This study investigates the ability of an individual to integrate probabilistic information from a number of sources, and focuses particularly on the extent to which this integration is influenced by display proximity in space, time, and object configuration. In support of the principle of compatibility of proximity, the data indicated that integration performance was clearly ordered according to the degree of display integrality: those in the more integral rectangle conditions were significantly better at integration than those in the bar graph condition. Proximity of space had little effect upon performance, whereas proximity in time significantly improved performance in all three format conditions. Speed stress significantly hindered performance in all three format conditions. Finally, memory for isolated unintegrated attributes of a cue was not harmed by the increasing integrality of the rectangle formats.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.
2.
Barnett, B., Goettl, B.Kramer, A., and Wickens, C. D. (1986). The object display in decision making and judgment (Tech. Report CPL-86-7). Urbana-Champaign: Cognitive Psychophysiology Laboratory, University of Illinois.
3.
Boff, K. R.Kaufman, L., and Thomas, J. P. (Eds.) (1986). Handbook of perception & human performance. New York: Wiley.
4.
Boles, D. B., and Wickens, C. D. (1983). A comparison of homogeneous and heterogeneous display formats in information integration and nonintegration tasks (Tech. Report EPL-83-6/0NR-83-6). Urbana-Champaign: Engineering-Psychology Research Laboratory, University of Illinois.
5.
Carswell, C. M., and Wickens, C. D. (in press). Information integration and the object display. Ergonomics.
6.
Casey, E. J., and Wickens, C. D. (1986). Visual display representation of multidimensional system (Tech. Report CPL-86-2). Urbana-Champaign: Cognitive Psychophysiology Laboratory, University of Illinois.
7.
Cole, W. G. (1986). Medical cognitive graphics. In Proceedings of the ACM-SIGCHI: Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp 91–95). Boston: SIGCHI.
8.
Coury, B. G.Boulette, M. D.Zubritzky, M. C., and Fisher, D. L. (1986). Classification of multidimensional data: Evaluating displays to aid identification of system state. In Proceedings of the 1986 International Conferencec on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (pp. 1503–1508). New York: IEEE.
9.
Felfoldy, G. L. (1974). Repetition effects in choice reaction time to multidimensional stimuli. Perception and Psychophysics, 15, 453–459.
10.
Garner, W. R. (1970). The stimulus in information processing. American Psychologist, 25, 350–358.
11.
Garner, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
Garner, W. R., and Felfoldy, G. L. (1970). Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 225–241.
13.
Goettl, B. P.Kramer, A. F., and Wickens, C. D. (1986). Display format and the perception of numerical data. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 30th Annual Meeting (pp. 450–454). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
14.
Goldsmith, T., and Schvaneveldt, R. (1984). Facilitating multi-cue judgments with integral information displays. In J. Thomas and M. Schneider (Eds.), Human factors in computer systems (pp. 243–270). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
15.
Jacob, R. J. K.Egeth, H. E., and Bevan, W. (1976). The face as a data display. Human Factors, 18, 189–200.
16.
Johnson, E. M.Cavanagh, R. C.Spooner, R. L., and Samet, M. G. (1973). Utilization of reliability measurements in Bayesian inference: Models and human performance. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 22, 176–183.
17.
Jones, P., and Wickens, C. D. (1986). The display of multivariate information: The effects of auto and cross correlation, display format, and reliability (Tech. Report CPL-86-5). Urbana-Champaign: Cognitivie Psychophysiology Research Laboratory, University of Illinois.
18.
Lopes, L. L. (1981). Averaging rules & adjustment processes: The role of averaging in inference (Tech. Report WHIPP 13). Madison: Wisconsin Human Information Processing Program.
19.
Pitz, G. F., and Sachs, N. J. (1984). Judgment and decision: Theory and application. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 139–163.
20.
Pomerantz, J. R. (1981). Perceptual organization in information processing. In R. Kubovy and J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual organization (pp. 141–180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
Schum, D. (1975). The weighing of testimony of judicial proceedings from sources having reduced credibility. Human Factors, 17, 172–203.
22.
Weintraub, D. J. (1971). Rectangular discriminability: Perceptual relativity and the law of Prägnanz. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 1–11.
23.
Wickens, C. D. (1986). The object display: Principles and a review of experimental findings (Tech. Report CPL-86-6). Urbana-Champaign: Cognitive Psychophysiology Laboratory, University of Illinois.
24.
Wickens, C. D.Kramer, A.Barnett, B.Carswell, M.Fracker, L.Goettl, B., and Harwood, K. (1985). Display/cognitive interface: The effect of information integration requirements on display formatting for C3 displays (Tech. Report EPL-85-3/AFHRL-RADC-85-1). Urbana-Champaign: Engineering-Psychology Research Laboratory and Aviation Research Laboratory, University of Illinois.
25.
Wickens, C. D., and Scott, B. D. (1983). A comparison of verbal and graphical information presentation in a complex information integration task (Tech. Report EPL-83-1/0NR-83-1). Urbana-Champaign: Engineering-Psychology Research Laboratory, University of Illinois.
26.
Woods, D.Wise, J., and Hanes, L. (1981). An evaluation of nuclear power plant safety parameter display systems. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 25th Annual Meeting (pp. 110-114). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
