Spatial stimulus response compatibility for a horizontal visual display with hand and foot controls

Ergonomics

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 233-245

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

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Foot control; Hand control; Spatial compatibility; Visual signal

Indexed keywords

CONTROL CONSOLES; CONTROL DEVICE; FOOT CONTROL; FOOT PEDALS; HAND CONTROL; HORIZONTAL PLANES; IMPROVING EFFICIENCY; MACHINE SYSTEMS; RELATIVE LOCATION; SPATIAL COMPATIBILITY; SPATIAL STIMULUS-RESPONSE COMPATIBILITIES; VERTICAL PLANE; VISUAL DISPLAY; VISUAL SIGNAL; VISUAL SIGNALS;

ERGONOMICS;

EXPERIMENTS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; FOOT; HAND; HUMAN; MALE; MAN MACHINE INTERACTION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISION;

ADULT; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; FOOT; HAND; HUMANS; MALE; MAN-MACHINE SYSTEMS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SPATIAL BEHAVIOR; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79952416212     PISSN: 00140139     EISSN: 13665847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2010.549965     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Andre, A.D., Haskell, I., and Wickens, C.D., 1991. S-R compatibility effects with orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th annual meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, 1546-1550.
2. Annett, M., 2002. The right shift theory of handedness. In: M. Annett, ed. Handedness and brain asymmetry: the right shift theory. New York: Taylor and Francis, 48-71.
3. Augustyn, C. and Peters, M., 1986. On the relation between footedness and handedness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 1115-1118.
4. Bisiach, E., et al., 1982. Hemispheric lateralization of the decisional stage in choice reaction times to visual unstructured stimuli. Cortex, 18, 191-198.
5. Chan, A.H.S. and Chan, K.W.L., 2004. Design implications from spatial compatibility on parallel and orthogonal stimulus-response arrays. Asian Journal of Ergonomics, 5 (2), 111-129.
6. Chan, A.H.S. and Chan, K.W.L., 2010. Three-dimensional spatial stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility for visual signals with hand and foot controls. Applied Ergonomics, 41, 840-848.
7. Chan, A.H.S., Chan, K.W.L., and Yu, R.F., 2007. Auditory stimulus-response compatibility and control-display design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8 (6), 557-581.
8. Chan, K.W.L. and Chan, A.H.S., 2005. Spatial S-R compatibility of visual and auditory signals: implications for human-machine interface design. Displays, 26, 109-119.
9. Chan, K.W.L. and Chan, A.H.S., 2009. Spatial stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility for foot controls with visual displays. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39, 396-402.
10. Chan, W.H. and Chan, A.H.S., 2003. Movement compatibility for rotary control and circular display-computer simulated test and real hardware test. Applied Ergonomics, 34 (1), 61-71.
11. Chapanis, A. and Lindenbaum, L.E., 1959. A reaction time study of four control-display linkages. Human Factors, 1, 1-7.
12. Cho, Y.S. and Proctor, R.W., 2003. Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10 (1), 45-73.
13. Chua, R., et al., 2001. Influence of operator orientation on relative organizational mapping and spatial compatibility. Ergonomics, 44 (8), 751-765.
14. Coren, S., 1993. The lateral preference inventory for measurement of handedness, footedness, eyedness, and earedness: Norms for young adults. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31 (1), 1-3.
15. Fitts, P.M., 1951. Engineering psychology and equipment design. In: S.S. Stevens, ed. Handbook of experimental psychology. New York: Wiley, 1287-1340.
16. Fitts, P.M. and Deininger, R.L., 1954. S-R compatibility: correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483-492.
17. Fitts, P.M. and Seeger, C.M., 1953. S-R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experiment Psychology, 46, 199-210.
18. Hoffmann, E.R., 1991. A comparison of hand and foot movement times. Ergonomics, 34 (4), 397-406.
19. Hoffmann, E.R., 2009. Do paper-and-pencil tests give an accurate measure of stereotype strength? A review of available data. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39 (5), 904-912.
20. Hommel, B., 1996. No prevalence of right-left over topbottom spatial codes. Perception and Psychophysics, 58 (1), 102-110.
