Naïve judgements of stimulus–response compatibility

An experiment is reported that is an extension of Payne (1995) and of Vu and Proctor (2003). These authors used various light/key arrangements to determine the ability of naïve subjects to rate the usability of interface designs and found that naïve judgements were not accurate, apart from selecting a best design. In this experiment, there were one, two, four and eight arrangements of lights and response keys with varying levels of compatibility between them. Response time is shown to be determined by two main factors: the level of response uncertainty (the number of light/key combinations); the correlation between stimulus–light and response key location, accounting for up to 93% of the experimental variance. Subjective response time (SRT), or judged response time, was responsive to the level of response uncertainty and also the correlation between light/key combinations, showing good correspondence to actual reaction times. It was found that SRT showed a stronger relationship to actual response time when subjects were presented with the full set of situations that they were to respond to, prior to judgements being made, rather than just individual sets for comparison. Statement of Relevance: In interface design it is essential that, in order to reduce reaction times and error rates, there is a high level of user expectancy between locations of the stimulus and corresponding response. This research indicates how designs might be evaluated, based on the geometrical layout of stimuli and response arrangements.

[1]  W. E. Hick.  Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 1948, Nature.

[2]  P. Fitts.  The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  D. A. Grant,et al.  Learning and performance on a key-pressing task as function of the degree of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. , 1955, Journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  E. A. Alluisi,et al.  Stimulus- response compatibility and the rate of gain of information , 1964 .

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

[6]  J. Duncan,et al.  Response selection in spatial choice reaction: further evidence against associative models. , 1978, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[7]  Bonnie E. John,et al.  Toward an Engineering Model of Stimulus-Response Compatibility , 1990 .

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

[9]  M. Jeannerod,et al.  Mentally simulated movements in virtual reality: does Fitt's law hold in motor imagery? , 1995, Behavioural Brain Research.

[10]  E R Hoffmann,et al.  Scaling of relative velocity between vehicles. , 1996, Accident; analysis and prevention.

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

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

[13]  M. Shiffrar,et al.  Fitts's Law Holds for Action Perception , 2007, Psychological science.

[14]  J. Pratt,et al.  Misperceiving the speed-accuracy tradeoff: imagined movements and perceptual decisions , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

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

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

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

[18]  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.