Display-control compatibility: the relationship between performance and judgments of performance

This study examined whether people can judge the usability of display-control mappings. Participants identified one of two alternatives which were presented in a questionnaire. Several types of stimuli were tested, ranging from simple shapes to semantic stimuli. Choices were found to be predominately correct when usability was defined by an unambiguous spatial relationship between displays and controls. In contrast, estimates were less accurate for items which did not solely rely on spatial congruence. The findings were interpreted in terms of the factors that need to be considered for judgments to be free of error.

[1]  J. Duncan.  Response Selection Errors in Spatial Choice Reaction Tasks , 1977 .

[2]  P. Fitts,et al.  S-R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  M Eimer,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility and automatic response activation: evidence from psychophysiological studies. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  Frederick N. Dyer,et al.  Latencies for movement naming with congruent and incongruent word stimuli , 1972 .

[5]  M. Moscovitch,et al.  Must egocentric and environmental frames of reference be aligned to produce spatial S-R compatibility effects? , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Spatial compatibility effects on the same side of the body midline. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Judging up and down. , 1975, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  Alphonse Chapanis,et al.  A Reaction Time Study of Four Control-Display Linkages1 , 1959 .

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

[10]  J. R. Simon.  The Effects of an Irrelevant Directional CUE on Human Information Processing , 1990 .

[11]  L. G. Gawryszewski,et al.  What is crossed in crossed-hand effects? , 1986 .

[12]  E. Lauber,et al.  Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  Sidney L. Smith.  Exploring Compatibility with Words and Pictures , 1981 .

[14]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Multiple spatial codes and temporal overlap in choice-reaction tasks , 1996 .

[15]  B. Hommel.  Toward an action-concept model of stimulus-response compatibility , 1997 .

[16]  Stephen J. Payne,et al.  Naive Judgments of Stimulus-Response Compatibility , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[17]  F. McKenna,et al.  Hierarchical Knowledge Influences Stimulus-Response Compatibility Effects , 2000, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[18]  Mark S. Sanders,et al.  Human factors in engineering and design, 7th ed. , 1993 .

[19]  S. Dehaene,et al.  The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. , 1993 .

[20]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus–Response Compatibility for Vertically Oriented Stimuli and Horizontally Oriented Responses: Evidence for Spatial Coding , 1995, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[21]  A. Osman,et al.  Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy. , 1990, Psychological review.