Circular displays: control/display arrangements and stereotype strength with eight different display locations

Two experiments are reported that were designed to investigate control/display arrangements having high stereotype strengths when using circular displays. Eight display locations relative to the operator and control were tested with rotational and translational controls situated on different planes according to the Frame of Reference Transformation Tool (FORT) model of Wickens et al. (2010). (Left. No, Right! Development of the Frame of Reference Transformation Tool (FORT), Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting, 54: 1022–1026). In many cases, there was little effect of display locations, indicating the importance of the Worringham and Beringer (1998. Directional stimulus–response compatibility: a test of three alternative principles. Ergonomics, 41(6), 864–880) Visual Field principle and an extension of this principle for rotary controls (Hoffmann and Chan (2013). The Worringham and Beringer ‘visual field’ principle for rotary controls. Ergonomics, 56(10), 1620–1624). The initial indicator position (12, 3, 6 and 9 o'clock) had a major effect on control/display stereotype strength for many of the six controls tested. Best display/control arrangements are listed for each of the different control types (rotational and translational) and for the planes on which they are mounted. Data have application where a circular display is used due to limited display panel space and applies to space-craft, robotics operators, hospital equipment and home appliances. Practitioner Summary: Circular displays are often used when there is limited space available on a control panel. Display/control arrangements having high stereotype strength are listed for four initial indicator positions. These arrangements are best for design purposes.

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

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

[3]  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 .

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

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

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

[7]  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.

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

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

[10]  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.

[11]  Lisa Steiner,et al.  Directional Control-Response Compatibility Relationships Assessed by Physical Simulation of an Underground Bolting Machine , 2014, Hum. Factors.

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

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

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

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

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

[19]  Errol R Hoffmann,et al.  Effect of display location on control-display stereotype strength for translational and rotational controls with linear displays , 2015, Ergonomics.