Advertisement

The Effects of Practice and Speed Stress with Different Stimulus-Response Mappings

  • Kim-Phuong L. Vu
  • Audrey Rabas
  • Richard Roberson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5617)

Abstract

Stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility refers to better performance with compatible over incompatible S-R mappings. We investigated how a stressor in the form of a time constraint influences performance in choice-reaction tasks with S-R mappings that varied in degree of compatibility. A 600-ms response deadline did increase participants’ stress levels as indicated in subject workload reports. Furthermore, the time constraint decreased reaction time and increased error rate more for incompatible (mirror-opposite, mixed and random) mappings compared to compatible mappings. Participants who learned to respond with the incompatible mappings reverted to the more natural, corresponding responses when stressed. However, the effect of the time constraint was reduced when the incompatible mapping was systematic compared to when it was random. Thus, there are benefits of applying systematic rules when designing products for a user population.

Keywords

Stimulus-response compatibility display-control compatibility stress practice effects 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fitts, P.M., Seeger, C.M.: S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. J. of Exp. Psychol. 46, 199–210 (1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Proctor, R.W., Vu, K.L.: Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fitts, P.M., Deininger, R.L.: S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. J. of Exp. Psychol. 48, 483–492 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., Osman, A.: Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility–A model and taxonomy. Psychol. Rev. 97, 253–270 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morin, R.E., Grant, D.: Learning and performance on a key-pressing task as a function of the degree of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. J. of Exp. Psychol. 49, 39–47 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castaneda, A., Lipsitt, L.P.: Relation of stress and differential position habits to performance in motor learning. J. of Exp. Psychol. 57, 25–30 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castaneda, A.: Effects of stress on complex learning and performance. J. Exp. Psychol. 52, 9–12 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N. (eds.) (eds), pp. 139–183. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1988)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kim-Phuong L. Vu
    • 1
  • Audrey Rabas
    • 1
  • Richard Roberson
    • 1
  1. 1.California State University, Long BeachLong BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations