control/display association stereotypes in grouped panel arrangements

SUPPLEMENT TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE / JUNE 1965

CONTROL/DISPLAY ASSOCIATION STEREOTYPES IN GROUPED PANEL ARRANGEMENTS

Michael V. FioreSystems Divi ion

General Precision AerospaceWayne, New Jersey

ABSTRACT

This study was designed to determinewhether specific control/display associa-tion stereotypes exist in the populationwhen controls and their corresponding dis-plays are arranged sequentially on a twodimensional surface. The null hypothesiswas tested under three control/display con-figuration conditions by means of a paperand pencil test administered to 70 malecollege students. Results showed that areliable correspondence between the loca-tion of the display stimulus and the con-trol response exists in orthogonal, rec-tangular and alternate arrangements ofcontrols and displays.

INTRODUCTION

The high degree of efficiency required ofthe operator of modern electronic andmechanical equipment necessitates controlpanel design that is conducive to fast andaccurate control responses. Unfortunate-ly, spatial constraints sometimes make theideal functional grouping of displays andcorresponding controls impracticable, Asa consequence, certain compromises mustbe made in the design of the panel. Con-trols may not be located immediately adja-cent to their respective displays, but in-stead remote from them.

When a number of similar displays must belocated in an area remote from their con-trols, sequential grouping arrangementsare adopted. When instruments and controlsare sequentially grouped, the operatormust decide, usually with the aid of someadditional cues, which one of the group ofcontrols will actuate one of a correspond-ing group of displays. It is important,therefore, that sequential grouping lenditself easily to correct control/displayassociation. Regardless of labeling,color coding, shape coding, and otheradditional cues to correct association, ifthe operator has habits of associationcontrary to those which the panel arrange-mentcalls for, the probability of errorincreases greatly.

Such habits of association might possiblybe influenced by the lateral dominance ofthe operator, and although the panel de-signer must necessarily design for thelargest segment of the using population,it would be helpful to be able to antici-pate possible errors of left-handedoperators.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

A search of Human Engineering, Experi-mental, and Applied Psycholoy literaturehas shown that there is paucity of dataon the problem of sequential alignment ofcontrols and displays. A bibliography ofresearch studies in the field of Engi-neering Psychology (Gatti, 1956) containedonly a few studies whose titles suggestedsome relation to the present investigation.

It was also disappointing to note that thesequential grouping problem was lightlytouched upon and, in most cases, complete-ly absent in standard Human Engineeringreference texts such as Chapanis, Gernerand Morgan (1949), Ely, Thomson andOrlansky (1956), Fitts (1949), andMcCormick (1957). Oddly enough, when theproblem was formally admitted to exist,warnings against sequential grouping weregiven, along with the acknowledgement thatsuch grouping was sometimes necessitatedby spatial or mechanical constraints.

The following specific arrangement isrecommended by Ely, et.al. (P.68) whensimple orthogonal sequential grouping isrequired: "When rows of displays must beassociated with columns of controls, andvice versa, left should correspond withtop, and right with bottom." No researchor support data are cited.

Evidently, the recommendation is offeredon the basis of the assumption that, sincein our culture it is customary to readprinted matter from left to right, andfrom top to bottom, it follows that thispattern should carry over to control/dis-play association on a control panel. Asreasonable as this assumption appears atfirst glance, further analysis of thecontrol/display association problem revealsthat other factors besides cultural read-ing habit (if this is granted) may alsocome into play in the associative process,such as lateral dominance, past experiencewith non-verbal material, and/or theapplication of different pattern categor-ies to the panel configuration.

A pattern category, for purposes of thisstudy, is defined as, "a perceptually dis-tinct association set." A pattern categorymay comprise two or more mutually exclu-sive response choice possibilities, e.g.,left-top vs. left-bottom, vertical vs,horizontal, opposite vs. adjacent, etc.,or it may comprise a single responsechoice possibility, e.g., control/display

310


pairing, (i.e., association of spatiallyproximate controls and displays). It isconceivable that more than one patterncategory may be apparent in any given con-trol/display situation, in which case itwould behoove the designer to know whichof the categories has greater strength orinfluence upon the response choice. Fur-ther, it is possible that pattern cate-gories may come into play that are notreadily apparent to the designer.The control/display panel shown in Figure 1illustrates a configuration in which theleft-top vs. left-bottom pattern categorycomes into play. In addition, the lessapparent "spatial proximity" pattern cate-gory may be called into play, if theappropriate stimulus is given.

LIGHT

SWITCH

Figure 1. Perpendicular 4lignment ofControls and DispLays

If the situation illustrated were encoun-tered, it might be expected, according tocultural reading habit, that the switch onthe far right would be selected to operatethe illuminated bottom light. However,if spatial proximity were the determiningpattern category, the middle switch mightbe a likely choice. On the other hand,if lateral dominance were a determiningvariable, a left-handed subject mightchoose the switch on the far left and aright-handed subject, the switch on thefar right. Past experience with similararrangements might also influence theresponse choice,

It becomes evident then that further in-vestigation is required before the left-top, right-bottom association may berecommended with confidence.

