Response Time as a Measure of Compatibility for Linear Displays with Rotary Controls

Abstract

Forty subjects responded to a set of 64 different combinations of linear displays and rotary controls presented by photographic slides. The subject's task was to rotate a control to increase the numerical value on the display. It was expected that response time for an arrangement having a strong stereotype would be faster than one with a weaker stereotype. Data showed there a strong relationship between these two measures of compatibility for horizontal displays with controls either on the top or bottom of the display; there was no significant relationship for any of the vertical layouts. Comparing horizontal and vertical displays, the average response times were 1.25 and 1.55 seconds and average stereotype strengths were .86 and .73, respectively. Thus on both criteria, horizontal displays were superior to vertical displays. Response time was found to be dependent on the magnitude of the component principle making the greatest contribution to the strength of the overall stereotype. In the case of horizontal displays this was the clockwise-to-right principle; for vertical displays it was Warrick's principle or, if this was not applicable, the scale-side principle.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brebner

Sandow

(1976). Direction-of-turn stereotypes — conflict and concord. Applied Ergonomics, 7(1), 34–36.

Fitts

P.M.

Seeger

C.M.

(1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199–210.

Hoffmann

E.R.

(1990a). Strength of component principles determining direction-of-turn stereotypes for horizontally moving displays. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 34th Annual Meeting, 457–461.

Hoffmann

E.R.

(1990b). Strength of component principles for direction-of-turn stereotypes of three-dimensional display/control arrangements. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 34th Annual Meeting, 462–466.

Kantowitz

B.H.

Sorkin

R.D.

(1983). Human factors: Understanding people-system relationships. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Kantowitz

B.H.

Triggs

T.J.

Barnes

V.E.

(1990). Stimulus-response compatibility and human factors. In Stimulus Response Compatibility. Proctor

R.W.

Reeve

T.G.

(Eds). Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland). 365–388.

Morin

R.E.

Grant

D.A.

(1955). Learning and performance of a key-pressing task as a function of the degree of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 39–47.

Petropolous

Brebner

(1981). Stereotypes for direction-of-movement of rotary controls associated with linear displays: The effects of scale presence and position, of pointer direction, and distances between control and the display. Ergonomics, 24(2), 143–151.

Smith

S.L.

(1981). Exploring compatibility with words and pictures. Human Factors, 23, 305–315.

10.

Wickens

C.D.

(1987). Information processing, decision making and cognition. In Handbook of Human Factors, Salvendy

(Ed), John Wiley and Sons, New York. 72–107.