Using real mechanical controls, this experiment studied strength and reversibility of direction-of-motion stereotypes and response times for a rotary control with horizontal and vertical scales. Thirty-eight engineering undergraduates (34 men and 4 women) ages 23 to 47 years (M = 29.8, SD = 7.7) took part in the experiment voluntarily. The effects of instruction of change of pointer position and control plane on movement compatibility were analyzed with precise quantitative measures of strength and a reversibility index of stereotype. Comparisons of the strength and reversibility values of these two configurations with those of rotary control-circular display, rotary control-digital counter, four-way lever-circular display, and four-way lever-digital counter were made. The results of this study provided significant implications for the industrial design of control panels for improved human performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrebnerJ.SandowB. (1976) The effect of scale side on population stereotype. Ergonomics, 19, 571ndash;580.
2.
CareyJ. R.BogardC. L.YoudasJ. W.SumanV. J. (1995) Stimulus-response compatibility effects in a manual tracking task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 155ndash;170.
3.
ChanA. H. S.ChanW. H. (2006) Movement compatibility for circular display and rotary controls positioned at peculiar positions. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36, 737ndash;745.
4.
ChanA. H. S.CourtneyA. J.SoK. W. Y. (2000) Circular displays with thumbwheels: Hong Kong Chinese preferences. International Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 10, 453ndash;463.
5.
ChanA. H. S.ShumV. W. Y.LawH. W.HuiI. K. (2003) Precise effects of control position, indicator type, and scale side on human performance. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 22, 380ndash;386.
6.
ChanW. H.ChanA. H. S. (2003) Movement compatibility for rotary control and circular display: Computer simulated test and real hardware test. Applied Ergonomics, 34, 61ndash;67.
7.
ChanW. H.ChanA. H. S. (2006a) A study on movement compatibility for lever control and circular display with computer simulated test. Proceedings of the International Multi-Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists (IMECS), 20–22 June 2006. Pp. 625–629.
8.
ChanW. H.ChanA. H. S. (2006b) Hardware test on movement compatibility for rotary control and digital display. Proceedings of the International Multi-Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists (IMECS). 20–22 June 2006. Pp. 721–725.
9.
ChanW. H.ChanA. H. S. (2007a) Movement compatibility for lever control and circular display. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37, 233ndash;244.
10.
ChanW. H.ChanA. H. S. (2007b) Movement compatibility for lever control with digital counter in man machine interface. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A.
11.
CourtneyA. J. (1991) Strength of stereotypes response time for linear displays and rotary controls. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 573ndash;574.
12.
CourtneyA. J. (1994a) The effect of scale-side, indicator type, and control plane on direction-of-turn stereotypes for Hong Kong Chinese subjects. Ergonomics, 37, 865ndash;877.
13.
CourtneyA. J. (1994b) Hong Kong Chinese direction-of-motion stereotypes. Ergonomics, 37, 417ndash;426.
14.
FittsP. M. (1951) Engineering psychology and equipment design. In StevensS. S. (Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology. New York: Wiley. Pp. 1287–1340.
15.
GrandjeanE. (1988) Fitting the task to the man. London: Taylor & Francis.
16.
HoffmannE. R. (1997) Strength of component principles determining direction of turn stereotypes—linear displays with rotary controls. Ergonomics, 40(2), 199–222.
17.
HoffmannE. R.BrownC.MorganS. (1992) Stereotypes for operation of water taps. Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Ergonomics Society of Australia, Inc.Melbourne, Australia, 2–4 December 1992. Edited by HoffmannE.DownerO. Evans.ACT, Australia: Ergonomics Society of Australia, Inc. Pp. 63–71.
18.
HottaA.YoshiokaM. (1988) Experiment on direction-of-motion stereotypes for indicator or figure control. Ergonomics International 88: Proceedings of the Tenth Congress of the International Ergonomics Association. Sydney, Australia, 1–5 August 1988. Edited by AdamsA. S.HallR. R.McPheeB. J.OxenburghM. S.London: Taylor & Francis. Pp. 154–156.
19.
KangH. Y.SeongP. H. (2001) Information theoretic approach to man-machine interface complexity evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 31(3), 163–171.
20.
KrukR. V.RunningsD. W.McKinnonG. M.LippayA. L. (1985) Simulation fidelity: Is it real or is it virtual?Proceedings of the Human Factors Association of Canada, 18th Annual Meeting. Hull, Quebec, 27–28 September 1985. Rexsdale, Ont. Can.: HFAC. Pp. 115–118.
21.
LovelessN. E. (1962) Direction-of-motion stereotypes: A review. Ergonomics, 5, 357ndash;383.
22.
PetropoulosH.BrebnerJ. (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 the control and the display. Ergonomics, 24, 143ndash;151.
23.
RossS.SheppB. E.AndrewsT. G. (1955) Response preferences in display-control relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 39, 425ndash;428.
24.
SandersM. S.McCormickE. J. (1993) Human control of systems. In Human factors in engineering and design. Singapore: McGraw-Hill. Pp. 301–334.
25.
WarrickM. J. (1947) Direction of movement in the use of control knobs to position visual indicators. In FittsP. M. (Ed.), Psychological research on equipment design. Army Air Force Aviation Psychology Program Research Department. Pp. 137–146.
26.
WorringhamC. J.BeringerD. B. (1998) Direction stimulus-response compatibility: A test of three alternative principles. Ergonomics, 41(6), 864–880.
27.
YuR. F.ChanA. H. S. (2004) Comparative research on response stereotypes for daily operation tasks of Chinese and American engineering students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98, 179ndash;191.