The lack of s upporting data in the areaof sequential grouping is not peculiar tosimple orthogonal alignment of controlsand displays. It just happens that thistype of alignment has been used more fre-quently than other types and, therefore,rates some passing word in Human Engineer-ing design handbooks. The same kinds ofunsolved association problems might beencountered if the panel designer wereforced to locate controls and displays

around the perimeter of a square or rectan-gle, as shown in Figure 2, Should controls,in such a configuration, be placed direct-ly opposite their displays or on the sideadjacent to them?

LIGHT

SWITCH

KA19 w

6:t

Figure 2. Controls and Displays AlignedAlong the Perimeter of aRectangle

Although the likelihood of such a physicalarrangement is small, it cannot be ruledout as a possibility. If such a situationdid occur presenting (most apparent) theopposite vs. adjacent pattern category,which of the wiring arrangements illus-trated in Figure 2 would be least conduciveto operator error? In order to answer sucha question, it would be necessary to deter-mine whether any population stereotypeexists favoring either opposite or adjacentassociation of controls with displays on apanel. The author could find no researchdata reflecting on this particular associa-tion pattern category,

A third application of sequential groupingin which support data was vainly soughtconcerned the question of whether associa-tion preference exists when controls anddisplays are arranged alternately in rowsand/or columns. This is illustrated inFigure 3. It is conceivable that a situa-tion such as that pictured might be en-countered by the designer owing to physicaland/or spatial limitations. In thisarrangement, two association pattern cate-gories might come into play, namely verti-cal vs. horizontal association, or control/display pairing.

lB 20DLIGHT 2

SWITCH A 3 C 4

Figure 3, Alternately Aligned Controls andDisplays

311

r

L


Should light number one in the arrangementbe wired to switch A or switch B? Will thetendency of the operator be to make avertical association (A) or a horizontalassociation (B)? If switch A were associ-ated with light one, control/display pair-ing might explain the association and notthe vertical vs. horizontal pattern cate-gory. Again, no research data could befound to answer the questions that mustnecessarily arise in the mind of the con-trol panel designer.

The question of the effect of lateraldominance upon control/display associationhas also been sorely reglected. The fewHuman Engineering studies which have givenconsideration to the lateral dominanceproblem concentrated upon direction of con-trol movement stereotypes, and not control/display association stereotypes in left-handed and right-handed populations.

At the time this study was conducted, thesingle research effort in the area ofcontrol/display association that could berelated to it, if only remotely, was thatof Bradley (1954). Bradley's work i8specific to the sequential grouping ofganged or stacked controls with respect tocorresponding displays aligned on a planesurface. Figure 4 illustrates the stackedcontrol arrangement investigated inBradley's study,

STACKED KNOB 1CONTROL KNOB 2

KNOB 3

DISPLAY 1 DISPLAY 2 DISPLAY 3

Figure 4. Stacked Control and Correspond-ing Display Alignment

The results of Bradley's study revealedthat subjects tend to associate spatialcontrol knob progression as follows:front (smallest) to back (largest) knob,with the spatial display progression leftdial to right dial.

Bradley's work is cited because of thesimilarity between the design which heemployed and that used in the presentstudy. The hypotheses in both designsare tested by means of a printed testtechnique.

In a similar control/display study byWarrick (1947b) it was found that con-siderable agreement exists between resultsfrom a printed questionnaire and thoseobtained with actual apparatus, attestingto the validity of paper and pencil

testing in this application.

PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION

The control/display association problemhas a dual aspect. The first questionwhich must be answered concerns whether ornot control/display association stereo-types do in fact exist in the population-at-large. If such stereotypes are foundto exist, then some explanation for theirexistence must be sought.

The primary purpose of this study was todetermine the existence or non-existenceof control/display stereotypes in certainprescribed panel arrangements. The rea-sons for their existence, whenever mani-fest, may be inferred from the data ob-tained in this study, but will be leftfor future investigators to determine. Itwas not the purpose of this study to deter-mine the interaction of pattern categoriesnor to quantify their relative strength.These questions too must be left for futureinvestigation.

METHOD

In order to investigate the existence ofcontrol/display association stereotypesin the population-at-large, the null hypo-thesis was tested under three conditions.Each hypothesis condition was designed sothat the number of apparent associationpattern categories operating within it washeld to a minimum.

HYPOTHESES

1. No reliable correspondence existsbetween the location of the display stimu-lus and the location of the controlresponse when:

A. Groups of displays are arrangedin a vertical or horizontal line,and their corresponding controlsare in a line perpendicular tothem.

