Identifying the task variables that influence perceived object assembly complexity

Ergonomics

Volumn 47, Issue 9, 2004, Pages 945-964

  Richardson, Miles ^a   Jones, Gary ^a   Torrance, Mark ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DERBY   (United Kingdom)

^b STAFFORDSHIRE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Assembly; Cognition; Task complexity

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY; SELF ASSEMBLY;

ASSEMBLY COMPLEXITY; SELF-ASSEMBLY PRODUCTS;

ERGONOMICS;

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MENTAL PERFORMANCE; MENTAL TASK; MULTIPLE REGRESSION; PERCEPTION; RATING SCALE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TASK PERFORMANCE; VALIDATION PROCESS; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; COGNITION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY;

AUDIOVISUAL AIDS; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 3843152882     PISSN: 00140139     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00140130410001686339     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Agrawala, M., Phan, D., Heiser, J., Haymaker, J., Klingner, J., Hanrahan, P. and Tversky, B. 2003, Designing effective step-by-step assembly instructions, Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 2003, (San Diego), 828-837.
2. Baggett, P. and Ehrenfeucht, A. 1988, Conceptualizing in assembly tasks, Human Factors, 30, 269-284.
3. Field, A. 2000, Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows (London: Sage Publications).
4. Hegarty, M. and Just, M. A. 1993, Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams, Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717-742.
5. Hegarty, M. and Sims, V. K. 1994, Individual-differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 411-430.
6. Heiser, J. and Tversky, B. 2003, Cognitive design principles for visualizations: revealing and instantiating, Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Boston, MA: Lawrence Erlbaum).
7. Madan, M., Bramorski, T. and Sundarraj, R. P. 1995, The effects of grouping parts of ready-to-assemble products on assembly time: an experimental study, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 15, 39-49.
8. Marcus, N., Cooper, M. and Sweller, J. 1996, Understanding instructions, Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 49-63.
9. Margolis, J. and Seaton, M. 1996, Working flat out, Sunday Times, January 14.
10. McGraw, K. O., Tew, M. D. and Williams, J. E. 2000, The integrity of web-delivered experiments: Can we trust the data?, Psychological Science, 11, 502-506.
11. Miller, G. A. 1956, The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information, The Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
12. Morrell, R. W. and Park, D. C. 1993, The effects of age, illustrations and task variables on the performance of procedural assembly tasks, Psychology and Ageing, 8, 389-399.
13. Novick, L. R. and Morse, D. L. 2000, Folding a fish, making a mushroom: The role of diagrams in executing assembly procedures, Memory and Cognition, 28, 1242-1256.
14. Pedhazur, E. J. 1997, Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research, 3rd edn. (London: Thomson Learning).
15. Pillay, H. K. 1997, Cognitive load and assembly tasks: effect of instructional formats on learning assembly procedures, Educational Psychology, 17, 285-299.
16. Prabhu, G. V., Helander, M. G. and Shalin, V. L. 1995, Effect of product structure on manual assembly performance, International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing, 5, 149-161.
17. Shalin, V. L., Prabhu, V. and Helander, M. G. 1996, A cognitive perspective on manual assembly, Ergonomics, 39, 108-127.
18. Zacks, J. M. and Tversky, B. 2003, Structuring information interfaces for procedural learning, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 88-100.