http://hfs.sagepub.com/Ergonomics Society

of the Human Factors and Human Factors: The Journal

http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/35/4/745The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/001872089303500413

1993 35: 745Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics SocietySheng-Hsiung Hsu and Yu Peng

Control/Display Relationship of the Four-Burner Stove: A Reexamination  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

be found at: canHuman Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics SocietyAdditional services and information for

    

  http://hfs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://hfs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/35/4/745.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Dec 1, 1993Version of Record >>

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

HUMAN FACTORS, 1993,35(4),745-749

SHORT NOTE

Control/Display Relationship of theFour-Burner Stove: A Reexamination

SHENG-HSIUNG HSU! and YU PENG, National Taiwan Institute of Technology,Taipei, Taiwan

Several previous studies concerning the arrangement of the controllburner rela-tionship of a four-burner stove showed discrepancy in their results. For this reason,a further analysis of this arrangement is necessary and worthwhile. Two researchmethods were adopted to duplicate earlier studies. One was the paper-pencil testin which subjects took three different questionnaire forms that used alphabetical,sign, and numerical code systems. The other method was computer simulation inwhich subjects took part in a performance test of four arrangements of con trollburner designs, and reaction time and error rate were measured. The results in-dicated the existence of a suggestive effect, which is a tendency by some stimuli-cues to induce a specific response unawares in subjects. This confounding variablemust be controlled in the test tool design. Results also revealed a populationstereotype in the controllburner linkage relationship that was different for Chinesesubjects and for American subjects. The equivalence of research methods betweenthe paper-pencil test and computer simulation was not completely assured.

INTRODUCTION

Compatibility refers to the agreement be-tween the stimuli/response relationship andhuman expectations and as such is a centralhuman factors issue. In this regard, a systemthat is ergonomically designed should becompatible with population stereotypes. Wepostulate that a greater degree of compatibil-ity will result in faster learning, shorter re-

1 Requests for reprints should be sen! to Sheng-HsiungHsu, Department ofIndustrial Management, National Tai-wan Institute of Technology, 43. Section 4, Keelung Road,Taipei 10772, Taiwan.

sponse time, fewer errors, greater safety, andreduced mental workload.

After reviewing the literature of four-burner stove studies, we found that the clas-sic example of control/response compatibilitywas worth reexamining. Chapanis and Lin-denbaum (1959) and Ray and Ray (1979) pre-sented several arrangements of controls andburners (as shown in Figure 1) to subjects andasked them to turn off or on specific burners.The stove model was simulated using coloredperspex disks to represent the burners, eachof which could be illuminated by bulbs. Theresults from both studies showed that Type IIappeared to be superior.

@ 1993, The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

746-December 1993 HUMAN FACTORS

Figure 1. Control·burner arrangement relationshipused in previous studies.

Type Assigned Control Order BurnerSequence

II A B D C UIII A B C D IIIIV B A D C NV B A C D n

METHODS

than were Types II, III, and IV, which did notdiffer significantly from each other. Thismeans that no particular stereotype emergedas predominant.

After considering the cause of those incon-sistent and indefinite findings, we supposedthey might have resulted from the code sys-tem used in Shinar and Acton's study (seeFigure 2). Because the alphabetic codes A, B,C, and D are essentially sequential, some sub-jects might have been influenced unknow-ingly by this. Consequently, they filled in thefour controls with those letters consecutivelyfrom left to right, thus facilitating a quasi-predominance of the Type III choice. There-fore, we were encouraged to conduct a studyto test whether a suggestive effect on thesubject's judgment actually existed with acode system of a sequential nature. Sugges-tive effect is defined here as the tendency toinduce unawares a specific response in areceptive person by some kind of cue orstimuli.

We were also interested to know whether ornot a difference in the population stereotypeexisted between Chinese and American sub-jects regarding the controllburner relation-ship. This aspect of the controllburner rela-tionship had not been studied before.

Finally, we wanted to study the equiva-lence of two methods: the paper-pencil test tostudy choice and computer simulation tostudy reaction times and errors.

C

D

c:=::> c:=::>c:> c:>0000

A

B

Shinar and Acton (1978) presented to sub-jects a questionnaire containing a drawingand asked them to point out which of the un-marked controls they thought controlled eachof the burners. As in Figure 2, the burnerswere labeled "A," "B," "C," and "D," and thecontrols were unlabeled. Shinar and Actonfound that the most frequently chosen ar-rangement (see Figure 1) was Type III (31%).Arrangement Type II, which induced fewererrors than did Type III in previous studies,was chosen by only 25% of the subjects. Nev-ertheless, a chi-square analysis showed thatType V was chosen significantly less often

~ CC)CD CD

0000Figure 2. Drawing from the questionnaire used inShinar and Acton (1978).

Paper-Pencil Test

There were 423 college students-291males and 132 females-who volunteered toserve as subjects in this study. In order toevaluate the possible suggestive effect of se-quential codes, three different forms of ques-tionnaires were developed. The code systemsemployed in each of these three question-naires were as follows (see Figure 3):

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

CONTROUDISPLAY RELATIONSHIP December 1993-747

Qa

CDCA:>en@)

0000Qs

Figure 3. The three forms of questionnaires used in this study.

1. Alphabetical Questionnaire (Qa): The alpha-betic codes A, B, C, and D were labeled overthe four burners, as in Shinar and Acton'sstudy (1978).

2. Sign Questionnaire (Qs): A set of sign codes,1:r, #, 6, and D, devoid of sequentiality, wereassigned arbitrarily to each burner.

3. Numerical Questionnaire (Qn): A string ofnumerical codes, 1, 2, 3, and 4, were allo-cated not to each burner but to each controlfrom left to right.