B. Groups of control and displaysare arranged in a rectangular con-figuration such that the controlsare on adjacent sides and theircorresponding displays are on thetwo remaining adjacent sides.

C. Controls and their correspondingdisplays are arranged alternatelyin rows and/or columns, favoringneither horizontal nor verticalcontrol/display association.

2. If association trends are foundto exist, there will be no relationshipbetween the lateral dominance of the sub-jects and their response choice.

To test the null hypothesis under the con-ditions listed, the paper and pencil testshown in Figures 5, 6, and 8 was devisedconsisting entirely of illustrations ofcontrol/display configurations. Each

312


illustration was designed to test one ofthe three conditions. An illustration(item) consisted of a group of controlsand displays on a two-dimensional surface.There was an equal number of controls anddisplays in each item. The controls werealways toggle switches, and the displays,lights (aircraft type). In every illus-tration, one of the lights was blacked in,denoting that it was illuminated. It wasthe task of the subject to circle theswitch that he thought should control theilluminated light. Each page of the testbooklet contained one illustration.

The hypothesis conditions to be investi-gated can be thought of in terms of theassociation pattern categories which theirarrangements most apparently display,namely, (A) left-top vs. left-bottom,(B) opposite vs. adjacent, and (C) verticalvs. horizontal. Although other less appar-ent pattern categories may come into playin these arrangements, for ease of pre-sentation each hypothesis condition willbe identified in terms of its most appar-ent pattern category.

In the case of certain left-top vs. left-bottom (condition A) item configurations,the spatial proximity response categorywas apparently available, i.e., theassociation of a control with a displaybecause of their close proximity on thepanel. In these items, since proximityresponses could easily be distinguished,a separate response tally was includedin the treatment of results in order todetermine the relative strength of the tworesponse categories. Similarly, in condi-tion C items (vertical vs. horizontal),the control/display pairing pattern cate-gory was apparent in addition to the verti-cal vs. horizontal category. In this case,response choices were scored only in termsof the vertical vs. horizontal categorysince control/display pairing, if domin-ant, would make itself known in the analy-sis of results (owing to the test itemconfigurations).

Having response choice possibilities clear-ly dichotomized allows for statisticaltreatment of the data by means of the chi-square test for significant trends.. Ob-viously the experimenter could not becertain that the most apparent patterncategories in each hypothesis conditionwould be the only ones operating. Subjectresponses were tallied in accord withthese more apparent categories again withthe knowledge that if less apparent pat-tern categories were stronger determinersof response choice, they would be detectedin the analysis of results.

The entire test consisted of 48 items,with 16 items testing each hypothesiscondition. Each of the three groups of16 items were randomized with respect totheir order of appearance in the testbooklet. In this way the effect of re-sponse transfer on consecutive similaritems was to some extent cancelled. In

addition, control/display configurationstesting the same hypothesis conditionappeared on every third page of the testbooklet (A,B,C, A,B,C ...).

SUBJECTS

The subjects used in this investigationwere drawn from a population of malecollege students at Loyola University, LosAngeles, California. Of the 70 collegefreshmen tested, 50 were right-handed and20 were left-handed. In the first classof 55, 5 were left-handed. The remaining15 left-handed students were tested insmall groups of 3 to 5 at a time. Thesesmall groups were selected from additionalfreshmen classes and tested during classtime in an adjoining vacant classroom.The average age of the freshmen tested was19 years.

PROCEDURE

Testing of the main group of 55 studentstook place in the regular classroom of thestudents. The subjects were monitored bytwo proctors during the test.

The subjects were seated and instructedby their regular professor to give theirfullest cooperation to the experimenter,The experimenter was introduced as arnexperimental psychologist conducting re-search studies for the aviation industry.After the introduction, the test bookletswere distributed and the experimenter gavethe following briefing:

The object of the test you areabout to take is to determineyour ability to associate con-trols and displays correctly,The test items present ambig-uous control display situationswherein the correct associationis not alway yraily apparent.Your responses should be basedupon your past experience insimilar situations.

Individual performance on thistest will be compared withinthis group and correlated withother measures of aptitude.You will be informed of theresults,The test will be timed, so workas quickly as possible. Numberof items completed will counttoward your final score. Ifyou f inish before the allottedtime, turn your test bookletface down on your desk and raiseyour hand, Do not go back overyour answers. Erasures will benoted, Now read the instructions,

The experimenter was careful to indicateto the subjects that there were right andwrong answers. This was done in order todiscourage idle guessing and increase theattention to choice. Motivation was

313


increased by the experimenter's implica-tion that individuals within the groupwould be graded and compared, and thatthese results would be made known. At thesame time, the test was presented as aspeed test in order to discourage prolongedexamination of each item. Ideally, it wasdesired that the subject make a fast de-liberate decision based on existing habit-ual response patterns.

