Abstract
Pictorial symbols are used on highway guidance signs to indicate roadside destinations (airports, train stations, parks, rest facilities, etc.). Symbols which have strong inherent directional information (e.g., a jet air craft to designate an airport) may conflict with the sign's routing arrow itself. The directional nature of pictorial symbols was examined as a potential source of conflict with intended route information. It was predicted that disagreement between the symbol's “direction” and that of the route arrow would increase processing time. Four existing symbols were selected for examination (airport, ski trail, Amtrak station, Montreal metro). Semantic differential ratings and reaction times were measured. Results of the two methods were in substantial agreement. Only reaction time measures are reported in the present paper. When the direction of the symbol and the guidance arrow agreed, latencies to airport and Amtrak signs were significantly faster than when they disagreed. In contrast, no effect of arrow and symbol agreement was found for either the skier or the metro signs. It was concluded that some pictorial symbols (e.g., airport, Amtrak logo) suffer from inherent directionality which interferes with the rate at which route information can be processed. For symbols which can interfere with guidance information, the symbol and the route arrow should agree in their direction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.