The subject's task was to fill in each controlblank with its corresponding burner's code(for Oa and Os), according to his or her ste-reotyped judgment, and conversely to fill ineach burner blank with its correspondingcontrol's code (for On).

The three types of questionnaires were ran-domly distributed to the 423 subjects: Oawent to 153 subjects, Os to 143,and On to 127.

Computer Simulation

A computer simulation was developed tomodel the four aforementioned types (II, III,IV, and V) of control/burner linkage. The ex-perimental procedure was similar to that ofChapanis and Lindenbaum (1959). Fifteenmale college students aged 18 to 20 years vol-unteered to participate in this simulationstudy.

At the beginning of each test session, theexperimenter told subjects the purpose of theexperiment and mentioned the type of con-trol/burner linkage that would be used. Thefour keys (E, T, U, and 0) on the keyboardwere set up to act as stove controls. Subjectswere asked to place their index fingers on (orreturn to) a predetermined point, designated

as the ready position, on the table with thekeyboard.

When subjects were ready, the computerdisplayed a graphic stove on the screen; thena light spot would appear on one of thestove's four burners simultaneously with anacoustic signal. The subjects' task was to turnoff the light spot by pressing the "correct"key control as quickly as possible. If subjectsmade an error, they had to immediately tryanother key until the right one was found.Before the test began, subjects were allowedpractice to make sure that they were familiarwith the experimental task and control-burner configuration.

The testing order for the graphic burnerlight and the linkage type was randomized.Because linkage type was varied within sub-jects, a two-day break was instituted betweentesting sessions on the different types. Eachlight burner was turned on and off 20 times,so each type of linkage was tested a total of 80times. The intertrial interval between lightoff and on was fixed at about 1 s.

The performance measures collected in thisexperiment consisted of reaction times andnumber of errors, which were automaticallyrecorded by the computer.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Paper-Pencil Test

Table 1 summarizes the numbers of intu-itive choices (and the percentage these repre-sent) of each possible controlfburner linkagearrangement made by subjects in the threeforms of questionnaires.

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

748-December 1993 HUMAN FACTORS

TABLE 1

Results of the Pencil-Paper Test

Oa (N = 153) Os (N = 143) On (N = 127)Linkage

Type Relationship Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

II ABDC 15 (16%) 10 (17%) 25(16%) 19 (1 go!.) 9(20%) 28(20%) 14 (14%) 3 (11%) 17(13%)III ABCD 46 (49%) 29 (49%) 75 (4g%) 35 (36%) 19(42%) 54 (38%) 35 (35%) 11 (40%) 46 (36%)IV BADC 11 (12%) 10 (17%) 21 (14%) 19 (1g%) 8 (18%) 27 (19%) 24 (24%) 6(22%) 30 (24%)V BACD 9 (10%) 5(8%) 14 (9%) 9(9%) 4 (9%) 13(9%) 10 (10%) 5(17%) 15 (12%)VI BOAC 7(7%) 7(5%) 7(7%) 7 (4%)VII ACBD 4(7%) 6(6%) 4 (9%) 10 (7%) 9 (g%) 2(7%) 11 (9%)VIII ADBC 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%)IX BOCAOthers 6(6%) 1 (2%) 11 (7%) 2(3%) 1 (2%) 3(2%) 6(7%) 1 (3%) 8(6%)

Total 94 59 153 98 45 143 99 28 127

Note. "ABeD" represents "'tnI'60" in Os and "'234" in On, respectively.

Table 1 shows that the most frequently cho-sen arrangement was Type III in all threequestionnaires, Type III was chosen by 49%,38%, and 36% of the subjects in the Oa, Os,and On questionnaires, respectively. A chi-square test showed that Type III was chosensignificantly more often than Type II, TypeIV, and Type V, X~a(3) = 69.06, X~s(3) =

28.75, and X~n(3) = 22.76; all values of p <0.001. No significant differences were foundbetween male and female subjects, X2(3) =

2.778, P > 0.05.Type III was chosen by a dramatically high

percentage of subjects in the case of Oa (49%)and a somewhat smaller percentage in thecase of Os (38%) and On (36%). Oa differedsignificantly from Os (p < 0.027) and On (p <0.014), but there was no difference betweenOs and On.

These results suggest that the large numberof Type III choices in Oa could be attributedto a kind of suggestive effect caused by thesequential nature of its alphabetical code.Moreover, Type III represented the popula-tion stereotype of controllburner arrange-ments for Chinese subjects because Os andOn were immune to this suggestive effect.

If the suggestive effect is eliminated fromthe Shinar and Acton data, then Type IIwould surpass Type III. This might be in com-

plete agreement with earlier studies, al-though the difference probably would nothave been significant. Consequently, Type IIwould have been confirmed as the Americanstereotype.

The difference in the stereotypes mightarise from the reading/scanning habits of thetwo cultures. The Chinese ideogram is writ-ten and read vertically and from right to left,as with an "N" sequence, in contrast to theEnglish language's "z" sequence, which isread horizontally and from left to right. Afterthe left-lower burner, the Chinese subjectshad a tendency to shift to the right-upperburner instead of the Americans' right-lowerburner.

Computer Simulation

The performance measures in reaction timeand error rate with the computer simulationare shown in Table 2.

An analysis of variance showed that therewere significant differences in the mean reac-tion time among the questionnaire types,F(3,42) = 3.12, P < 0.05, and among the sub-jects, F(14,42) = 5.23,p < 0.01. A further testusing Duncan's techniques for comparing in-dividual means with the data for all 80 trialsshowed that the mean for Type ill was signif-

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

CONTROUDISPLA y RELATIONSHIP December 1993-749

TABLE 2

TABLE 3

Comparison ofEITOr Rates (%) with Previous Studies

icantly lower than the mean for Types IV andV, but it did not differ significantly from thatof Type II.

