman, F. G. (2002). Physiological self-regulation and adaptive automation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 12, 179-196.
37. Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (1986). Salient-feature coding operations in spatial precuing tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 277-285.
38. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2002). Eliminating, magnifying, and reversing spatial compatibility effects with mixed location-relevant and irrelevant trials. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX (pp. 443-473). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
39. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory and application. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
40. Proctor, R. W., Vu, K.-P. L., & Marble, J. G. (2003). Mixing locationrelevant and irrelevant tasks: Spatial compatibility effects eliminated by stimuli that share the same spatial codes. Visual Cognition, 10, 15-50.
41. Proctor, R. W., Wang, D.-Y. D., & Pick, D. F. (2004). Stimulus-response compatibility with wheel-rotation responses: Will an incompatible response coding be used when a compatible coding is possible? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 841-847.
42. Proctor, R. W., & Wang, H. (1997a). Differentiating types of set-level compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 11-37). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
43. Proctor, R. W., & Wang, H. (1997b). Set- and element-level stimulus-response compatibility effects for different manual response sets. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29, 351-365.
44. Proctor, R. W., Young, J. P., Fanjoy, R. O., Feyen, R. G., Hartman, N. W., & Hiremath, V. V. (2005). Simulating glass cockpit displays in a general aviation flight environment. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 481-484). Dayton, OH: Wright State University.
45. Reeve, T. G., & Proctor, R. W. (1990). The salient-features coding principle for spatial- and symbolic-compatibility effects. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 163-180). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
46. Roswarski, T. E., & Proctor, R. W. (2000). Auditory stimulus-response compatibility: Is there a contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence? Psychological Research, 63, 148-158.
47. Schmidt, R. A. (1987). The acquisition of skill: Some modifications to the perception-action relationship through practice. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 77-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Shaffer, L. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 284-288.
49. Shulman, H. G., & McConkie, A. (1973). S-R compatibility, response discriminability, and response codes in choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 98, 375-378.
50. Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Audiotry S-R compatibility: The effect of irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300-304.
51. Stelzel, C., Schumacher, E. H., Schubert, T., & D'Esposito, M. (2005). The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility on dual-task peformance: An fMRI study. Psychological Research. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from http://www.springerlink.com
52. Stoffels, E. J. (1996a). On stage robustness and response selection: Further evidence. Acta Psychologica, 91, 67-88.
53. Stoffels, E. J. (1996b). Uncertainty and processing routes in the selection of a response: An S-R compatibility study. Acta Psychologica, 94, 227-252.
54. Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schröter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1345-1363.
55. Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1990). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 89-116). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
56. Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: Elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 57(A), 539-556.
57. Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354-360.
58. Wang, D.-Y. D., Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (2003). The Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35, 261-273.
59. Wang, H., & Proctor, R. W. (1996). Stimulus-response compatibility as a function of stimulus code and response modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1201-1217.
60. Wickens, C. D., Andre, A. D., & Haskell, I. D. (1990). Compatibility and consistency in crew station design. In E.J. Lovesey, (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ergonomics Society's 1990 Annual Conference (pp. 118-122). Leeds, England: Ergonomic Society.
61. Wickens, C. D., Lee, J. D., Liu, Y., & Becker, S. E. G. (2004). An introduction to human factors engineering (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
62. Wickens, C. D., Sandry, D. L., & Vidulich, M. (1983). Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing, and output. Human Factors, 25, 227-248.
63. Wühr, P. (2005). Evidence for gating of direct response activation in the Simon task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 282-288.
64. Zorzi, M., & Umiltà, C. (1995). A computational model of the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 58, 193-205.