Upon the completion df introductory state-ments, the instructions printed on thefirst page of the test booklet were readaloud by the experimenter. After the oralinstructions, the experimenter asked ifthere were any questions about the proce-dure. There were none. Left-handed sub-jects were asked to write "left-handed"below their names on the cover of the testbooklet.

As the subjects finished the test, andraised their hands, the proctors collectedthe booklets. The test session was f in-ished in 30 minutes. Following each test-ing period, testees were informed of thepurpose of the examination and assuredthat results would be reported on an im-personal basis,

The additional small groups of left-handedsubjects were tested according to the sameprocedure described above, with the ex-ception that the experimenter introducedhimself to the subjects, and testing tookplace in a vacant classroom.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

For greater ease in presentation, theanalysis of the results of this study willbe presented in three separate parts,Each part will comprise the treatment ofdata pertaining to one of the hypothesisconditions tested.

HYPOTHESIS CONDITION AEeT-TO'Vs. LEFT-OTOM)

The items utilized to test HypothesisCondition A are presented in Figure 5 inthe order of their appearance,

Three alternative association choices werepermitted for Hypothesis A items wheneverthree switches and three lights appearedin the configuration: (1) left-top, (2)left-bottom, and (3) proximity. Theproximity choice was considered separatelyin these cases since they are the onlyinstances in which all of the possibleresponse choices on the panel are notequidistant from each of the displaystimuli, thereby making this pattern cate-gory more apparent. The possibility,then, increases that a response will bechosen because of its closer proximity tothe stimulus. Items affording the prox-imity response category are 4, 6, 7, 81,9, L1, 12 and 16,

Individual subjects' response data gre in-cluded in Tables 4 , 8 and 1, wherein

20

x x

7 8I00 X

x x

x x

I X 0 0 61

9 10 11 12X O 0 X IxooS x 8x x xxo0

x x x 0

13 14 15 16x S Xxx

0

O0 0 0 0

x x x x

x- SWITCHo- LIGHT* - ILLUMINATED LIGHT

Figure 5, Condition A Items

response to test items were talliedaccording to the frequency of each associ-ation choice. For condition A, these re-sponse data were treated separately forthe right-handed group, left-handed group,and total group, and are presented in per-centage form in Table L.

Response frequencies on each item were sub-jected to the chi-square test for signifi-cant response trend. The expected fre-quency of response (fe) for each responsechoice (cell) in the chi-square table wasequal in order to test the null hypothesis.When only two response choices were avail-able (fe) = N/2; when three were available(fe) = N/3.

The null hypothesis was rejected when a

response preference significant beyondthe .05 level of confidence was found.Yates' correction for continuity wasapplied to each chi-square analysis. Theresults of the chi-square analyses of re-sponse data are shown in Tables 2, 6, and10,

An examination of the chi-square item-analyses in Table 2 reveals that for 15of the 16 items a significant preference(beyond .05 level) for the left-top, right-bottom association exists. In 13 of the15 items, responses showed a preferencesignificant at or beyond the .01 level ofconfidence. Item number 15 showed nosignificant preference. However, themajority of responses on this item were

314


elicited in favor of the left-top associa-tion. No plausible explanation can beadvanced as to the reason why this itemwas the only one not to show a significantresponse preference in the total group.

The proximity pattern category, availablein items 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 16showed only a sparse number of adherentsin the total group. It is interesting tonote in Table 1, that 18 percent of thetotal population chose the proximilty re-sponse on item number 6. This is thegreatest percentage of such responses onany of the three choice items. It seemsapparent that the reason for the greaternumber of spatial proximity responses isdue, in this case, to the closeness ofthe"lilluminated" light to the centerswitch. On further examination, however,this surmise appears false, since on asimilar item, number 11, only 9 percent ofthe population shows a preference for theclosest switch. No logical explanationcan be advanced for this lack of responseconsistency, except perhaps the differentorientation of the 'Tt formation panel onthat item. The overall lack of consist-ency in the frequency of proximity re-sponses on the three choice items maypoint to a lack of judicious selection onthe part of the subjects. It may be thatthese are non-representative or hastychoices made by subjects overly concernedwith the time limitation. The individualdata in Table 4 supports this assumption,since only one subject (number seven)chose the proximity response with anydegree of consistency. Six others chosethe proximity response only three timesout of a possible eight; one chose ittwice, and nine only once.

A likely explanation for the hasty proxi-mity choice may be that the subject hadnot allowed himself sufficient time toperceive the whole pattern or the morecomplex relationships involved. The items,or situations which elicit proximity re-sponses seem to lend themselves to justsuch a choice. Perhaps, when spatial re-lationships appear overwhelmi'ng or rein-forced, the association is made betweenthe spatially proximate "mates;" if not,more complex patterns are perceived.

