In this study we contrast display-control movement relations defined in terms of stimulus-response (physical) compatibility with those defined by stimulus-cognitive compatibility, and we relate these findings to the issue of command versus status levels of decision aid support. A second issue addressed is the cost of inconsistency across multiple display-control mappings. Subjects performed a flight control task while responding to one to four analog indicators, formatted as either command or status displays. The results suggest that there is an advantage for the status format when subjects are required to verbally report the state of the indicator(s), but no advantage was found for either format when subjects were required to manually correct the indicated state. The data point to the importance of display-control consistency and suggest that it may even outweigh that of compatibility.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndreA. D., and WickensC. D. (1990). Display-control compatibility in the cockpit: Guidelines for display layout analysis (ARL-90-12/NASA-A3I-90-1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.
2.
AndreA. D., and WickensC. D. (in press). The influence of cognitive fidelity on spatial-motion compatibility effects. In Proceedings of the 5th Mid-Central Human Factors/Ergonomics Conference. Dayton, OH: University of Dayton.
3.
AndreA. D., WickensC. D., and GoldwasserJ. B. (1990). Compatibility and consistency in display-control systems: Implications for decision aid design (Tech. Report ARL-90-13/NASA A3I-90-2). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.
4.
BarnettB. J. (1990). Aiding type and format compatibility for decision aid interface design. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 1552–1556). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
5.
BrauneR.J. (1989). The common/same type rating: Human factors and other issues (SAE Tech. Paper 892229). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
6.
ChappellS. L. (1990). Pilot performance research for TCAS. In Managing the Modern Cockpit: Third Human Error Avoidance Techniques Conference Proceedings (pp. 51–67). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
7.
ChappellS. L., ScottB. C., and BillingsC. E. (1987). Information transfer in pilots' use of a collision avoidance system. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31 st Annual Meeting (pp. 428–431). Santa Monica: Human Factors Society.
8.
ChernikoffR., DueyJ. W., and TaylorF. V. (1960). Two-dimensional tracking with identical and different control dynamics in each coordinate. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 318–322.
9.
ClarkH.H., and ChaseW.G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 472–517.
10.
CrocollW. M., and CouryB. G. (1990). Status or recommendation: Selecting the type of information for decision aiding. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 1524–1528). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
11.
DuncanJ. (1979). Divided attention: The whole is more than the sum of the parts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 216–228.
12.
FittsP. M., and DeiningerR. L. (1954). S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483–492.
13.
FittsP. M., and SeegerC. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199–210.
14.
LovelessN. E. (1962). Direction-of-motion stereotypes: A review. Ergonomics, 5, 357–383.
15.
MitchellM. J. H., and VinceM. A. (1961). The direction of movement of machine controls. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 24–35.
16.
MorinR. E., and GrantD. A. (1955). Learning and performance on a key-pressing task as a function of the degree of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 39–47.
17.
MucklerR. A., and ObermayerR. W. (1965, August). Information display. International Science and Technology, pp. 34–40.
18.
PoultonE. C. (1974). Tracking skill and manual control. New York: Academic.
19.
ReasonJ. (1990). Human error. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
20.
ReganJ.J. (1960). Tracking performance related to display control configurations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 310–314.
21.
RoscoeS. N., CorlL., and JensenR. S. (1981). Flight display dynamics revisited. Human Factors, 23, 341–353.
22.
SimonJ. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174–176.
23.
SingleyM. K., and AndersonJ. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
StokesA. F., WickensC. D., and KiteK. (1990). Display technology: Human factors concepts. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
25.
TaylorR. M., and SelconS.J. (1990). Cognitive quality and situational awareness with advanced aircraft attitude displays. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 26–35). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
26.
TCAS for transports: Part III. (1990, December). Avionics, pp. 22–45.
27.
WeeksD.J., and ProctorR. W. (1990). Salient features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 355–366.
28.
WickensC. D. (1984). Engineering psychology and human performance (1st ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
29.
WickensC. D., AndreA. D., and HaskellI. D. (1990). Compatibility and consistency in crew station design. In LoveseyE. J. (Ed.), Contemporary ergonomics 1990 (pp. 118–122). London: Taylor & Francis.
30.
WoodsD.D. (1986). Paradigms for intelligent decision support. In HolnagelE., ManciniG., and WoodsD. D. (Eds.), Intelligent decision support in process environments (pp. 153–173). New York: Springer-Verlag.