Therefore, the predominance of Type IIIwas only partially supported by the quasi-objective performance measures of the com-puter simulation. Under these conditions thecomputer simulation should not be replaced,methodologically, by the paper-pencil testwith the subjective judgment.

In addition, the error rates of the presentstudy, compared with those of Chapanis andLindenbaum (1959) and those of Ray and Ray(1979), are summarized in Table 3. As can beseen, the stereotype difference between cul-tures emerges again. Type III was the pre-

ferred arrangement for the Chinese subjects,and Type II was the preferred arrangementfor the American subjects. Also, the results inTable 2 show that there was a significant dif-ference for the number of errors among thetypes, x2(3) = 40.6, P < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Previous results and conclusions have beenattributable in part to a suggestive effect thatexisted insidiously in some designs. For thesake of methodological soundness, an experi-menter should always take care to excludeextraneous factors or confounding variables,such as was found in the codes wi th sequenceimplication in this four-burner stove study.

The population stereotypes regarding thecontrol/burner linkage relationship havebeen shown to be culturally different: TypeIII or "J/I" (inverted N) sequence for Chinesesubjects versus Type II or "U" sequence forAmerican subjects. The cultural differencesprobably result from differences in reading orscanning habits.

In this research, the results of the paper-pencil test are not in complete agreementwith those of computer simulation. Althoughthe paper-pencil test may be a time-savingand low-cost method, it may not always yieldecologically valid results.

Number ofErrors (%)

126 (10.50%)52 (4.33%)

124 (10.33%)135 (11.25%)

AverageReactionTime (s)

0.66500.63130.71580.7202

ABDCABCDBADCBACD

LinkageRelationship

Results of the Computer Simulation

Type

IIIIIIVV

Chapanisand

Linkage This Lindenbaum Ray andType Relationship Study (1959) Ray (1979)

II ABDG 10 6" 98

III ABGD 48 10 16IV BADG 10 11 19V BAGD 11 12"The preferred arrangement for the study.

REFERENCES

Chapanis, A., and Lindenbaum, L. E. (1959). A reaction-time study of four control-display linkages. HumanFactors, 1, 1-7.

Ray, R. D., and Ray, W. D. (1979). An analysis of domesticcooker control design. Ergonomics, 22, 1243-1248.

Shinar, D., and Acton, M. B. (1978). Control-display rela-tionships on the four-burner range: Population stereo-types versus standard. Human Factors, 20, 13-17.

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

HUMAN FACTORS, 1993,35(4),751-754

The Authors

KEITH C. HENDY, KEVIN M. HAMILTON, andLOIS N. LANDRY (Measuring Subjective Workload:When Is One Scale Better Than Many?)

KEITH C. HENDY is a defense scientist workingfor the Canadian Department of National Defence.He has worked in the human engineering/humanfactors area since 1969, first at the AeronauticalResearch Laboratories in Melbourne, Australia,and now at the Defence and Civil Institute of En-vironmental Medicine in Downsview, Canada. Heholds a B.E. degree in electrical engineering fromthe University of Queensland, Australia, and anM.Eng.Sc. degree in biomedical engineering fromMonash University, Australia. His current researchinterests include the development of human engi-neering techniques in the areas of workload predic-tion and workspace layout through the use of mod-eling and simulation techniques.

KEVIN M. HAMILTON received a B.A. degreefrom the University of Prince Edward Island in1977, a masters degree in environmental studiesfrom York University in 1982, and a Ph.D. in exper-imental psychology, also from York, in 1986. He isemployed as a defense scientist with the Canadiangovernment in the Human Factors Division at theDefence and Civil Institute of Environmental Med-icine, Toronto. His general research area is envi-ronmental stress and human performance, withspecific interests in habitats, sustained operations,deep-sea diving, and drug effects. He has also beeninvolved with studies concerning simulator sick-ness, motion sickness, and workload measurement.

LOIS N. LANDRY is a master's candidate in thepsychology program at Mount St. Vincent Univer-sity, in Halifax, Nova Scotia. In 1990 she completeda B.A. degree with honors in psychology from Dal-housie University. She also holds a B.A.Ed. degreefrom Mount St. Vincent University. Her researchinterests include determining the incidence of childsexual abuse in Canadian schools and the problemsfaced by these children as they serve as court wit-nesses.

TRACI L. GALINSKY, ROGER R. ROSA, JOELS. WARM and WILLIAM N. DEMBER (Psychophys-ical Determinants of Stress in Sustained Attention)

TRACI L. GALINSKY received a B.A. degree inpsychology from the University of Cincinnati in1985 and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in experimental

psychologylhuman factors from the same univer-sity in 1988 and 1991, respectively. Currently she isemployed as a research psychologist in the AppliedPsychology and Ergonomics Branch, Division ofBiomedical and Behavioral Science, of the Na-tional Institute for Occupational Safety andHealth's Taft Laboratories in Cincinnati. She alsoserves as an adjunct assistant professor of psychol-ogy at the University of Cincinnati. Her researchinterests include occupational stress, muscle fa-tigue and tremor, and psychophysical and motiva-tional aspects of vigilance.

ROGER R. ROSA has been a research psycholo-gist with the Applied Psychology and ErgonomicsBranch, Division of Biomedical and BehavioralScience, National Institute for Occupational Safetyand Health, since 1984. He holds a B.A. degree inpsychology from New College, Sarasota, Florida,and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in psychology from theUniversity of Cincinnati. He is interested in humanperformance and physiology as affected by shift-work, biological rhythms, sleep, sleep loss, and fa-tigue.

JOEL S. WARM received B.S. and M.S. degreesin psychology from the City College of New Yorkand a Ph.D. in experimental psychology in 1966from the University of Alabama. He did postdoc-toral work at the University of Louisville beforejoining the faculty of the University of Cincinnati,where he has been full professor since 1975. He hasconducted research in the areas of vigilance, pat-tern recognition, and temporal perception. His re-search in vigilance has focused on psychophysical,motivational, and theoretical issues.