The response frequencies of the left-handed and right-handed groups on eachitem were compared for significant differ-ences. Critical ratios shown in Table 3,reveal that a signilficant difference ingroup performance exists on three items,(4, 7, and 16), or approximately ten per-cent of the total number. A number thissmall would seem to indicate that lateraldominance had little to do with responsechoice. However, because only 20 left-handed subjects were used in this study,these results are inconclusive.

HYPOTHESIS CONDITION B(OPPOSITE VS. ADJACENT)

Hypothesis Condition B items have been

extracted from the test booklet in their

order of appearance and are presented in

Figure 6,

1 2 3 4

0 00 0 000 XXXX 0 0 0

0 X X X X

0 X 0 X X 0 X

I X 0 X X 0 X

X X X 0 x X0 0 Xx1-XXXX5 6 78

XX X 0 0 00 0 0 xxx:

X 0 X 0 0

X 0 X X I 0X I X 0 X 0 0

0 00 x

9

0

0 X

0 X

13

60 0

X 0

X 0

X 0

XX X

I, AAxA I10

X 0X 0

14X X XX

0 X0 X0 XI X000 0

J- x x I11

00 X

@015

SOQO00 X0 X0 IX0 XXXX X

010101S

xX

-xI UUU0

12XXX

I X0 X0 Xj0 0 0

16XXX X

X 0X 0X 0X 000 069

x- SWITCH (- LIGHT ILLUMINATED LIGHT

Figure 6. Condition B Items

Right-handed, left-handed and total group

responses to these items were tallied

according to the frequency of each associ-

ation choice. Only two association

choices were permitted in Hypothesis Con-

dition B items, (1) opposite and (2)

adjacent,

Percentage response frequency data for the

right-handed, left-handed, and total group

are presented in Table 5,

The response frequencies for each item

were subjected to the chi'-square test for

significant trend, just as for HypothesisCondition A. The expected frequency (f

in each 2x2 chi-square table was N/2. ge-sults are shown in Table 6.

The chi-square data show that an over-

whelming preference for the oppositechoice over the adjacent exists, in both

the left-handed and right-handed groups.

It would be difficult to determine whether

the spatial proximity pattern category

played any part in influencing adjacentresponse choices, since such choices would

be impossi'ble to distinguish in the pre-

sent design. However, if anything can

be generalized from the analysis of Con-

dition A responses, it may be safe to

assume that the frequency of spatial

proximi'ty responses was slight.

It is interesting to note that item number

one was the only item that showed no

significant response trend. This may be

315


attributable to the fact that this was thefirst item to appear in the booklet test-ing Condition B, and the second item inthe test booklet. It may be that in a testof this nature, subjects require one ortwo preliminary items before a sufficientdegree of familiarity is reached.

Upon further examination of the ConditionB configurations, it becomes evident thatadditional data may be derived from analy-ses of their responses, namely, data withdirect relation to Hypothesis ConditionA (left-top, right-bottom category). Aninspection of the adjacent responses showsthat these fall generally into two cate-gories, left-top adjacent, or left-bottomadjacent responses.

The individual response data, shown inTable 8, indicate that a greater number ofsubjects tend to make left-top adjacentassociations than left-bottom adjacent.H-owever, since there is no way of deter-mini'ng how many of the adjacent choiceswere caused by spatial proximity of con-trol and response elements, conclusionsdrawn from these individual results can beonly conjectural in nature.

Further inspection of Table 8 reveals thatfive subjects (15, 33, 41, 54, and 63)conss tently chose an inverted oppositeassociation pattern, such as that picturedin Figure 7.

LIGHT

SWITCH W ©-,~~~~~~~~I!

Figure 7,0 Inverted Opposite ControL/Dis-pLay Association

This type of association seems to appearat irregular intervals among the responsesof subjects 5, 10, 14, and 56, as weLl.However, in the case of these Latter sub-jects, the occurrence of this pattern isso rare, that it may be attributable toinadvertent seLection error.The response frequencies of right-handedand left-handed subjects on each itemwere compared for significant differences.CriticaL ratios shown in TabLe 7 indicatethat no s ignificant differences were mnani-fest in any of the 1 6 condition B items.

Although these results, like Condition A

results, indicate that lateral dominancehas little, if anything, to do with con-trol/display association, the small numberof left-handed subjects used in this studyrenders these findings inconclusive.Larger sample studies should be undertakento verify or vitiate these findings.

HYPOTHESIS CONDITION C(HORIZONTAL VS. VERTICAL)

The items designed to test this conditionare shown in Figure 8 in the order of theirappearance in the test booklet.

1 2O X

*CX OX

XOXO X X

5 6CX *XXO XOXO OXOX XO

9 10

Cxoxo loxxo~-Ixx XCOX

13 14X

OXOXIX 0XC0~~x0

x- SWITCH°- LIGHT

3x OOX

I X

7XOX

11X 0

15OXXOOXXC

4

OXOxIXOOX

X xO X

12O XX IX O

16*CX 0

X XO X 0

e- ILLUMINATED LIGHTFigure 8. Condition C Items

Response frequency data for individualsubjects are presented in Table 12 andresponse frequency data for the right-handed, left-handed, and total group arepresented in percentage form in Table 9.

