Advertisement

Proposal of New Paradigm for Hand and Foot Controls in the Context of Spatial Compatibility Effect

  • Alan H. S. Chan
  • Ken W. L. Chan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 5)

Many workstations make heavy use of the hands for primary control of a process. If some control tasks can be assigned to the feet, there would be an obvious benefit in having the hands free for other tasks that require a higher level of precision and dexterity. Spatial compatibility between displays and controls is a weighty determinant of performance. This paper proposes a research framework that aims to

  1. 1.

    Design and conduct a series of spatial compatibility experiments for measuring human subjects’ response preferences and choice reaction times at different con- figurations of displays and hand and foot controls.

     
  2. 2.

    Investigate the effect of interaction between hand and foot controls in such con- figurations.

     
  3. 3.

    Determine the optimum positional mappings of hand and foot controls with visual signals presented at different planes of displays.

     

The objective is progress toward an optimal human-machine interface design for improving overall system performance.

Keywords

Ergonomic design human–machine interface spatial compatibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Springer and C. Siebes (1996) Position controlled input device for handicapped: Experimen-tal studies with a footmouse. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 17: 135-152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    K.H.E Kroemer (1971) Foot operation of controls. Ergonomics, 14 (3): 333-361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.S. Sanders and E.J. McCormick (eds.) (1993) Human Factors in Engineering and Design (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Singapore.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K.H. Kroemer, H.B. Kroemer, and K.E. Kroemer-Elbert (2001) Ergonomics: How to design for ease and efficiency. Prentice Hall, NJ.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. Woodson, B. Tillman, and P. Tillman (1992) Human factors design handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H.J. Bullinger, J.E. Bandera, and W.F. Muntzinger (1991) Design, selection and location of foot controls. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 8 (4): 303-311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M.A. Van Veelen, C.J. Snijders, E. Van Leeuwen, R.H. Goossens, and G. Kazemier (2003) Improvement of foot pedals used during surgery based on new ergonomic guidelines. Surgical Endoscopy, 17 (7): 1086-1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Y.S. Cho and R.W. Proctor (2003) Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10 (1): 45-73.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A.H.S. Chan and K.W.L. Chan (2004) Design implications from spatial compatibility on paral-lel and orthogonal stimulus-response arrays. Asian Journal of Ergonomics, 5 (2): 111-129.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan H. S. Chan
    • 1
  • Ken W. L. Chan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Engineering ManagementCity University of Hong KongChina

Personalised recommendations