WILLIAM N. DEMBER received a B.A. degree inpsychology from Yale College in 1950 and a Ph.D.in experimental psychology from the University ofMichigan in 1955. He taught at Michigan and Yalebefore accepting an assistant professorship at theUniversity of Cincinnati in 1959, where he has beenfull professor since 1965. The bulk of his researchhas been in exploratory behavior, visual backwardmasking, and sustained attention. His interests inhuman factors research lie primarily in motiva-tional, cognitive, and psychophysical influences onsustained attention.

DIANE DAMOS (Using Meta-Analysis to Comparethe Predictive Validity of Single- and Multiple-Task

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

752-December 1993

Measures to Flight Perfonnance) received her Ph.D.in aviation psychology from the University of Illi-nois in 1977. Her first academic appointment wasin the Department of Industrial Engineering atSUNY Buffalo from 1977 to 1981. She then becamea member of the Department of Psychology at Ar-izona State University from 1981 to 1985. In 1985she joined the faculty of the Department of HumanFactors at the University of Southern California,where she is an associate professor. Her major in-terests have been in the area of multiple-task per-formance, aircrew selection, and human factors re-search methodology. More recently, she has beeninvolved in research on vehicle conspicuity and theeffects of infectious diseases on human perfor-mance.

GREG C ELVERS, RAVI S. ADAPATHYA,KENM. KLAUER, DAVID E. KANCLER, and NANCYJ.DOLAN (Effects of Task Probability on Integral andSeparable Task Perfonnance)

GREG C ELVERS is an assistant professor ofpsychology at the University of Dayton. He re-ceived his Ph.D. in 1989 from Purdue University.His research interests include visual displays andattention.

RAVI S. ADAPATHYA received a B.S. degree(1990) in psychology from the Universi ty of Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign. At the time of this study hewas working on his master's thesis at the Univer-sity of Dayton. He is currently working toward aPh.D. in psychology at North Carolina State Uni-versity. His research interests include occupationalsafety and health, visual displays, process control,and perception.

KEN M. KLAUER received his B.A. degree inpsychology in 1990 from the University of NorthernIowa in Cedar Falls. Iowa. He is currently workingon his M.A. degree in human factors psychology atthe University of Dayton. His interests lie in theareas of workload and visual displays.

DAVID E. KANCLER received his B.A. degree inpsychology in 1990 from Ohio University in Athens,Ohio. He is currently working on his M.A. degree inhuman factors psychology at the University of Day-ton. His interests lie in the areas of visual displays,ergonomics, and design.

NANCY J. DOLAN received a B.S. in design andenvironmental analysis from Cornell Universityand an M.A. in human factors psychology from theUniversity of Dayton. She is currently employedwith CTA, Inc., in McKee City, New Jersey. Herprimary interests include visual displays and sim-

HUMAN FACTORS

ulation applications in aerospace and human fac-tors applications for interior design.

CHRISTOPHER J. WHALEY and ARTHUR D.FISK (Effects of Part-Task Training on Memory SetUnitization and Retention of Memory-DependentSkilled Search)

CHRISTOPHER J. WHALEY is pursuing a doc-toral degree in engineering psychology at the Geor-gia Institute of Technology. In 1987 he received abachelor's degree in electrical engineering, and in1990 he received his M.S. degree in engineeringpsychology, both from Georgia Tech. His researchinterests include information retrieval. the graph-ical presentation of data, and the application of re-search on visual and auditory perception to systemand equipment design. The research reported inthis article was submitted in partial fulfillment ofhis requirements for the M.S. degree.

ARTHUR D. FISK is an associate professor inboth the general-experimental and the engineeringpsychology programs at Georgia Institute of Tech-nology in the School of Psychology. He serves ascoordinator of the engineering psychology pro-gram. He received a B.S. degree from Ohio StateUniversity in 1978 and a Ph.D. from the Universityof Illinois in 1982. His current applications-oriented research interests include optimization ofskills training, cognitive and perceptual develop-ment, effects of aging on skilled and unskilled per-formance, and optimization of human-computerinteractions. He is a Fellow of the American Psy-chological Association and the Human Factors andErgonomics Society.

JAMES A. KLEISS and DAVIDC. HUBBARD (Ef-fects of Three Types of Flight Simulator Visual SceneDetail on Detection of Altitude Change)

JAMES A. KLEISS received a B.S. degree in psy-chology from Western Michigan University andM.A. and Ph.D. degrees in psychology from RiceUniversity. For the past six years he has worked asa research psychologist with the University of Day-ton Research Institute's Flight Training ResearchSupport Group located at the Armstrong Labora-tory, Aircrew Training Research Division, WilliamsAir Force Base, AZ. During this time he has con-ducted research in the area of flight simulator vi-sual scene content relevant for simulating low-level, high-speed flight.

DAVID C. HUBBARD has a Ph.D. in experimen-tal psychology and the equivalent of an M.S. in ap-plied statistics from Brigham Young University

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

THE AUTHORS

(i.e., he completed all course work and comprehen-sive exams, had a thesis topic approved, and thengot a job offer he could not refuse). He is working asa research psychologist and applied statistician forthe University of Dayton Research Institute'sFlight Training Research Support Group, as part ofa research support contract to the U.S. Air Force.

KEVIN B. BENNETT (Encoding Apparent Motionin Animated Mimic Displays) is an assistant profes-sor in the Department of Psychology at WrightState University. He received his Ph.D. in 1984from the Catholic University of America in appliedexperimental psychology. He has more than 10years of experience in the field of human factors ina variety of settings, including government (Officeof Naval Technology postdoctoral Fellow), industry(General Physics Corporation, Advanced ResourceDevelopment Corporation, and Westinghouse Elec-tric Corporation), and academia. His research in-terests focus on the effective use of computationalpower to improve overall human-system perfor-mance. Specific areas of interest include graphicdisplays of information, machine expert advice,and computerized learning environments.

