Cursor movements to targets labelled “stop”: a kinematic analysis

Abstract

The label ‘Stop’ potentially generates conflict—signifying important corrective action, or a warning not to touch. To examine potential conflict between an incongruent label (i.e. STOP) and an imperative command (i.e. MOVE!), 18 participants used a computer mouse to move a crosshair cursor to targets with superimposed labels. Trials systematically varied Imperative (blank or MOVE!), Label (+GO + or STOP) and movement Distance. Kinematic analyses examined response latency, movement duration and accuracy. Incongruent labels had little impact upon response latencies, but they affected cursor deceleration and the variability of cursor placement. Although reading is assumed to be obligatory, the impact of written labels is not immediate, instead affecting cursor deceleration. Indeed, responses to controls labelled STOP were less accurate than those labelled + GO+. As labelled interfaces can create error versus command confusions, enhancing the discriminability of controls to afford more obvious visible cues as to method of use is recommended.

Practitioner summary: Emergency stop and shutdown controls can cause response conflict as their labels signify both urgent corrective actions and ‘don’t touch’. Response conflict caused by confusing superimposed labels is resolved as cursors near the target control and may result in reduced movement accuracy. Prior warnings may influence resolution of response conflict.

Abbreviations: Hz: Hertz; M: Mean; ms: millisecond; mm: millimetre; S: second; SD: Standard Deviation; SE: Standard Error; USB: Universal Serial Bus

Keywords:

• Emergency shutdown
• response conflict
• labels
• Stroop effect
• cursor control

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge their intellectual debt to Professor Thomas J. Triggs (RIP) and the assistance of Melanie Finch.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).