It was stated earlier that, although thecontrol/display pairing pattern categorywas apparent in items testing HypothesisCondition C, responses would be scored interms of vertical or horizontal only.Items were scored in this way because itwas realized that if control/display pair-ing were the determining pattern category,this fact would be made evident in theanalysis of results. The columnar panelarrangements in Hypothesis C items makesit possible to differentiate the twopattern categories.

Matching the frequency of horizontal re-

sponses with the items illustrated inFigure 8, it becomes immediately apparentthat the highest percentages of horizontalresponses were obtained on items in whichcontrol/display columns were vertically

316


oriented. Vertical responses were morenumerous when columns were horizontallyoriented.

The response frequency data for each itemwere subjected to chi-square analyses.Results are presented in Table 10.

Chi-square values for the total group in-dicate that significant preferences wereshown on all but four items (2, 8, 11, and16). With the exception of item 13, wher-ever a significant trend was found, theresponse preference was in the directionof the shortest rectangular dimension,i.e., in favor of the choice opposite tothe orientation of the control/display col-umns. With preferences alternating inthis way, the only conclusion reasonablydrawn is that the control/display pairingpattern category dominated the horizontalvs. vertical category in determining re-sponse choices.

Items 2, 8, 11, 13 and 16 are the onlyCondition C items in which the pairingcategory was not readily apparent, Itshould be noted that only one of these fivesubjects (item 13) showed a significantpreference (in the total group) for thehorizontal response, adding further sup-port to the conclusion that control/displaypairing is the stronger determiner ofresponse choice. Item 8 indicates a pref-erence for the horizontal response only inthe left-handed group. Obviously, datagleaned from these two very similar itemsis inconclusive in establishing horizontalvs. vertical preference. This must beleft for future investigators to determineconclusively.In order to determine the relationshipbetween lateral dominance and controlchoice, the horizontal response frequenciesof the right-handed and left-handed groupson each item were compared for significantdifferences. Results of the statisticaltreatment are shown in Table llo

Ratios presented in the table indicatesignifiScant differences in performance ononly items 8 and 12, These data too,appear to indicate that lateral dominancehas little influence in determining con-trol/display association.

CONCLUS IONS

As a result of the study, the followingconclusions are advanced:

1 A reliable correspondence betweenthe location of the display stimulus andthe location of the control response existswhen:

A. Groups of displays are arrangedin a vertical or horizontal line,and their corresponding controlsare arranged in a line perpendicu-lar to them.

i. A tendency exists to associate

the top control in a columnwith the left display in acorresponding row.

ii. A tendency exists to associatethe top display in a columnwith the left control in acorresponding row.

iii. As the spatial separationbetween a control and displaylessens, the tendency tofunctionally relate them in-creases,

B. Groups of controls and displaysare arranged in a rectangularconfiguration so that the controlsare on two adjacent sides andtheir corresponding displays areon the remaining adjacent sides.

i. A tendency exists to associatedisplays with controls dir-ectly opposite rather thanadjacent to them.

C. Controls and their correspondingdisplays are arranged alternatelyin rows and/or columns in arectangular configuration (2x4).

io A tendency exists to associatecontrols and displays in pairsalong the shortest dimensionof the rectangular arrange-ment.

2. Although no reliable relationshipwas found to exist between lateral domin-ance and response preference in any of thearrangements tested, because of the smallsample of left-handed subjects used in thisinvestigation no conclusive results canbe offered reflecting on this relationship.

3. It is apparent that the responsechoice in any given control/display situa-tion may be influenced by more than oneassociation pattern category. Consequent-ly, since association preferences havebeen demonstrated to exist, the associa-tion pattern categories must be of differ-ential strength in influencing control/display association,Knowledge of the existence of populationstereotypes in the association of sequen-tially grouped controls and displays is ofextreme value to the designer of electron-ic and mechanical control panels, Thepaucity of basic research of this naturehas forced the designer to rely almostcompletely upon intuitive knowledge andgeneralization of unrelated data. Thepurpose of this study, then, was to in-vestigate this problem area with an eyetoward ultimate provision of basic datato aid in control/display panel design,The present study must be considered as apreliminary venture into this particulararea of control/display association. Thedata derived indicate that association

317


stereotypes exist when controls and dis-plays are arranged according to the partic-ular configurations tested and points tothe fact that such stereotypes must existin other configurations. It has also beenshown that there is differential strengthamong the pattern categories that influencecontrol/display association.

The inadequacies of the present studyshould give impetus to further research byapplied and engineering psychologists sothat unfounded generalizations and intui-tive applications of design principles canbe eliminated from Human Engineering de-sign handbooks.

