Sources of Stimulus-Response Compatibility: Frames, Rules, and Response Tendencies
Barry H. Kantowitz*, Dan Nathan-Roberts
Identifiers and Pagination:Year: 2009
First Page: 163
Last Page: 169
Publisher Id: TOERGJ-2-163
Article History:Received Date: 20/05/2009
Revision Received Date: 28/07/2009
Acceptance Date: 28/07/2009
Electronic publication date: 24/12/2009
Collection year: 2009
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
While a taxonomic approach to maximizing stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility is frequently applied to improve system design, it can fall short because no taxonomy is ever complete. A model-based approach may uncover additional system flaws and can help us to understand the sources of S-R compatibility. A satisfactory model is defined as one that is acceptable on two vital dimensions: It is both theoretically correct and easy for system designers to use. This article revisits a satisfactory hierarchical model of S-R compatibility proposed by Kantowitz, Triggs and Barnes . The model presupposes a recursive combination of frames, rules, and response tendencies to explain how actions are derived from stimuli mapped to responses. Several recent studies of S-R compatibility were selected to exercise the model. By using frames, rules, and response tendencies the hierarchical model generated explanations that are consistent with these empirical results. Control-display compatibility is maximized when frames, rules, and response tendencies are aligned.