Designing informative warning signals: Effects of indicator type, modality, and task demand on recognition speed and accuracy

Abstract

An experiment investigated the assumption that natural indicators which exploit existing learned associations between a signal and an event make more effective warnings than previously unlearned symbolic indicators. Signal modality (visual, auditory) and task demand (low, high) were also manipulated. Warning effectiveness was indexed by accuracy and reaction time (RT) recorded during training and dual task test phases. Thirty-six participants were trained to recognize 4 natural and 4 symbolic indicators, either visual or auditory, paired with critical incidents from an aviation context. As hypothesized, accuracy was greater and RT was faster in response to natural indicators during the training phase. This pattern of responding was upheld in test phase conditions with respect to accuracy but observed in RT only in test phase conditions involving high demand and the auditory modality. Using the experiment as a specific example, we argue for the importance of considering the cognitive contribution of the user (viz., prior learned associations) in the warning design process. Drawing on semiotics and cognitive psychology, we highlight the indexical nature of so-called auditory icons or natural indicators and argue that the cogniser is an indispensable element in the tripartite nature of signification.

Hierarchical Bayes Models for Response Time Data

“…It is used to formulate theories of brain function and cognitive processing (Ratcliff & Smith, 2004), to evaluate training regimens, user interface design, vehicle operation and task design (e.g., Borowsky, Oron-Gilad, & Parmet, 2009;Stevens, Brennan, Petocz, & Howell, 2009;Sullivan, Tsimhoni, & Bogard, 2008), and to evaluate medical conditions, especially schizophrenia, learning disorders, and other psychological disorders (e.g., Heiervang & Hugdahl, 2003;Querne & Berquin, 2009;Shakow, 1977). RT has been used as a window on psychological processes for almost two centuries and it forms the foundation for most work in cognitive psychology.…”

Effects of Users’ Familiarity With the Objects Depicted in Icons on the Cognitive Performance of Icon Identification

“…With the improvement of informationization as well as the development of human–computer interactions, icons have become an important component of digital user interfaces ( Li, Chen, Sha, & Lu, 2017 ; Nakamura & Zeng-Treitler, 2012 ). Compared with words, graphic symbols are able to transcend language barriers ( Bocker, 1996 ; Caplin, 2001 ; Stevens, Brennan, Petocz, & Howell, 2009 ) and convey large amounts of information in a more concise and efficient way ( Amer & Maris, 2007 ; Chi & Dewi, 2014 ; Ells & Dewar, 1979 ; Huang, Bias, & Schnyer, 2015 ; Muter & Mayson, 2007; Perry, Stevens, Wiggins, & Howell, 2008 ). However, people are still likely to misinterpret the meanings of icons that are poorly designed.…”

Soundscaping: Sound, meaning and vision in healthcare alarm systems

“…This is important because research has consistently demonstrated that auditory signals with a close relationship between the sound and referent (meaning) are learned more easily, especially if they use soundbased metaphors with the real world (Atyeo & Sanderson, 2015;Edworthy et al, 2013;Isherwood & McKeown, 2016). Sound-based metaphors are typically caricatures of environ-mental sounds such as coughing to indicate 'leaking gas' or the sound of a heartbeat to indicate that 'cardiovascular function needs to be checked' (Stevens et al, 2009;Edworthy et al, 2014). Medical alarm sounds, in contrast, tend to be either tonal sequences or beeps, buzzers and pings.…”