The ultimate effect of such an effort willbe the production of man-machine systemswhich provide for optimal interactionbetween the human component and the machineto promote maximum operational efficiency.

REFERENCES

J. V. Bradley, "Control Display Associa-tion Preferences for Ganged Controls,"W.A.D.C. - Tech. Report 54-379, Wright AirDevelopment Center, Aeromedical Labora-tory, 1954.

J. V. Bradley, "Direction-of-Knob TurnStereotypes," W.A.D.C. Tech. Report 57-388,Wright Air Development Center, AeromedicalLaboratory, 1957.

A. Chapanis, W. R. Garner, & C. T. Morgan,"Applied Experimental Psychology," NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, 1949.

J. Ely, R. M. Thomson, & J. Orlansky,"Layout of Workplaces," Chap. V of TheJoint Services Guide to Equipment Design.,W.A.D.C. Tech. Report 56-171, Wright AirDevelopment Center, Aeromedical Labora-tory, 1956.

P. M. Fitts, "Psychological Aspects ofEquipment Design," U.S. A.F. Tech. ReportNo. 2829, 1949.

P. M. Fitts & C. W. Simon "tThe Arrange-ment of Instruments," The Distance Be-tween Instruments," and The Position ofInstrument Pointers as Determinants ofPerformance in an Eye-Hand CoordinationTask," U.S.A.F. Tech. Report 5823, 1952.

J. Gatti, "Reports of Research in theField of Engineering Psychology," W.A.D.C.Tech. Report 56-154, Wright Air Develop-ment Center, Aeromedical Laboratory, 1956.

E. J. McCormick, tHuman Engineering,"McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 1957.

C. W. Simon, "Instrument-Control Config-urations Affecting Performance in a Com-pensatory Pursuit Task," U.S.A.F. Tech.Report 6015, 1952.

M. J. Warrick, "Direction of Movement inthe Use of Controol Knobs to Position

Indicators," U.S.A.F. Air MaterialCommand, Wright Patterson Air Force Base,1947 (a) (Memorandum Report No. TSEAA694).M. J. Warrick, "Direction of MotionStereotypes in Positioning a Visual In-dicator by Use of a Control Knob: II Re-sults from a Printed Test," U.S.A.F. AirMaterial Command, Wright Patterson AirForce Base, 1947 (b) (Memorandum ReportMCREX-694-19A),

RIGHT-HANDED LEFT-HANDED TOTAL GROUP

Item Left-Top Prox. Left-Top Prox. Left-Top Prox.

2345678910I 11213141516

74667060625254648670587668726270

4

24104

126

4

65808085656575607550656565856090

71707367635560638367607367766173

5

500

00

0

4

1872

94

2

Table 1. Response Data For Condition A Items

Item Right-Handed Left-Handed Total Group

I345678910111213141516

11 .52**4.507.22**

22.00**2.426.79*13.36**25.34**24.40**18.04**14.68**39.67**5.78*8.82**2.42

31.84**

1.246.04*6.04*21.30**1.249.36**15.26**9.38**4.04*0.0010.90**10.90**10.90**8.44**.45

26.17*** Significant beyond .05 level. p df

** Significant beyond .01 level. P. 01df =

P. 01 =

Table 2. Chi-Square Values For Condition A

12.84**10.40*13.72**42.18**4.12*15.00**27.80**36.07**28.80**8.22**

26 .34**31 .49**7.54**17 .50**3.20

51 .75**

3.846.6325.999.21Responses

318

SUPPLEMENT TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE / JUNF, 1965

LEFT-TOP RESPONSES (%)

Right-Handed Left-Handed CriticalItem Group Group Ratio

2345678910111213141516

74667060625254648670587668726270

65808085656575607550656565856090

.731.26.90

2.38*.23

1.011 .75*.31

1.011 .55.55.89.24

1.27.5

2.15*

* Significant beyond .05 level.

OPPOSITE RESPONSES (%)


2345678910111213141516

62788282828280787474808274808478

50757580858585858085858585859085

58778081828281807477818277818580

Table 5. Response Data For Condition B Items

Table 3. Comparison Between Left- And Right-HandedSub jects On Condition A

RIGHT-HANDED

Left-Ss Top

1 142 63 94 165 116 87 78 139 1610 711 812 713 1414 915 816 1217 1518 819 1220 821 1622 223 1524 725 4

51 1452 1353 1654 655 1456 957 1158 1559 1060 14

Left- Left- Left-Prox. Bottom Ss Top Prox. Bottom

0110S05303010300000000011

0000000000

29605843068824841848014

18

11

26272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

1214131610151216871011610991612107131016810

LEFT-HANDED

2 61 163 62 110 63 710 64 102 65 137 66 45 67 11 68 166 69 102 70 16

0010000033303032000000000

0

000000

0

10

3220614086357645046936086

049631215050


23456789

10111213141516

1.2114.58**21 .76**21 .76**21 .76**21 .76**16 .82**14.58**10 .58**10 .58**16.82**21 .76**10.58**16 .82**21 .78**14.58**