ELIZABETH J. HELLIER, JUDY EDWORTHY,and IAN DENNIS (Improving Auditory Warning De-sign: Quantifying and Predicting the Effects of Dif-ferent Warning Parameters on Perceived Urgency)

ELIZABETH J. HELLIER graduated from Poly-technic South West (now University of Plymouth)in England in 1988 and obtained her doctorate inthe perceived urgency of auditory warnings in1991. She is currently employed on a research con-tract to investigate the design of auditory warn-ings. She is also a part-time lecturer at Universityof Plymouth and at the Open University in En-gland.

JUDY EDWORTHY graduated from Keele Uni-versity in England in 1980 and obtained her doc-torate in music cognition from Warwick Universityin England in 1983. Subsequently she worked atthe Applied Psychology Unit of the Medical Re-search Council in Cambridge on the design and de-velopment of auditory warnings. She is a seniorlecturer at the University of Plymouth and alsoconducts research on auditory warnings.

IAN DENNIS graduated from Cambridge Uni-versity in 1972 and obtained his doctorate from theUniversity of Reading in England in 1979. He is aprincipal lecturer in the Psychology Department atthe University of Plymouth. His interests includeattention, human-computer interaction, and reading.

December 1993-753

DURAND R. BEGAULT (Head-Up Auditory Dis-plays for Traffic Collision Avoidance System Adviso-ries: A Preliminary Investigation) received his Ph.D.from the University of California, San Diego, in1987 and an M.F.A. from Mills College, Oakland,California, in 1981. Since 1988 he has worked at theAerospace Human Factors Division of NASA-AmesResearch Center. He conducts basic and applica-tions research related to spatial hearing and spatialauditory display.

J. PAUL FRANTZ and TIMOTHY P. RHOADES(A Task-Analytic Approach to the Temporal and Spa-tial Placement of Product Warnings)

J. PAUL FRANTZ received a B.S.E. degree in hu-man factors engineering from Wright State Univer-sity and a Ph.D. in industrial and operations engi-neering from the University of Michigan in 1992.Since 1988 he has served as a senior research engi-neer with Miller Engineering. He has also served asan adjunct professor of industrial and operationsengineering at the University of Michigan teachingproduct and occupational safety management. Hisresearch interests and areas of specialization in-clude human factors applied to consumer and in-dustrial products, product safety, and occupa-tionallhome accident prevention with a particularemphasis on safety-related communications suchas warnings, instructions, and other product-accompanying information.

TIMOTHY P. RHOADES received B.S.E. andM.S.E. degrees in industrial and operations engi-neering from the University of Michigan in 1986.He is currently a doctoral candidate at the Univer-sity of Michigan and a senior research engineerwith Miller Engineering. His research interests in-clude occupational and consumer safety, productuse behaviors, vehicle visibility, and human move-ment. He is a member of consensus standards com-mittees involved with vehicle visibility, biome-chanics, and other ergonomic and safety issues.

JACQUELINE AGNEW and ANTHONY J. SU-RUDA (Age and Fatal Work-Related Falls)

JACQUELINE AGNEW received a B.S. degreefrom Cornell University and M.P.H. and Ph.D. de-grees from the Johns Hopkins School of Hygieneand Public Health. Since 1985 she has held a fac-ulty appointment in the Division of OccupationalHealth, Department of Environmental Health Sci-ences, at Johns Hopkins, where she is an assistantprofessor. Her research interests include ergonomics,neurobehavioral effects of toxic exposures, and theinteraction between age and occupational exposures.

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

754-December 1993

ANTHONY J. SURUDA received M.D. andM.P.H. degrees from the Johns Hopkins Universityand served in the Epidemic Intelligence Service ofthe Centers for Disease Control. He is currently anepidemiologist with the National Institute for Oc-cupational Safety and Health in Morgantown, WestVirginia.

FRED G. W. C. PAAS and JEROEN J. G. VANMERRIENBOER (The Efficiency of InstructionalConditions: An Approach to Combine Mental Effortand Performance Measures)

FRED G. W. C. PAAS received his master's de-gree in movement science from the University ofLimburg and his doctorate from the University ofTwente. He is currently an assistant professor atthe Division of Movement Science of the Universityof Limburg. His research interests concern the cog-nitive-load effects in the training for transfer ofcomplex cognitive skills and the relation betweenaging and mental efficiency.

JEROEN J. G. VAN MERRIENBOER receivedhis master's degree in experimental psychologyfrom the Free University of Amsterdam and hisdoctorate with honors from the University ofTwente. He is currently an associate professor atthe Division of Instructional Technology of the Uni-versity of Twente. His research involves the in-structional design for complex cognitive skills.

HUMAN FACTORS

SHENG-HSlUNG HSU and YU PENG (ControliDisplay Relationship of the Four-Burner Stove: A Re-examination)

SHENG-HSlUNG HSU received a B.Ed. degreein educational theories and an M.Ed. in education-al administration from the National Normal Uni-versity of Taiwan. He received a Ph.D. in psychol-ogy from the University of Paris V-Rene Descartesin 1980, and then has been an associate professor inthe Department of Industrial Management at theNational Taiwan Institute of Technology. Since1980 he was director of the Students CounselingCenter and the director of the Center for Researchin Technological and Vocational Education. In1988 he established and directed a human factorsprogram in the department. Currently, he is thedepartment chair and the elected standing boarddirector of the Human Factors Society of Taiwan-R.O.C. which was founded in February 1993. Hehas conducted research in the areas of technologi-cal education, consumer behavior, and human fac-tors. His research interests in human factors areconcerned with hand-object interface, human er-rors, and mental representation.

