Auditory stimulus-response compatibility and control-display design

This study investigated spatial stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility effects for auditory signals, in order to suggest interface design recommendations. The auditory signals were presented in transverse and longitudinal orientations relative to the listener. The results showed that stimulus-response correspondence was the prime factor contributing to spatial compatibility and that there were spatial compatibility effects for both orientations. Relatively longer reaction times (RTs) and higher error percentages (EPs) were found for the longitudinal orientation than for the transverse one. The results suggest that the longitudinal orientation should not be used for getting attention and soliciting responses when using auditory signals. Transverse orientation signals produced quicker and more accurate responses. For faster reaction times, auditory signals should be positioned on the right hand side of right-handed operators. The length of warning time interval between an alerting visual message and the presentation of an auditory signal was shown to affect reaction time in the transverse stimulus orientation. To shorten reaction times, people should be given a greater than 1-s, and preferably a 3-s, forewarning period before being asked to make a response. For both orientations, reaction times varied with assigned hand posture, indicating that the layout of response keys on, for example, a control console should be compatible with the hand posture of the operators. Uncrossed hand posture should be assigned in the transverse orientation and the right and left hands should be used for the rear and front keys, respectively, in the longitudinal orientation. This study showed that in man–machine interface design, in addition to spatial S-R compatibility, hand position and an appropriate warning time should also be considered.

[1]  Sheng-Hsiung Hsu,et al.  Control/Display Relationship of the Four-Burner Stove: A Reexamination , 1993 .

[2]  C. Umilta,et al.  Compatibility due to the coding of the relative position of the effectors. , 1984, Acta psychologica.

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

[4]  K. Sekiyama,et al.  Kinesthetic aspects of mental representations in the identification of left and right hands , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  Edward Marshall,et al.  Alarms in nuclear power plant control rooms: current approaches and future design , 1995 .

[6]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[7]  H. W. Ades,et al.  CORTICAL RESPONSE OF THE ANESTHETIZED CAT TO GROSS PHOTIC AND ELECTRICAL AFFERENT STIMULATION , 1943 .

[8]  Timothy D. Lee,et al.  Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis , 1982 .

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

[10]  M. W. van der Molen,et al.  The Relationship between Reaction Time and Intensity in Discrete Auditory Tasks , 1979, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[11]  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.

[12]  E. T. Klemmer Time uncertainty in simple reaction time. , 1956, Journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  William Mendenhall,et al.  Introduction to Probability and Statistics , 1961, The Mathematical Gazette.

[14]  Stanley R. Alten Audio in Media: The Recording Studio , 1995 .

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

[16]  E. H. Kemp,et al.  ELECTRIC RESPONSES OF THE BRAIN STEM TO BILATERAL AUDITORY STIMULATION , 1937 .

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

[18]  E. Làdavas,et al.  Influence of handedness on spatial compatibility effects with perpendicular arrangement of stimuli and responses. , 1987, Acta psychologica.

[19]  R. Wallace,et al.  S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. , 1971, Journal of experimental psychology.

[20]  David D. Woods,et al.  Systems with Human Monitors: A Signal Detection Analysis , 1985, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[21]  A. T. Welford,et al.  The fundamentals of skill , 1968 .

[22]  M. Rosenzweig Auditory localization. , 1961, Scientific American.

[23]  M. Posner,et al.  Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance. , 1976, Psychological review.

[24]  C. Umilta,et al.  Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

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

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

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

[28]  Adelbert W. Bronkhorst,et al.  Application of a Three-Dimensional Auditory Display in a Flight Task , 1996, Hum. Factors.

[29]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Spatial compatibility and anatomical factors in simple and choice reaction time , 1977, Neuropsychologia.

[30]  Margaret J. Robertson,et al.  Design and Analysis of Experiments , 2006, Handbook of statistics.

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

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

[33]  D H DRAZIN,et al.  Effects of foreperiod, foreperiod variability, and probability of stimulus occurrence on simple reaction time. , 1961, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

[35]  R. L. Deininger,et al.  S-R compatibility: correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.