A comparison of semantic and spatial stimulus-response compatibility effects for human-machine interface design

The effects of semantic and spatial stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility were examined and compared with the use of an auditory choice reaction task paradigm in this experiment. Twenty-two participants responded to speech and non-speech signals presented at the left and right ears and were asked to respond to different conditions of congruence and incongruence of semantic and location codes of signals and responses. The results showed that participants processed the non-speech signals faster than the speech signals. The presence of both semantic and spatial compatibility for signals and responses was found to improve reaction time and response accuracy. Compared with spatial compatibility, the effect of semantic compatibility influences human performance more. Based on the results, practical ergonomics recommendations for enhanced human-machine interfaces were formulated which help industrial designers to improve overall system performance in machinery and equipment design. [Received 30 June 2010; Revised 5 January 2011; Accepted 18 April 2011]

[1]  H. Heffner,et al.  Effect of unilateral and bilateral auditory cortex lesions on the discrimination of vocalizations by Japanese macaques. , 1986, Journal of neurophysiology.

[2]  Da Ruan,et al.  COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FUZZY CONTROL, PID CONTROL, AND ADVANCED FUZZY CONTROL FOR SIMULATING A NUCLEAR REACTOR OPERATION , 2000 .

[3]  D. Kimura.  Cerebral dominance and the perception of verbal stimuli. , 1961 .

[4]  R. Proctor,et al.  Naïve and experienced judgments of stimuluS—Response compatibility: implications for interface design , 2003, Ergonomics.

[5]  U. Tan,et al.  Facial asymmetry in right- and left-handed men and women. , 1997, The International journal of neuroscience.

[6]  E. Bisiach,et al.  Hemispheric Lateralization of the Decisional Stage in Choice Reaction Times to Visual Unstructured Stimuli , 1982, Cortex.

[7]  W Karwowski,et al.  Ergonomics and human factors: the paradigms for science, engineering, design, technology and management of human-compatible systems , 2005, Ergonomics.

[8]  Suebsak Nanthavanij,et al.  Predicting the optimum number, location, and signal sound level of auditory warning devices for manufacturing facilities , 1999 .

[9]  Atsuo Murata,et al.  Applicability of location compatibility to the arrangement of display and control in human – vehicle systems: Comparison between young and older adults , 2007, Ergonomics.

[10]  Ken W. L. Chan,et al.  Three-dimensional spatial stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility for visual signals with hand and foot controls. , 2010, Applied ergonomics.

[11]  Yan Xiao,et al.  An Analysis of Problems with Auditory Alarms: Defining the Roles of Alarms in Process Monitoring Tasks , 1999 .

[12]  Jawad Raza,et al.  Managing hidden system threats for higher production regularity using intelligent technological solutions: a case study , 2010 .

[13]  Errol R. Hoffmann,et al.  Do paper-and-pencil tests give an accurate measure of stereotype strength? A review of available data. , 2009 .

[14]  Alan H. S. Chan,et al.  Ergonomic Recommendation for Optimum Positions and Warning Foreperiod of Auditory Signals in Human-Machine Interface , 2007 .

[15]  C J Worringham,et al.  Directional stimulus-response compatibility: a test of three alternative principles. , 1998, Ergonomics.

[16]  David R. Millen,et al.  Consistent Layout of Function Keys and Screen Labels Speeds User Responses , 1988 .

[17]  R. M. Chandima Ratnayake,et al.  Implementing company policies in plant level asset operations: measuring organisational alignment , 2010 .

[18]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics , 2005 .

[19]  Mark S. Sanders,et al.  Human Factors in Engineering and Design , 1957 .

[20]  Alan H S Chan,et al.  Spatial stimulus response compatibility for a horizontal visual display with hand and foot controls , 2011, Ergonomics.

[21]  Bartholomew Elias.  Dynamic Auditory Preview for Visually Guided Target Aiming , 1995 .

[22]  S. Dane,et al.  Relations among Hand Preference, Craniofacial Asymmetry, and Ear Advantage in Young Subjects , 2002, Perceptual and motor skills.

[23]  Durand R. Begault,et al.  3-D Sound for Virtual Reality and Multimedia Cambridge , 1994 .

[24]  Roberto Nicoletti,et al.  Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. , 1990 .

[25]  Yong Yin,et al.  A study on human-task-related performances in converting conveyor assembly line to cellular manufacturing , 2008 .

[26]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Designing Functional Visualizations for Aircraft Systems Status Displays , 1999 .

[27]  C. Spence,et al.  Assessing the effectiveness of various auditory cues in capturing a driver's visual attention. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[28]  N. Geschwind.  Disconnexion syndromes in animals and man. I. , 1965, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[29]  C. Wickens,et al.  S-R Compatibility Effects with Orthogonal Stimulus and Response Dimensions , 1991 .

[30]  C J Worringham,et al.  Operator orientation and compatibility in visual-motor task performance. , 1989, Ergonomics.

[31]  Alan H. S. Chan,et al.  Spatial stimulus–response (S-R) compatibility for foot controls with visual displays , 2009 .

[32]  Michael Tlauka,et al.  Display-control compatibility: the relationship between performance and judgments of performance , 2004, Ergonomics.

[33]  R Chua,et al.  Influence of operator orientation on relative organizational mapping and spatial compatibility , 2001, Ergonomics.

[34]  Sarada Prasad Sarmah,et al.  Preventive replacement models: an overview and their application in process industries , 2010 .

[35]  Sandip Roy,et al.  A decision-making framework for process plant maintenance , 2010 .

[36]  Ellen C. Haas.  Can 3-D Auditory Warnings Enhance Helicopter Cockpit Safety? , 1998 .

[37]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  The Effects of Sensory Modality and Information Priority on In-Vehicle Signing and Information Systems , 1994 .

[38]  S. Kornblum.  Dimensional overlap and dimensional relevance in stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility. , 1992 .

[39]  Alan H. S. Chan,et al.  Spatial S-R compatibility of visual and auditory signals: implications for human-machine interface design , 2005, Displays.

[40]  T A Mondor,et al.  On the relation between auditory spatial attention and auditory perceptual asymmetries , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[41]  Robert W Proctor,et al.  Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[42]  Alan H. S. Chan,et al.  Auditory stimulus-response compatibility and control-display design , 2007 .