Principles for Designing Interfaces Compatible With Human Information Processing

REFERENCES

• Alluisi, E. A., & Warm, J. S. (1990). Things that go together: A review of stimulus-response compatibility and related effects. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus–response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 3–30). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Andre, A. D., & Wickens, C. D. (1990). Display-control compatibility in the cockpit: Guidelines for display layout analysis (Tech. Rep.). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
   Google Scholar
• Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response–discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayliss, A. P. (2007). Mixed signals: Stimulus–response compatibility and car indicator light configuration. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 669–676.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billinghurst, S, & Vu, K.-P. L. (2015). Touch screen gestures for Web browsing tasks. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 71–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boehm-Davis, D. A., Durso, F. T., & Lee, J. D. (Eds.). (2015). APA handbook of human systems integration. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Bogaerts, H., & Swinnen, S. P. (2001). Spatial interactions during bimanual coordination patterns: The effect of directional compatibility. Motor Control, 5, 183–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bragdon, A., Nelson, E., Li, Y., & Hinckley, K. (2011). Experimental analysis of touch-screen gesture designs in mobile environments. Proceedings of the CHI’11 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 403. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979000
   Google Scholar
• Brebner, J., Shephard, M., & Cairney, P. (1972). Spatial relationships and S–R compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 36, 1–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgess-Limerick, R., Horberry, T., & Steiner, L. (2014). Bow-tie analysis of a fatal underground coal mine collision. Ergonomics Australia, 10(2), 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Bury, K. F., Boyle, J. M., Evey, R. J., & Neal, A. S. (1982). Windowing versus scrolling on a visual display terminal. Human Factors, 24, 385–394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caroux, L., Le Bigot, L., & Vibert, N. (2011). Maximizing players’ anticipation by applying the proximity–compatibility principle to the design of video games. Human Factors, 53, 103–117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carswell, C. M., & Seidelman, W. (2015). Visuospatial displays: Design problems and principles. In D. A. Boehm-Davis, F. T. Durso, & J. D. Lee (Eds.), APA handbook of human systems integration (pp. 401–417). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Chan, A. H. S., & Hoffmann, E. R. (2010). Movement compatibility for frontal controls with displays located in four cardinal orientations. Ergonomics, 53, 1403–1419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, A. H. S., & Hoffmann, E. R. (2012). Movement compatibility for configurations of displays located in three cardinal orientations and ipsilateral, contralateral and overhead controls. Applied Ergonomics, 43, 128–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, A. H. S., & Hoffmann, E. R. (in press). Effect of display location on control-display stereotype strength for translational and rotational controls with linear displays, Ergonomics. doi:10.1080/00140139.2015.1051593
   Google Scholar
• Chen, J., & Proctor, R. W. (2013). Response–effect compatibility defines the natural scrolling direction. Human Factors, 55, 1112–1129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 215–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, D., & Proctor, R. W. (2010). The object-based Simon effect: Grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception, and Performance, 36, 853–861.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2007). When is an odd number not odd? Influence of task rule on the MARC effect for numeric classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 833–842.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, A. L., Bayer, U. C., Jaudas, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2008). Self-regulatory strategy and executive control: Implementation intentions modulate task switching and Simon task performance. Psychological Research, 72, 12–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couth, S., Gowen, E., & Poliakoff, E. (2014). Dissociating affordance and spatial compatibility effects using a pantomimed reaching action. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 855–864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Houwer, J., Crombez, G., Baeyens, F., & Hermans, D. (2001). On the generality of the affective Simon effect. Cognition & Emotion, 15, 189–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Houwer, J., & Eelen, P. (1998). An affective variant of the Simon paradigm. Cognition & Emotion, 12, 45–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013). The (not so) social Simon effect: A referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1248–1260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donders, F. C. (1969). On the speed of mental processes. Acta Psychologica, 30, 412–431. ( Original work published 1869)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dutta, A., & Proctor, R. W. (1992). Persistence of stimulus–response compatibility effects with extended practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 801–809.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eder, A. B., Rothermund, K., & Proctor, R. W. (2010). The prepared emotional reflex: Intentional preparation of automatic approach and avoidance tendencies as a means to regulate emotional responding. Emotion, 10, 593–598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finch, M. A., Phillips, J. G., & Meehan, J. W. (2008). Effects of compatibility and turning biases on arrowhead cursor placement in graphical user interfaces. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 372–387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, R. L. (1954). S–R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483–492.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S–R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199–210.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gao, Q., & Sun, Q. (2015). Examining the usability of touch screen gestures for older and younger adults. Human Factors, 57, 835–863.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, J. J. (1978). The ecological approach to the visual perception of pictures. Leonardo, 11, 227–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwald, A. G. (1972). On doing two things at once: Time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 52–57.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guiard, Y. (1983). The lateral coding of rotations: A study of the Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 15, 331–342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartley, A. A., Seaman, B., & Maquestiaux, F. (2015). Ideomotor-compatible tasks partially escape dual-task interference in both young and elderly adults. Psychology and Aging, 30, 36–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazeltine, E. (2005). Response–response compatibility during bimanual movements: Evidence for the conceptual coding of action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 682–688.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heuer, H. (1990). Rapid responses with the left or right hand: Response–response compatibility effects due to intermanual interactions. