Three-dimensional spatial stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility for visual signals with hand and foot controls

Applied Ergonomics

Volumn 41, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 840-848

  Chan, Alan H S ^a   Chan, Ken W L ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Control and display; Foot control; Spatial compatibility

Indexed keywords

ERGONOMICS;

CONTROL AND DISPLAY; FASTER REACTIONS; FOOT CONTROL; S-R COMPATIBILITIES; SPATIAL COMPATIBILITY; SPATIAL STIMULUS-RESPONSE; SPATIAL STIMULUS-RESPONSE COMPATIBILITIES; THREE DIMENSIONAL SPACE;

DISPLAY DEVICES;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ERGONOMICS; FEMALE; HAND MOVEMENT; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LIMB MOVEMENT; MALE; MAN MACHINE INTERACTION; MOTOR CONTROL; NORMAL HUMAN; RESPONSE TIME; SPATIAL DISCRIMINATION; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VISUAL DISPLAY UNIT; VISUAL STIMULATION;

EID: 77955269061     PISSN: 00036870     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2010.03.005     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Annett M. The right shift theory of handedness. Handedness and Brain Asymmetry: the Right Shift Theory 2002, 48-71. Taylor and Francis, New York. M. Annett (Ed.).
2. Bayerl, J., Miller, D., Lewis, S., 1988. Consistent layout of function keys and screen labels speeds user responses. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, p. 344-346.
3. Chan A.H.S., Chan K.W.L. Spatial S-R compatibility of visual and auditory signals: implications for human-machine interface design. Displays 2005, 26:109-119.
4. Chan A.H.S., Chan K.W.L. Synchronous and asynchronous presentations of auditory and visual signals: implications for control console design. Applied Ergonomics 2006, 37:131-140.
5. Chan A.H.S., Chan K.W.L., Yu R.F. Auditory stimulus-response compatibility and control-display design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 2007, 8(6):557-581.
6. Chan K.W.L., Chan A.H.S. Spatial stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility for foot controls with visual displays. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2009, 39:396-402.
7. Chua R., Weeks D.J., Ricker K.L., Poon P. Influence of operator orientation on relative organizational mapping and spatial compatibility. Ergonomics 2001, 44:751-765.
8. Coren S. The lateral preference inventory for measurement of handedness, footedness eyedness, and earedness: norms for young adults. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 1993, 31(1):1-3.
9. Dinadis N., Vicente K.J. Designing functional visualizations for aircraft systems status displays. International Journal of Aviation Psychology 1999, 9(3):241-269.
10. Duncan J. Response selection rules in spatial choice reaction tasks. Attention and Performance VI 1977, 49-61. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. S. Dornic (Ed.).
11. Ehrenstein A., Proctor R.W. Selecting mapping rules and responses in mixed compatibility four-choice tasks. Psychological Research 1998, 61:231-248.
12. Hommel B. No prevalence of right-left over top-bottom spatial codes. Perception and Psychophysics 1996, 58(1):102-110.
13. Hsu S.H., Peng Y. Control/display relationship of the four-burner stove: a reexamination. Human Factors 1993, 35(4):745-749.
14. Keles P., Diyarbakirli S., Tan U. Facial asymmetry in right- and left-handed men and women. International Journal of Neuroscience 1997, 91:147-160.
15. Li X., Ruan D. Comparative study of fuzzy control, PID control, and advanced fuzzy control for simulating a nuclear reactor operation. International Journal of General Systems 2000, 29:263-279.
16. Marshal E., Baker S. Alarms in nuclear power plant control room: current approaches and future design. Human Factors in Alarm Design 1994, Taylor & Francis, London. N.A. Stanton (Ed.).
17. Mendenhall W., Beaver R.J., Beaver M.B. Introduction to Probability and Statistics 2006, CA, Belmont. 12th ed.
18. Morin R.E., Grant D.A. Learning and performance on a key-pressing task as a function of the degree of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1955, 49:39-47.
19. Nicoletti R., Umilta C. Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility. Perception and Psychophysics 1984, 35(4):333-345.
20. Nicoletti R., Umilta C. Responding with hand and foot: the right/left prevalence in spatial compatibility is still present. Perceptional and Psychophysics 1985, 38(3):211-216.
21. Oborski P. Social-technical aspects in modern manufacturing. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2003, 22(11-12):848-854.
22. Oborski P. Man-machine interactions in advanced manufacturing systems. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2004, 23(3-4):227-232.
23. Proctor R.W., Reeve T.G. Stimulus-response compatibility: an integrated perspective 1990, North Holland, Amsterdam.
24. Proctor R.W., Vu K.-P.L., Nicoletti R. Does right-left prevalence occur for the Simon effect?. Perception and Psychophysics 2003, 65:1318-1329.
25. Proctor R.W., Vu K.-P.L. Stimulus-response compatibility principles 2006, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida.
26. Roswarski T.E., Proctor R.W. Multiple spatial codes and temporal overlap in choice-reaction tasks. Psychological Research 1996, 59:196-211.
27. Rothrock L., Barron K., Simpson T.W., Frecker M., Ligetti C., Bartton R.R. Applying the proximity compatibility and the control-display compatibility principles to engineering design interfaces: research articles. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing 2006, 16(1):61-81.
28. Rubichi S., Nicoletti R., Pelosi A., Umilta C. Right-left prevalence effect with horizontal and vertical effectors. Perception and Psychophysics 2004, 66:255-263.
29. Rubichi S., Vu K.-P.L., Nicoletti R., Proctor R.W. Spatial coding in two dimensions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2006, 13:201-216.
30. Springer J., Siebes C. Position controlled input device for handicapped: experimental studies with a footmouse. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 1996, 17:135-152.
31. Sanders M.S., McCormick E.J. Human Factors in Engineering and Design 1993, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA. seventh ed.
32. Umilta C., Nicoletti R. Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Stimulus-response Compatibility: an Integrated Perspective 1990, 89-116. North-Holland, Amsterdam. R.W. Proctor, T.G. Reeve (Eds.).
33. Vicente, K.J., Burns, C.M., Mumaw, R.J., Roth, E.M., 1996. How do operators monitor a nuclear power plant? A field study. In: Proceedings of the 1996 American Nuclear Society International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Plant Instrumentation, Control and Human-Machine Interface Technologies, p. 1127-1134.
34. Vu K.-P.L., Proctor R.W. Determinants of right-left and top-bottom prevalence for two-dimensional spatial compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2001, 27:813-828.
35. Vu K.-P.L., Proctor R.W. The prevalence effect in two-dimensional stimulus-response compatibility is a function of the relative salience of the dimensions. Perception and Psychophysics 2002, 64:815-828.
36. Vu K.-P.L., Proctor R.W., Pick D.F. Vertical versus horizontal spatial compatibility: right-left prevalence with bimanual responses. Psychological Research 2000, 64:25-40.
37. Wade C., Tavris C. Psychology 2000, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, p. 124-128. sixth ed.
38. Wang B., Zhou T.G., Zhou Y., Chen L. Global topological dominance in the left hemisphere. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2007, 104:21014-21019.
39. Wickens C.D., Carswell C.M. The proximity compatibility principle: its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors 1995, 37(3):473-494.
40. Woodson W.E., Tillman B., Tillman P. Human Factors Design Handbook: Information and Guidelines for the Design of Systems, Facilities, Equipment, and Products for Human Use 1992, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.