YU PENG is currently a graduate student in theDepartment of Industrial Management at the Na-tional Taiwan Institute of Technology. His researchinterests include human factors and work study.The topic of his doctoral dissertation is asymmetriclifting.

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The Journal of

the Human

Factors and

Ergonomics

Society

HUIllan Factors ~

Volume 35, 1993

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

HUMAN FACTORSThe Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

EditorWilLIAM C. HOWEll

American Psychological Association Science Directorate

Associate Editors

F. Thomas EggemeierUniversity of Dayton

Editorial Board

Richard J. JagacinskiOhio State University

Jack A. AdamsEmeritus, University of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign

Dee Howard AndrewsUSAF Armstrong Laboratory

Robert G. AngusDefence and Civil Institute of

Environmental Medicine

Thomas J. ArmstrongUniversity of Michigan

Jan BerkhoutUniversity of South Dakota

Deborah A. Boehm-DavisGeorge Mason University

John G. CasaliVirginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University

Marylou ChealUniversity of Dayton

Research fnstituteNancy J. CookeNew Mexico State University

Gregory M. CorsoGeorgia fnstitute of Technology

William H. CushmanEastman Kodak Company

Ray E. EbertsPurdue University

Pat-Anthony FedericoU.S. Navy Personnel R&D Ctr.

Donald L FisherUniversity of Massachusetts

Arthur D. FiskGeorgia Institute of Technofogy

John M. FlachWright State University

Irwin L GoldsteinUniversity of Maryland

John D. GouldIBM Watson Research Ctr.

Dennis H. HoldingUniversity of Louisville

Barry H. KantowitzBattelle Human Affairs

Research Ctr.

Michael J. KellyGeorgia Tech

Research Institute

Arthur F. KramerUniversity of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign

Karl H. E. KroemerVirginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University

Patrick KyllonenUSAF Armstrong Laboratory

Lila F. lauxRice University

Herschel W. LeibowitzPennsylvania State University

Gavan linternUniversity of Illinois

Aviation Research Laboratory

Michael E. MaddoxSisyphus Associates

Elizabeth MartinUSAF Armstrong Laboratory

Donald H. MershonNorth Carolina State University

Deborah A. MittaGeorgia Institute of Technology

Neville MorayUniversity of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign

Ben B. Morgan, Jr.University of Centraf Florida

Robert D. O'DonnellNT!, Inc.

John J. O'HareIrving, Texas

Paul l. Olson

Raja ParasuramanCatholic University of America

Publications Manager lois SmithPublications Associate Darcy L. Pettigrew

Editoriaf Assistant Kelly BushinskyTechnicaf Proofreaders Jean R. Huntoon

Richard B. Huntoon

David L. PostUSAF Armstrong LaboratoryDennis l. PriceVirginia Polytechnic Institute

and State UniversityWesley RegianUSAF Armstrong LaboratoryWendy A. RogersMemphis State UniversityEduardo SalasNaval Training Systems Ctr.Penelope M. SandersonUniversity of Illinois

at Urbana-ChampaignWayne L ShebilskeTexas A&M UniversityDavid ShinarBen Gurian University

of the NegevCarlla S. SmithBowling Green State UniversityRobert D. SorkinUniversity of FloridaJanet J. TurnageUniversity of Central FloridaMichael VenturinoState University of New York

at GeneseoMichael A. VidulichUSAF Armstrong LaboratoryNeff WalkerGeorgia Institute

of TechnologyJoel S. WarmUniversity of CincinnatiChristopher D. WickensUniversity of fllinois at

Urbana-ChampaignMichael S. WogalterNorth Carolina State UniversityJeffrey C. WoldstadVirginia Polytechnic Institute

and State UniversityDavid D. WoodsOhio State University

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

HUMAN FACTORS, 1993,35(4),757-763

HUMAN FACTORS-VOLUME 35

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cognitive Predictors of Vigilance, Gerald Matthews, D. Roy Davies, and Peter!. Holley..... 3The Visibility of Symbolic Highway Signs Can Be Increased among Drivers of All Ages,

Donald W. Kline and Perry Fuchs............................................................................ 25Performance under Dichoptic versus Binocular Viewing Conditions: Effects of Attention

and Task Requirements, Ruth Kimchi, Daniel Gopher, Yifat Rubin, and David Raij 35Angle of Hard Copy and Text-Editing Performance, Jay L. Brand and Kenneth W. Judd... 57Emergent Features and Graphical Elements: Designing More Effective Configural Dis-

plays, Kevin B. Bennett, Mona L. Toms, and David D. Woods 71Effects of Age and Task Similarity on Dual-Task Performance, J. E. Korteling 99Optimal Performance Engineering: Good, Better, Best, Donald L. Fisher 115An Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Rank-Ordering of Computer Inter-

faces, Deborah A. Mitta 141Wayfinding by Newcomers in a Complex Building, Darrell L. Butler, April L. Acquino,

Alicia A. Hissong, and Pamala A. Scott..................................................................... 159Further Studies of Psychophysically Determined Maximum Acceptable Weights and

Forces, Vincent M. Ciriello, Stover H. Snook, and Gareth J. Hughes 175Redundant Use of Luminance and Flashing with Shape and Color as Highlighting Codes

in Symbolic Displays, Karl F. Van Orden, Joseph DiVita, and Matthew J. Shim 195Disruption and Maintenance of Skilled Visual Search as a Function of Degree of Consis-

tency, Mark D. Lee and Arthur D. Fisk 205Modeling Strategic Behavior in Human-Automation Interaction: Why an "Aid" Can (and

Should) Go Unused, Alex Kirlik 221Real-Time Expert System Interfaces, Cognitive Processes, and Task Performance: An Em-

pirical Assessment, Leonard Adelman, Marvin S. Cohen, Terry A. Bresnick, James O. Chin-nis, Jr., and Kathryn B. Laskey 243

Recommendations for Mental Workload Measurement in a Test and Evaluation Environ-ment, W. W. Wierwille and F. Thomas Eggemeier 263

Repetitive Motion Disorders: The Design of Optimal Rate-Rest Profiles, Donald L. Fisher,Robert O. Andres, David Airth, and Stephen S. Smith 283

Operation of Controls on Consumer Products by Physically Impaired Users, H. Kanis 305Cognitive Function at High Altitude, Arthur F. Kramer, John T. Coyne, and David L.

