Movement compatibility for configurations of displays located in three cardinal orientations and ipsilateral, contralateral and overhead controls.

Stereotype strength and reversibility were determined for displays that were in the Front, Right and Left orientations relative to the operator, along with rotary, horizontally and vertically-moving controls located in the overhead, left-sagittal and right-sagittal planes. In each case, responses were made using the left and right hands. The arrangements used were (i) rotary control with a circular display (ii) horizontal/transverse control moving forward/rearward in the left and right-sagittal planes or transversely in the overhead plane and (iii) vertical/longitudinal control moving vertically in the left and right-sagittal planes and longitudinally in the overhead plane. These are all combinations not previously researched. Stereotype strength varied with display plane, type of control and plane of control. Models for the stereotype strength are developed, showing the contribution of various components to the overall stereotype strength. The major component for horizontally-moving controls comes from the "visual field" model of Worringham and Beringer (1998); for the rotary control important factors are "clockwise-for-clockwise" and the hand/control location effect (Hoffmann, 2009a). Vertically-moving controls are governed by a simple 'up-for-up' relationship between displays and controls. Overall stereotype strength is a maximum when all components add positively.

[1]  R N Sen,et al.  An ergonomics study on compatibility of controls of overhead cranes in a heavy engineering factory in West Bengal. , 2000, Applied ergonomics.

[2]  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.

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

[4]  Alonso H. Vera,et al.  Collaborative knowledge management supporting mars mission scientists , 2004, CSCW.

[5]  R. Burgess-Limerick,et al.  Directional control-response relationships for mining equipment , 2010, Ergonomics.

[6]  S. Coren.  Measurement of Handedness via Self-Report: The Relationship between Brief and Extended Inventories , 1993, Perceptual and motor skills.

[7]  Alan H S Chan,et al.  Movement compatibility for rotary control and circular display--Computer Simulated Test and real Hardware Test. , 2003, Applied ergonomics.

[8]  Alan H. S. Chan,et al.  Movement Compatibility for Two-Dimensional Lever Control and Digital Counter , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[9]  Alan H. S. Chan,et al.  Circular displays with thumbwheels: Hong Kong Chinese preferences , 2000 .

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

[11]  I. K. Hui,et al.  Precise effects of control position, indicator type, and scale side on human performance , 2003 .

[12]  Errol R. Hoffmann,et al.  Strength of component principles determining direction of turn stereotypes-linear displays with rotary controls , 1997 .

[13]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Persistence of stimulus-response compatibility effects with extended practice. , 1992 .

[14]  Carl Gabbard,et al.  TASK COMPLEXITY AND LIMB SELECTION IN REACHING , 2003, The International journal of neuroscience.

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

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

[17]  A. Cuschieri,et al.  Task performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of the image display. , 1998, Annals of surgery.

[18]  J. Hindmarsh,et al.  The Tacit Order of Teamwork: Collaboration and Embodied Conduct in Anesthesia , 2002 .

[19]  Errol R. Hoffmann.  Warrick’s Principle, Implied Linkages and the Effect of Hand/ControlLocation , 2009 .

[20]  R Lulham,et al.  Marine vessel control using the tiller-motor system. , 1999, Applied ergonomics.

[21]  Errol R Hoffmann,et al.  Movement compatibility for frontal controls with displays located in four cardinal orientations , 2010, Ergonomics.

[22]  Alan H. S. Chan,et al.  Strength and reversibility of movement stereotypes for lever control and circular display , 2007 .

[23]  Gloria Mark,et al.  Extreme collaboration , 2002, CACM.

[24]  Daniel J. Wigdor,et al.  Effects of display position and control space orientation on user preference and performance , 2006, CHI.

[25]  Alan H. S. Chan,et al.  Movement Compatibility for Rotary Control and Digital Display , 2007, Eng. Lett..

[26]  Alan H. S. Chan,et al.  Movement compatibility for circular display and rotary controls positioned at peculiar positions , 2006 .

[27]  Alan H. S. Chan,et al.  Strength and Reversibility of Stereotypes for a Rotary Control with Linear Scales , 2008, Perceptual and motor skills.

[28]  Christine M. Zupanc,et al.  Performance Consequences of Alternating Directional Control-Response Compatibility: Evidence From a Coal Mine Shuttle Car Simulator , 2007, Hum. Factors.