Response time patterns associated with various display-control relationships.

Garvey, William D.; Knowles, William

doi:10.1037/h0061257

Cited by 27 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There was somewhat less variability among the eight responses of the more compatible S-R ensembles than among those of the less compatible ones. The results agree with those of Garvey and Knowles (7). Among the ten experimental groups variability was greatest among the S-R pairs forming the one-dimensional spatial code.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes.

Fitts¹,

Deininger²

1954

Journal of Experimental Psychology

432

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper is the second dealing with the usefulness of the concept of S-R compatibility for behavior theory. This concept concerns the effects of a class of variables that influence task difficulty in experiments in which learning, complexity (amount of information), and discriminability are controlled. Compatibility effects are conceived as resulting from hypothetical information transformation processes (encoding and/or decoding) that intervene between receptor and effector activity. The rate of processing information is assumed to be maximum when these receding processes are at a minimum.The objective of the study of compatibility effects is to discover conditions under which these effects occur, and to establish principles that will permit specification of the nature and difficulty of perceptual-motor tasks in terms of (hypothetical) intervening information transformation processes. Such processes must be inferred, just as do constructs such as habit strength, from measures of performance obtained in appropriate experiments. The type of experiment of greatest interest for the present purpose is one in which it is possible to measure the rate of information trans-

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes.

Fitts¹,

Deininger²

1954

Journal of Experimental Psychology

432

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other experiments were not discussed because of their strong interaction with other effects such as preparation (Broadbent & Gregory, 1965), sequential dependencies (Broadbent & Gregory, 1965;Smith, 1977), discriminability (Garvey & Knowles, 1954;Broadbent & Gregory, 1965), interference (Smith, 1977), and the addition of irrelevant but misleading information (Wallace, 1971).…”

Section: Other Subphenomena and Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universal Subgoaling and Chunking

Laird

Rosenbloom

Newell

1986

The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is also important to realize that the display-control relationships pertaining in this study were specifically chosen to permit the use of "spatial coding," i.e., the system was such that the signals could be identified as points in the display space and the buttons could be located as corresponding points in the control space (1). Under these circumstances, the Ss reported that they were able to pattern the signals into "lines" with two lights and "triangles" with three lights.…”

Section: Items Per Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Under these circumstances, the Ss reported that they were able to pattern the signals into "lines" with two lights and "triangles" with three lights. Systems may be designed in such a manner that the operator is forced to use what has been called "verbal coding," i.e., identification of the signals and responses in terms of names, letter and number tags, or other symbolic representation (1). It is doubtful whether the relationships found in the present study would hold for systems in which the operator must employ such verbal codes although, if the verbal material were carefully designed and presented auditorily, considerable savings through reduction coding should be possible.…”

Section: Items Per Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%