Strayer 329Cockpit Checklists: Concepts, Design, and Use, Asaf Degani and Earl L. Wiener 345Headphone Localization of Speech, Durand R. Begault and Elizabeth M. Wenzel 361Effect of Electronic Performance Monitoring on Job Design and Worker Stress: Review of

the Literature and Conceptual Model, Pascale Carayon 385Aggregation Bias and the Use of Regression in Evaluating Models of Human Performance.

Neff Walker and Richard Catrambone 397Experimental Evaluation of a Model of Mental Workload, P. A. Hancock and J. K. Caird. 413Spatial and Temporal Characteristics of Rapid Cursor-Positioning Movements with Elec-

tromechanical Mice in Human-Computer Interaction, Neff Walker, David E. Meyer, andJohn B. Smelcer 431

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

758-December 1993 HUMAN FACTORS

Conceptual Graph Analysis: Knowledge Acquisition for Instructional System Design,Sallie E. Gordon, Kimberly A. Schmierer, and Richard T. Gill 459

Effects of Stereoscopic and Rotational Displays in a Three-Dimensional Path-TracingTask, Randy L. Sollenberger and Paul Milgram 483

Motion Extrapolation Performance: A Linear Model Approach, Naum Yakimoff, StefanMateeff, Walter H. Ehrenstein, and Joachim Hohnsbein 501

Spatial Ability and Land Navigation under Degraded Visual Conditions, V. Grayson Cu-Qlock-Knopp and Leslie A. Whitaker 511

Curvilinear Approach to an Intersection and Visual Detection of a Collision, CatherineBerthelon and Daniel Mestre 521

Effects of Reduced Transmittance Film on Automobile Rear Window Visibility, MarkFreedman, Paul Zador, and Loren Staplin 535

Pistol Grip Power Tool Handle and Trigger Size Effects on Grip Exertions and OperatorPreference, Seoungyeon Oh and Robert G. Radwin 551

Measuring Subjective Workload: When Is One Scale Better then Many? Keith C. Hendy,Kevin M. Hamilton, and Lois N. Landry 579

Psychophysical Determinants of Stress in Sustained Attention, Traci L. Galinsky, Roger R.Rosa, Joel S. Warm, and William N. Dember 603

Using Meta-Analysis to Compare the Predictive Validity of Single- and Multiple-TaskMeasures to Flight Performance, Diane L. Damos 615

Effects of Task Probability on Integral and Separable Task Performance, Greg C Elvers,Ravi S. Adapathya, Ken M. Klauer, David E. Kancler, and Nancy J. Dolan 629

Effects of Part-Task Training on Memory Set Unitization and Retention of Memory-Dependent Skilled Search, Christopher J. Whaley and Arthur D. Fisk 639

Effects of Three Types of Flight Simulator Visual Scene Detail on Detection of AltitudeChange, James A. Kleiss and David C. Hubbard 653

Encoding Apparent Motion in Animated Mimic Displays, Kevin B. Bennett 673Improving Auditory Warning Design: Quantifying and Predicting the Effects of Different

Waming Parameters on Perceived Urgency, Elizabeth J. Hellier, Judy Edworthy, andI an Dennis 693

Head-Up Auditory Displays for Traffic Collision Avoidance System Advisories: A Prelim-inary Investigation, Durand R. Begault 707

A Task-Analytic Approach to the Temporal and Spatial Placement of Product Warnings,J. Paul Frantz and Timothy P. Rhoades 719

Age and Fatal Work-Related Falls, Jacqueline Agnew and Anthony J. Suruda 731The Efficiency of Instructional Conditions: An Approach to Combine Mental Effort and

Performance Measures, Fred G. W. C. Paas and Jeroen J. G. Van Merrienboer 737Control/Display Relationship of the Four-Burner Stove: A Reexamination, Sheng-Hsiung

Hsu and Yu Peng 745

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

AUTHOR INDEX

Acquino, A. L.Adapathya, R. S.Adelman, L.Agnew, J.Airth, D.Andres, R. O.Begault, D. R.Bennett, K. B.Berthelon, C.Brand, J. L.Bresnick, T. A.Butler, D. L.Caird, J. K.Carayon, P.Catrambone, R.Chinnis, J. 0., Jr.Ciriello, V. M.Cohen, M. S.Coyne,J.T.CuQlock-Knopp, V. G.Damos, D. L.Davies, D. R.Degani, A.Dember, W. N.Dennis, I.DiVita, J.Dolan, N. J.Edworthy, J.Eggemeier, F. T.Ehrenstein, W. H.Elvers, G. CFisher, D. L.Fisk, A. D.Frantz, J. P.Freedman, M.Fuchs, P.Galinsky, T. L.Gill, R. T.Gopher, D.Gordon, S. E.Hamilton, K. M.Hancock, P. A.