0.004 .04*4.04*6.04*8.44**8.44**8.44**8 .44**6.04*8.44**8.44**8.44**8.44**8 .44**

11 .24**8.44**

1 .729.77**

24.00**26.40**28 .92**28 .92**26 .40**24 .00**15 .54**9 .77**

26 .40**28 .92**9.77**

26 .40**34.30**24 .00**

* Significant beyond .05 level. P. .05 = 3.84** Significant beyond .01 level. P. .01 = 6.63

Table 6. Chi-Square Values For Condition B Responses

OPPOSITE RESPONSES (%)

Right-Handed Left-Handed CriticalItem Group Group Ratio

23456789

10I 11213141516

62788282828280787474808274808478

50757580858585858085858585859085

o91.26.63.19o31v31.51.70.55

1 .08.51.31

1 .08.51.70.70

Table 4. Individual Subject Data For Condition ATable 7. Comparison Between Left- And Right-Handed

Subjects On Condition B

319


RIGHT-HANDED

Opp. L-T Opp. L-TSs Opp. Adj. Invert Adj. Ss Opp. Adj. Invert Adj.

1 142 33 104 155 66 167 168 89 1610 1011 1512 1513 1614 1615 1616 1617 518 1519 1520 1521 1622 1523 1624 1525 16

21361

10008061100

11

111

0

010

0000

000020150000000000000

0 26 156 27 153 28 120 29 18 30 150 31 160 32 142 33 160 34 02 35 160 36 140 37 60 38 160 39 10 40 10 41 1411 42 20 43 131 44 150 45 140 46 151 47 160 48 160 49 140 50 13

415015

1

201602100151521431210023

000015000000500000000001602


1 10.58**2 0.00

33 .62**30 .42**27 .38**24.50**19.22**

.4940.50**19.22**1.62

27.38**2.4216 .82**33 .62**

.18

345678910111213141516

001

151000901708601320100013

4.04*1.24

14 .44**11 .24**14.44**14.44**11 .24**8 .50**11.24**11 .24**1.24

14.44**2.44

11 .24**11 .24**0.00

15 .54**.34

49.72**43 .20**43.20**40.12**31 .54**1.72

34.30**31 .54**

.1243.29**5.14*28.92**46.40**

.12

* Significant beyond .05 level. P. .05 = 3.84** Significant beyond .01 level. P. .01 = 6.63

Table 10. Chi-Square Values For Condition C

HORIZONTAL RESPONSES (%)

Right-Handed Left-Handed Criticaltem Group Group Ratio

LEFT-HANDED

51 1552 1553 1454 1655 1156 1657 1358 1659 1560 16

20

50

30

10

0

0

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 61 160 62 72 63 160 64 43 65 90 66 01 67 130 68 160 69 150 70 16

0

90

1271630

10

0

0

160

0

0

0

0

0

0

Table 8. Individual Subject Data For Condition B

tem

2345678910111213141516

HORIZONTAL RESPONSES (%)

Right-Handed Left-Handed Total GroupGroup Group

26509290888618580418408862209254

25659590959510851010659570109050

26549290908816661416479064179052

* Significant beyond .05 level.

Table 11 . Comparison Between Left- And Right-Handed Subjects On Condition C

Table 9. Response Data For Condition C Items

320

0

50

62100

0

0

0

2345678910111213141516

26509290888618580418408862209254

25659590959510851010659570109050

.081.17.480

1.011.30.93

2.54*.83.96

1 .96*1 .04.65

1.13.25.30


RIGHT-HANDED

Ss Horizontal Vertical Ss Horizontal Vertical

1 8 8 26 9 72 9 7 27 8 83 9 7 28 9 74 10 6 29 7 95 12 4 30 8 86 11 5 31 10 67 11 5 32 8 88 8 8 33 10 69 10 6 34 9 710 14 2 35 14 211 10 6 36 13 312 11 5 37 8 813 3 13 38 9 714 6 10 39 10 615 8 8 40 9 716 8 8 41 6 K17 5 11 42 11 518 10 6 43 7 919 6 10 44 5 1120 9 7 45 7 921 10 6 46 7 922 10 6 47 9 723 10 6 48 10 624 11 5 49 10 625 7 9 50 9 7

LEFT-HANDED

51 12 4 61 10 652 8 8 62 11 553 10 6 63 8 854 6 10 64 11 555 9 7 65 9 756 10 6 66 8 857 8 8 67 7 958 9 7 68 10 659 10 6 69 13 360 12 4 70 12 4

Table 12. Individual Subject Data For 70 SubjectsOn 16 Condition C Items

321

control/display association stereotypes in grouped panel arrangements

Documents