Advertisement

Comparison of Response to Visual and Auditory Digit Cues in Man–Machine System

  • Annie W. Y. Ng
  • Alan H. S. Chan
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 186)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper was to compare response time to visual and auditory digit cues in the context of man–machine system. The effects of age, gender, education level, time spent on computer in daily life, left/right finger, and choice alternative on response time were also examined. A total of 69 right-handed Chinese participants took part in the visual and auditory stimuli tests. The result showed that the auditory response time was significantly shorter than that for visual cues. For both visual and auditory cues, in general, the response time decreased with an increase of age up to the 21–30 years, and thereafter it increased gradually with an increase of age. Females were found to respond faster than males. The response of tertiary and secondary education groups was faster than that of primary education group. Besides, the longer the time spent on computer in daily life, the shorter was the response time. In addition, the right finger response time was shorter than the left finger response time. The response on single-choice task was the fastest, followed by two-choice task and then four- and eight-choice tasks. Implications of the results on the design of alerting cue and man–machine system were discussed. The findings of this study would act as a useful reference for engineers and designers to realize how the visual and auditory modality channels could interfere the users, so as to design a more user-friendly human–machine-interface.

Keywords

Response time Visual modality Auditory modality Digit cue Man–machine interface Human factors 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by a grant from the Research Grant Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. CityU 110306). The authors would like to thank Chan Wing Kin for his help in the data collection process of the experiment.

References

  1. 1.
    Takahashi H, Honda H (2012) A study on the possibility of applying subliminal visual cue for guiding subject’s attention. J Adv Comput Intell Intell Inf 16(1):96–107Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruck D, Thomas I (2009) Smoke alarms for sleeping adults who are hard-of-hearing: comparison of auditory, visual, and tactile signals. Ear Hear 30(1):73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    White TL, Kehring KL, Glumm MM (2009) Effects of unimodal and multimodal cues about threat locations on target acquisition and workload. Mil Psychol 21:497–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scott JJ, Gray R (2008) A comparison of tactile, visual, and auditory warnings for rear-end collision prevention in simulated driving. Hum Factors 50(2):264–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huang YC, Tsai CJ, Kuo JY, Wu FG (2011) The comparison of different sensory outputs on the driving overtake alarm system. In: Stephanidis C (ed) Universal Access in HCI, Part III, HCII 2011, LNCS 6767. Springer, Berlin, pp 290–297Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sanders AF (1975) The foreperiod effect revisited. Q J Exp Psychol 27:591–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krausman AS, Elliott LR, Redden ES, Petrov P (2005) Effects of visual, auditory, and tactile cues on army platoon leader decision making. In 10th international command and control research and technology symposium the future of C2Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baldwin CL, Eisert JL, Garcia A, Lewis B, Pratt SM, Gonzalez C (2012) Multimodal urgency coding: auditory, visual, and tactile parameters and their impact on perceived urgency. Work 41:3586–3591Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Health and Safety Executive (2001) Review of wrong helideck landings, status lights and signalling lamps. Offshore technology report 2000/067. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/otopdf/2000/oto00067.pdf
  10. 10.
    Hakkert AS, Gitelman V, Ben-Shabat E (2002) An evaluation of crosswalk warning systems: effects on pedestrian and vehicle behaviour. Transp Res Part F 5:275–292Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Inao K, Akita T, Koga T (2009) Effects of various visual and auditory information upon reaction time of direction judgment—a study on cognition of environmental information from the viewpoint of cross modal effect. J Asian Archit Build Eng 8(1):95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheng SY, Hsu HT, Shu CM (2008) Effects of control button arrangements on human response to auditory and visual signals. J Loss Prev Process Ind 21:299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith CAP, Clegg BA, Heggestad ED, Hopp-Levine PJ (2009) Interruption management: a comparison of auditory and tactile cues for both alerting and orienting. Int J Hum Comput Stud 67:777–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ristic J, Wrright A, Kingstone A (2006) The number line effect reflects top-down control. Psychon Bull Rev 13(5):862–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ng AWY, Chan AHS (2012) Finger response times to visual, auditory and tactile modality stimuli. In: Lecture notes in engineering and computer science: proceedings of the international multiconference of engineers and computer scientists 2012, IMECS 2012, 14–16 March, Hong Kong, pp 1449–1454Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Solanki J, Joshi N, Shah C, Mehta HB, Gokhle PA (2012) A study of correlation between auditory and visual reaction time in healthy adults. Int J Med Public Health 2(2):36–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sanders MS, McCormick EJ (1993) Human Factors in Engineering and Design. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 284–293Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hick WE (1952) On the rate of gain of information. Q J Exp Psychol 4:11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ashoke B, Shikha D, Sudarsan B (2010) Reaction time with respect to the nature of stimulus and age of male subjects. J Sport Health Res 2(1):35–40Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Han S, Gao X, Humphreys GW, Ge J (2008) Neural processing of threat cues in social environments. Hum Brain Mapp 29:945–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miller JO, Low K (2001) Motor processes in simple, go/no-go, and choice reaction time tasks: a psychophysiological analysis. J Exp Psychol 27(2):266–289Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bosma H, van Boxtel MPJ, Ponds RWHM, Houx PJH, Jolles J (2003) Education and age-related cognitive decline: the contribution of mental workload. Educ Gerontol 29:165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tun PA, Lachman ME (2008) Age differences in reaction time and attention in a national telephone sample of adults: education, sex, and task complexity matter. Dev Psychol 44(5):1421–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peters M, Ivanoff J (1999) Performance asymmetries in computer mouse control of right-handers, and left-handers with left- and right-handed mouse experience. J Mot Behav 31(1):86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Damon A, Stoudt HW, McFarland RA (1966) The human body in equipment design. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wojtys EM, Huston LJ (2000) Longitudinal effects of anterior cruciate ligament injury and patellar tendon autograft reconstruction on neuromuscular performance. Am J Sports Med 28(3):336–344Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kamitani T, Kuroiwa Y, Li M, Ikegami T, Matsubara S (2003) Relationship between cerebellar size and variation of reaction time during a visual cognitive task in normal subjects. J Neurol 250:1001–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shelton J, Kumar GP (2010) Comparison between auditory and visual simple reaction times. Neurosci Med 1:30–32Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brebner JMT, Welford AT (1980) Introduction: an historical background sketch. In: Welford AT (ed) Reaction times. Academic Press, London, pp 1–23Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Erp JBF (2002) Guidelines for the use of vibro-tactile displays in human computer interaction. In: Proceedings of eurohaptics 2002, Edinburgh, pp 18–22Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sugiura M, Kawashima R, Takahashi T, Xiao R, Tsukiura T, Sato K, Kawano K, Iijima T, Fukuda H (2001) Different distribution of the activated areas in the dorsal premotor cortex during visual and auditory reaction-time tasks. NeuroImage 14:1168–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chan AHS, Ng AWY (2009) Perceptions of implied hazard for visual and auditory alerting signals. Saf Sci 47:346–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Masakura Y, Nagai M, Kumada T (2006) Effective visual cue for guiding peoples’ attention to important information based on subjective and behavioral measures. In: Proceedings of the first international workshop on KanseiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering ManagementCity University of Hong KongKowloonHong Kong

Personalised recommendations