Effect of display location on control-display stereotype strength for translational and rotational controls with linear displays

Experiments were designed to investigate the effects of control type and display location, relative to the operator, on the strength of control/display stereotypes. The Worringham and Beringer Visual Field principle and an extension of this principle for rotary controls (Hoffmann E.R., and Chan A.H.S. 2013). “The Worringham and Beringer ‘Visual Field’ Principle for Rotary Controls. Ergonomics.” 56 (10): 1620–1624) indicated that, for a number of different control types (rotary and lever) on different planes, there should be no significant effect of the display location relative to the seated operator. Past data were surveyed and stereotype strengths listed. Experiments filled gaps where data are not available. Six different control types and seven display locations were used, as in the Frame of Reference Transformation Tool (FORT) model of Wickens et al. (Wickens, C.D., Keller, J.W., and Small, R.L. (2010). “Left. No, Right! Development of the Frame of Reference Transformation Tool (FORT).” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting September 2010, 54: 1022–1026). Control/display arrangements with high stereotype strengths were evaluated yielding data for designers of complex control/display arrangements where the control and display are in different planes and for where the operator is moving. It was found possible to predict display/control arrangements with high stereotype strength, based on past data. Practitioner Summary: Controls and displays in complex arrangements need to have high compatibility. These experiments provide arrangements for six different controls (rotary and translational) and seven different display locations relative to the operator.

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

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

[3]  N E LOVELESS,et al.  Direction-of-motion stereotypes: a review. , 1962, Ergonomics.

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

[5]  Alan H. S. Chan,et al.  Simulation reality and stereotype strength: A problem for equipment designers , 2014 .

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

[7]  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.

[8]  Robin Burgess-Limerick,et al.  Directional control–response compatibility of joystick steered shuttle cars , 2012, Ergonomics.

[9]  Errol R Hoffmann,et al.  The Worringham and Beringer ‘visual field’ principle for rotary controls , 2013, Ergonomics.

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

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

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

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

[14]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Left. No, Right! Development of the Frame of Reference Transformation Tool (FORT) , 2010 .

[15]  Errol R Hoffmann,et al.  Movement compatibility for configurations of displays located in three cardinal orientations and ipsilateral, contralateral and overhead controls. , 2012, Applied ergonomics.

[16]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking: Design Applications of Visual Spatial Thinking: The Importance of Frame of Reference , 2005 .

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

[18]  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.

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

[20]  John Brebner,et al.  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 , 1981 .

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

[22]  John A Griswold,et al.  Effects of camera arrangement on perceptual-motor performance in minimally invasive surgery. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[23]  Alan J. Courtney,et al.  Control-display stereotypes for multicultural user systems , 1992, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

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