21. Karwowski, W., 2005. Ergonomics and human factors: the paradigms for science, engineering, design, technology and management of human-compatible systems. Ergonomics, 48 (5), 436-463.
22. Kim, S.H. and Kaber, D.B., 2009. Design and evaluation of dynamic text-editing methods using foot pedals. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 29, 358-365.
23. Lee, F.C.H. and Chan, A.H.S., 2007. Attending visual and auditory signals: ergonomics recommendations with consideration of signal modality and spatial stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37 (3), 197-206.
24. Mendenhall, W., Beaver, R.J., and Beaver, M.B., 2006. Introduction to probability and statistics, 12th edn. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.
25. Murata, A. and Moriwaka, M., 2007. Applicability of location compatibility to the arrangement of display and control in human-vehicle systems: comparison between young and older adults. Ergonomics, 50 (1), 99-111.
26. Nicoletti, R. and Umilta, C., 1984. Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility. Perception and Psychophysics, 35 (4), 333-345.
27. Nicoletti, R. and Umilta, C., 1985. Responding with hand and foot: the right/left prevalence in spatial compatibility is still present. Perceptional and Psychophysics, 38 (3), 211-216.
28. Olex-Zarychta, D. and Raczek, J., 2008. The relationship of movement time to hand-foot laterality patterns. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 13 (5), 439-455.
29. Peters, M., 1988. Footedness: asymmetries in foot preference and skill and neuropsychological assessment of foot movement. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (2), 179-192.
30. Peters, M. and Durding, B.M., 1979. Footedness of leftand right-handers. American Journal of Psychology, 92, 133-142.
31. Proctor, R.W. and Reeve, T.G., eds., 1990. Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North Holland.
32. Proctor, R.W. and Vu, K.P.L., 2006. Stimulus-response compatibility principles. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group.
33. Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., and Umilta, C., 2005. Right-left prevalence with task-irrelevant spatial codes. Psychological Research, 69, 167-178.
34. Sanders, M.S. and McCormick, E.J., eds., 1993. Human factors in engineering and design, 7th edn. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
35. Sen, R.N. and Das, S., 2000. An ergonomics study on compatibility of controls of overhead cranes in a heavy engineering factory in West Bengal. Applied Ergonomics, 31 (2), 179-184.
36. Short, M.W. and Cauraugh, J.H., 1999. Precision hypothesis and the end-state comfort effect. Acta Psychologica, 100 (3), 243-252.
37. Simonen, R.L., et al., 1995. Comparison of foot and hand reaction times among men: a methodologic study using simple and multiple-choice repeated measurements. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 1243-1249.
38. Tlauka, M., 2004. Display-control compatibility: the relationship between performance and judgments of performance. Ergonomics, 47 (3), 281-295.
39. Umilta, C. and Nicoletti, R., 1990. Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In: R.W. Proctor and T.G. Reeve, eds. Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 86-116.
40. Vu, K.-P.L. and Proctor, R.W., 2002. The prevalence effect in two-dimensional stimulus-response compatibility is a function of the relative salience of the dimensions. Perception and Psychophysics, 64, 815-828.
41. Vu, K.-P.L. and Proctor, R.W., 2003. Naive and experienced judgments of stimulus-response compatibility: implications for interface design. Ergonomics, 46 (1-3), 169-187.
42. Wagner, D.W., Kirschweng, R.L., and Reed, M., 2009. Foot motions in manual material handling transfer tasks: a taxonomy and data from an automotive assembly plant. Ergonomics, 52 (3), 362-383.
43. Wang, B., et al., 2007. Global topological dominance in the left hemisphere. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 21014-21019.
44. Weeks, D.J. and Proctor, R.W., 1990. Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus-response dimension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 355-366.
45. Worringham, C.J. and Beringer, D.B., 1989. Operator orientation and compatibility in visual-motor task performance. Ergonomics, 32 (4), 387-399.
46. Worringham, C.J. and Beringer, D.B., 1998. Directional stimulus-response compatibility: a test of three alternative principles. Ergonomics, 41 (6), 864-880.
47. Wu, S.P., 1997. Further studies on the spatial compatibility of four control-display linkages. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 19 (5), 353-360.