Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Subjects were asked to rate the usability of interface designs that varied in compatibility of stimulus-response mappings. In Study 1 subjects rated light-button layouts. In Study 2, the same subjects rated stove burner control designs. In Study 3, different subjects ranked fragments of computer command languages. In all three judgment tasks, subjects showed limited sensitivity to stimulus-response compatibility. A theory of naive stimulus-response judgments is put forward to explain the patterns of judgments in the three tasks. According to this theory, naive judges use an item-summing heuristic: Where possible, designs are compared by summing the presumed goodness of individual stimulus-response mappings. The upshot of this heuristic is that the usability benefits of configural, rule-based mappings are systematically undervalued.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Acton, M. B. (1976). At home on the range? Human Factors Society Bulletin, 19(7), 1–2. [Note correction in 19(8), 2

Bailey, R. W. (1993). Performance versus preference. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting (pp. 282–286). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Carroll, J. M. (1982). Learning, using and designing command paradigms. Human Learning, 1, 31–62.

Chapanis, A. , and Lindenbaum, L. (1959). A reaction time study of four control-display linkages. Human Factors, 1(4),4–7.

Duncan, J. (1977). Response selection rules in spatial choice reaction tasks. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 49–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

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.

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

Green, T. R. G. , and Payne, S. J. (1984). Organization and learnability in computer languages. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 21, 7–18.

Hoffman, E. R. (1990). Strength of component principles determining direction-of-turn stereotypes for horizontally moving displays. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Armual Meeting (pp. 457–461). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

10.

John, B. E. , and Newell, A. (1987). Predicting the time to recall computer command abbreviations. In Proceedings of the CHI 87 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 33–40). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

11.

Jorgensen, A. , Barnard, P. , Hammond, N. , and Clark, I. (1983). Naming commands: An analysis of designers' naming behaviour. In T. R. G. Green , S. J. Payne , and G. C. van der-Veer (Eds.), The psychology of computer use. London: Academic.

12.

Kornblum, S. , Hasbroucq, T. , and Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-A model and a taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.

13.

Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

14.

Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

15.

Payne, S. J. , and Green, T. R. G. (1986). Task-action grammars: A model of the mental representation of task languages. Human-Computer Interaction, 2, 93–133.

16.

Sanders, M. S. , and McCormick, E. J. (1987). Human factors in engineering and design (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

17.

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

18.

Wickens, C. D. (1992).Engineering psychology and human performance. New York: HarperCollins.

Naive Judgments of Stimulus-Response Compatibility

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References