Applicability of location compatibility to the arrangement of display and control in human – vehicle systems: Comparison between young and older adults

Murata, Atsuo; Moriwaka, Makoto

doi:10.1080/00140130600987172

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, both performances are enhanced when both displays are located closely. The results in Figures 9,10,11,13,15,16, and 17 supported the PCP prediction that performance is enhanced when the display proximity is high (two displays are close) under the high task proximity. On the other hand, the following data did not obey the prediction by PCP: percentage correct as a whole of the secondary task (Figure 12), and percentage correct when the sub-display corresponded to the air-conditioner temperature ( Figure 14).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Basic study on automotive display design by proximity compatibility principle

Murata

Akazawa

2014

2014 Proceedings of the SICE Annual Conference (SICE)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to propose an effective method for displaying driving environment and properly transmitting this to drivers. The display was designed by changing two types of proximity, that is, the proximity of the display and the proximity of the task itself. The proximity of the display was controlled as the type of the display or the distance between two displays. The proximity of the task was controlled as the difference of two tasks performed on the two displays. More concretely, the similar proximity of the task was either two analogue tasks or two digital tasks. These two proximities were all within-subject variables. The participants (a total of eight graduate or undergraduate students) were required to carry out simultaneously a simulated driving task and a judgment and reaction task of the display information controlled by the two proximity factors above. The performance measures were tracking error in the simulated driving task and percentage correct and reaction time in the secondary judgment and reaction task. As a result, it has been demonstrated that the performance under the dual task condition obeys the predicted outcome by proximity compatibility principle.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…The usability of controls is affected by installation location, frequency of use, ease of differentiation, etc. Moreover, it has been suggested that the controls should be placed taking the display system into account [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Basic study on automotive display design by proximity compatibility principle

Murata

Akazawa

2014

2014 Proceedings of the SICE Annual Conference (SICE)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So, radio and related features' operations are on the right of the steering wheel, close to the infotainment system on the center display. Murata and Moriwaka (2007) investigated display-control proximity compatibility by manipulating display location (display on the left side of the participant or in front) and control location (to the left of the participant or on the steering wheel) for younger and older adults. Participants performed a dual-task experiment in which the primary task was first-order tracking, in which participants operated the steering wheel to track a visual display shown by a front projector.…”

Section: Steering-wheel Controlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Referential coding of steering-wheel button presses in a simulated driving cockpit.

Xiong¹,

Proctor²

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated whether left and right pushbuttons on a steering wheel are coded relative to an "infotainment display" in a simulated driving cockpit. Participants performed a go/no-go Simon task in which they responded on trials for which a tone, presented from a left or right speaker, was 1 of 2 pitches (low or high) with a single button press (left in 1 trial block; right in another). Without the infotainment display in Experiment 1, both left and right responses showed Simon effects of similar size. In both Experiments 2 and 3, the infotainment display was located to the right or left, and the Simon effect was smaller for the response that was on the side of the infotainment display than for the response that was on the opposite side. The results indicate that in a driving cockpit environment, the pushbutton responses are coded as left and right with respect not only to the wheel-based frame but also to a salient object like the infotainment display. The general point for application is that the driver's spatial representation of responses, and consequently performance, can be influenced by multiple frames of reference.

show abstract

“…techniques have been established for modelling the compatibility relationships for complex arrangements of display and control (Hoffmann 1997;Murata and Moriwaka 2007;DeLucia and Griswold 2011;Hoffmann 2012, 2010). With high compatibility or expectancy of the way in which control and display interact, there are fewer errors in required control movements, especially under conditions of high stress, and responses to signals shown on a display are likely to be made rapidly.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of display location on control-display stereotype strength for translational and rotational controls with linear displays

Chan

Hoffmann

2015

Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiments were designed to investigate the effects of control type and display location, relative to the operator, on the strength of control/display stereotypes. The Worringham and Beringer Visual Field principle and an extension of this principle for rotary controls (Hoffmann E.R., and Chan A.H.S. 2013). "The Worringham and Beringer 'Visual Field' Principle for Rotary Controls. Ergonomics." 56 (10): 1620-1624) indicated that, for a number of different control types (rotary and lever) on different planes, there should be no significant effect of the display location relative to the seated operator. Past data were surveyed and stereotype strengths listed. Experiments filled gaps where data are not available. Six different control types and seven display locations were used, as in the Frame of Reference Transformation Tool (FORT) model of Wickens et al. (Wickens, C.D., Keller, J.W., and Small, R.L. (2010). "Left. No, Right! Development of the Frame of Reference Transformation Tool (FORT)." Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting September 2010, 54: 1022-1026). Control/display arrangements with high stereotype strengths were evaluated yielding data for designers of complex control/display arrangements where the control and display are in different planes and for where the operator is moving. It was found possible to predict display/control arrangements with high stereotype strength, based on past data. Practitioner Summary: Controls and displays in complex arrangements need to have high compatibility. These experiments provide arrangements for six different controls (rotary and translational) and seven different display locations relative to the operator.

show abstract

Applicability of location compatibility to the arrangement of display and control in human – vehicle systems: Comparison between young and older adults

Cited by 13 publications

References 8 publications

Basic study on automotive display design by proximity compatibility principle

Basic study on automotive display design by proximity compatibility principle

Referential coding of steering-wheel button presses in a simulated driving cockpit.

Effect of display location on control-display stereotype strength for translational and rotational controls with linear displays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About