Stimulus-response compatibility with pure and mixed mappings in a flight task environment.

Abstract

The present study examined the stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effect in a simulated flight environment. Experiments 1 and 2 tested the effect with pure and mixed mappings in flight tasks by using attitude displays with inside-out and outside-in formats, whereas Experiments 3 and 4 used a simplified display and tasks. The SRC effect was obtained with mixed mappings when responses were turns of a flight yoke (Experiments 1-3). In contrast, the SRC effect was absent with mixed mappings when they were buttonpresses (Experiment 4). Analyses of sequential effects suggest that the reduction in Experiments 1-3 can be attributed to reduction in the frequency of trials for which the congruent mapping repeats, but the elimination in Experiment 4 cannot be. Implications of the findings are discussed in the context of aviation cockpit design.

Effective Rotations: Action Effects Determine the Interplay of Mental and Manual Rotations

“…In Experiment 1, the type of display (plane-moving or horizonmoving) did not affect performance, and similar results have been reported in previous studies using both display types (Yamaguchi & Proctor, 2006. The display type and the effect produced by the manual rotation (which differed between the display types), however, were completely task irrelevant and may simply have been ignored by the participants (Ansorge, 2002).…”

“…Thus, the squared mean deviation from the horizontal alignment, which is possibly less sensitive than the present measures, was used as the dependent measure. This does not apply, however, to other studies (Yamaguchi & Proctor, 2006 that reported no performance differences between the two display types when manipulated between subjects (compared to the within-subject manipulation in our study). An important difference, however, relates to the stimuli used in previous studies, which were either differently pitched tones or colored visual stimuli (presented laterally).…”

“…In Experiment 3, when considering only the Task 2 data, we also found generally impaired performance with the horizon-moving display as compared to the plane-moving display and, hence, an R-E compatibility effect for wheel rotation responses. Previous studies did not find such an effect (Yamaguchi & Proctor, 2006 and suggested that not the actual visual effect is crucial but rather the implied direction of the plane's flight, irrespective of the display type. Accordingly, an R-E compatibility-like effect was reported when the plane's direction changed in the direction opposite from the intended movement (Yamaguchi & Proctor, 2011).…”

Dissociation of S-R compatibility and Simon effects with mixed tasks and mappings.

“…Several factors argue against such an account, though. First, when trials of the SRC task with compatible and incompatible mappings are mixed, the SRC effect is eliminated regardless of whether the mapping signal is a centered orientation stimulus (Shaffer, 1965), as in the present study, or a color feature of the imperative stimulus (e.g., Heister & Schroeder-Heister, 1994;Yamaguchi & Proctor, 2006). Second, because the SRC effect is eliminated when either mappings or tasks are mixed (and the signal is the color feature), the absence of effect when mappings and tasks together are mixed is a sensible outcome.…”

“…Both the SRC and Simon effects persist across hundreds of trials (e.g., Dutta & Proctor, 1992;Proctor & Lu, 1999) and are obtained for a variety of spatial stimulus and response sets in simple and complex tasks (Proctor & Vu, 2006;Yamaguchi & Proctor, 2006). However, the effects are absent or reversed when the SRC task is performed with compatible and incompatible trials mixed, or when trials from SRC and Simon tasks are mixed (Proctor & Vu, 2002a).…”