159629243731283283

361, 70771,673

52157

243159413385397243175243329511615

3345603693195629693263501

629115,283205,639

719535

2560345935

459579413

Hellier, E. J.Hendy, K. C.Hissong, A. A.Hohnsbein, J.Holley, P. J.Hsu, S.-H.Hubbard, D. C.Hughes, G. J.Judd, K. W.Kancler, D. E.Kanis, H.Kimchi, R.Kirlik, A.Klauer, K. M.Kleiss, J. A.Kline, D. W.Korteling, J. E.Kramer, A. F.Landry, L. N.Laskey, K. B.Lee, M.D.Mateeff, S.Matthews, G.Mestre, D.Meyer, D. E.Milgram, P.Mitta, D. A.Oh, S.Paas, F. G. W. C.Peng, Y.Radwin, R. G.Raij, D.Rhoades, T. P.Rosa, R. R.Rubin, Y.Schmierer, K. A.Scott, P. A.Shim, M.J.Smelcer, J. B.Smith, S. S.Snook, S. H.Sollenberger, R. L.

693579159501

374565317557

62930535

221629653

2599

329579243205501

352143148314155173774555135

71960335

459159195431283175483

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

760--December 1993

Staplin, L.Strayer, D. L.Suruda, A. J.Toms, M. L.Van Orden, K. F.Van Merrienboer, J. J. G.Walker, N.Warm, J. S.Wenzel. E. M.

53532973171

195737

397,431603361

Whaley, C. J.Whitaker, L. A.Wiener, E. L.Wierwille, W. W.Woods, D.D.Yakimoff, N.Zador, P.

HUMAN FACTORS

63951134526371

501535

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

SUBJECT INDEX

30517511535

345653615653

7'745205

305, 719745305

283, 55128343122148335

361, 7077171

195673

71,629483483195

71,195,673521,535

73738571

413243175731305195

exertionmaximum acceptable

GeneralizabilityGlobal/local processing

Configurable displaysConfounding variableConsistencyConsumer productsControl/display relationshipControl operationCumulative trauma disorders

carpal tunnel syndromeCursor positioningDecision makingDepth perceptionDichoptic viewingDisplay(s)

auditoryconfiguraldesignluminanceluminance contrastobjectrotationalstereoscopicsymbolicvisual

DrivingEfficiencyElectronic performance monitoringEmergent featuresExperimental evaluationExpert systemsExtended reachFallsField studyFlashingFlight

decklow-levelperformancesimulation

Force

48335

195521283175345673345329

71,243329

399

67399, 745

99159653459

361, 707361, 707

693205. 329

221535345

115345

2599, 731

39725,99

615693141673673305

3.35,99.205,603,639

Accessibili tyAccidentsAcuityAgeAggregation biasAgingAircrew selectionAlarmsAnalytic hierarchy processAnimationApparent motionArthritisAttentionAuditory

displayslocalizationwarnings

AutomaticityAutomationAutomobile window glassAviationBinocular

disparityviewing

BrightnessCar drivingCarpal tunnel syndromeCarryingChecklistChromatic contrastCockpit checklistsCognitionCognitive

engineeringfunctionpredictors

CoherenceColor table animationCompatibilityCompensatory trackingComplexityComputer-generated imageryConceptual graphs

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

762-December 1993 HUMAN FACTORS

Gripforcestrength

HandlesHard-copy angleHeadphone localization

head-up auditory displaysHeart rateHigh altitudeHighway signsHuman errorHuman-automation interactionHuman-computer interactionHuman-machine

interfacessystems

HypoxiaImpaired usersIndividual differencesInjuries, occupationalInstructionInterfacesInterferenceIn tersectionsJob

controldemandsdesign

Kinetic depth effectKnowledge acquisitionLabelingLearningLiftingLinear modelLuminous

contrasttransmi ttance

Maps, you-are-hereMathematical programmingMaximum acceptable weightMemory

searchMental effortMental workloadMeta-analysis

551551

175,55157

361707175329

25345221

57

361,707221329305

3731

459, 737243

99521

385385385483459719329175501

535535159115175329639737

263,413615

Metabolic costMortalityMotion extrapolationMountaineeringMouse movementMovement timeMultitask performanceMuscular diseaseNASATask Load IndexNavigationObject displaysOccupational injuriesOptical flowOptimizationPaired comparison dataPart-task trainingPerceptionPerformance

dual-taskelectronic moni toringlevelsmodelsmultitask

Population stereotypePower hand toolProduct safetyPsychophysicsPullingPushingRadial motion-anisotropyRatio scalesRedundancyRegressionRepetitive motion disordersRepresentation aidingResponse surface analysisRest break schedulingRetentionRule generationScalingSchedulingScriptsSigns

symbolicSimilarity

175731501329431431221305579511

71,629283, 731

521115,283

141639329737

99385719397221745551719

175,603,6931751755011411953972836731152833292435791157191592599

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

December 1993-763

Simulator scene detail 653 Teleoperations 511Skill Tenosynovi tis 283

acquisition 205, 639 Test and evaluation 263retention 639 Text

Social support 385 editing 57Sound parameters 693 signs 25Spatial Time-sharing 615

ability 511 Traffic collision avoidance system 707frequency 25 Training 205,459

Speech communication 361,707 part-task 639Speed-accuracy trade-off 431 Vigilance 3,603Stove controls 745 Visibility 25, 535Strategic behavior 221 VisualStress 603 conditions, degraded 511

worker 385 displays 71, 195,673Subjective Workload Assessment display terminals 57

Technique 579 perception 521Symbolic signs 25 processes 511Symbology 195 search 3, 195,205Task(s) Warning(s) 719

analysis 719 auditory 693combination 175 Wayfinding 159dual 99,615 Weight, maximum acceptable 175integral and separable 629 Worker stress 385integration 99 Workload 579interference 719 evaluation 263multiple 615 mental 263,413part-task training 639 subjective 579probability 629 Workstation design 57

at HFES-HUMAN FACTORS on October 24, 2011hfs.sagepub.comDownloaded from