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus–response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 311–342). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, E. R. (1997). Strength of component principles determining direction of turn stereotypes-linear displays with rotary controls. Ergonomics, 40, 199–222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, E. R. (2009). Do paper-and-pencil tests give an accurate measure of stereotype strength? A review of available data. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39, 904–912.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, E. R. (2010). Naïve judgements of stimulus–response compatibility. Ergonomics, 53, 1061–1071.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, E. R., & Chan, A. H. S. (2013). The Worringham and Beringer ‘visual field’ principle for rotary controls. Ergonomics, 56, 1620–1624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, E. R., & Whitfield, R. C. (2011). The role of testing realism on experimentally obtained stereotype strength. Applied Ergonomics, 42, 379–383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollands, J. G. (2012). Towards a comprehensive framework for display compatibility. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting (pp. 1376–1380). Santa Monica, CA: HFES
   Google Scholar
• Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research, 73, 512–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel, B. (2011). Attention and spatial stimulus coding in the Simon task: A rejoinder to van der Lubbe and Abrahamse (2010). Acta Psychologica, 136, 265–268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel, B., & Lippa, Y. (1995). S–R compatibility effects due to context-dependent spatial stimulus coding. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 370–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurtienne, J., Stößel, C., & Weber, K. (2009). Sad is heavy and happy is light: Population stereotypes of tangible object attributes. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction ( pp. 61–68). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• John, B. E., & Newell, A. (1989). Cumulating the science of HCI: From S–R compatibility to transcription typing. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin (Vol. 20, No. SI, pp. 109–114). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Koch, I., & Kunde, W. (2002). Verbal response–effect compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1297–1303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility—A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kornblum, S., & Lee, J. (1995). Stimulus–response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 855–875.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krieglmeyer, R., De Houwer, J., & Deutsch, R. (2013). On the nature of automatically triggered approach–avoidance behavior. Emotion Review, 5, 280–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunde, W. (2001). Response–effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 387–394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunde, W., Müsseler, J., & Heuer, H. (2007). Spatial compatibility effects with tool use. Human Factors, 49, 661–670.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamberts, K., Tavernier, G., & d’Ydewalle, G. (1992). Effects of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus–response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 79, 115–130.
   Google Scholar
• Learmount, D., & Norris, G. (1990, 31 October–6 November). Lessons to be learned. Flight International, pp. 24–26.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, C.-F., & Tsai, W.-C. (2007). Mapping of user interfaces on electronic appliances. Applied Ergonomics, 38, 667–674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemmens, P. M., De Haan, A., Van Galen, G. P., & Meulenbroek, R. G. J. (2007a). Emotionally charged earcons reveal affective congruency effects. Ergonomics, 50, 2017–2025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemmens, P. C., De Haan, A., Van Galen, G. P., & Meulenbroek, R. J. (2007b). Stimulus–response compatibility and affective computing: A review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8, 583–600.
   Google Scholar
• Lien, M.-C., Gray, D., Jardin, E., & Proctor, R. W. (2014). Correspondence effects are modulated primarily by object location not grasping affordance. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 679–698.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus–response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 212–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W., & Allen, P. A. (2002). Ideomotor compatibility in the psychological refractory period effect: 29 years of oversimplification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 396–409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, C. H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukas, S., Brau, H., & Koch, I. (2010). Anticipatory movement compatibility for virtual reality interaction devices. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29, 165–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Switching attention between modalities: further evidence for visual dominance. Psychological Research, 74, 255–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2014). Crossmodal attention switching: Auditory dominance in temporal discrimination tasks. Acta Psychologica, 153, 139–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattes, S., Leuthold, H., & Ulrich, R. (2002). Stimulus–response compatibility in intensity–force relations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 55A, 1175–1191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauney, D., Howarth, J., Wirtanen, A., & Capra, M. (2010, April). Cultural similarities and differences in user-defined gestures for touchscreen user interfaces. In CHi’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4015–4020). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Meissner, F., & Rothermund, K. (2013). Estimating the contributions of associations and recoding in the Implicit Association Test: The ReAL model for the IAT. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 45–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meissner, F., & Rothermund, K. (2015). The Insect-Nonword IAT revisited: Dissociating between evaluative associations and recoding. Social Psychology, 46, 46–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaels, C. F. (1988). S–R compatibility between response position and destination of apparent motion: Evidence of the detection of affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 231–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, J. D., & Proctor, R. W. (2008). Improving performance through implementation intentions: Are preexisting response biases replaced? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1105–1110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, J. D., & Proctor, R. W. (2012). Correlations between spatial compatibility effects: Are arrows more like locations or words? Psychological Research, 76, 777–791.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, J. D., & Proctor, R. W. (2015). Attention is captured by distractors that uniquely correspond to controlled objects: An analysis of movement trajectories. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 819–829.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molesworth, B. C., & Chang, B. (2009). Predicting pilots’ risk-taking behavior through an implicit association test. Human Factors, 51, 845–857.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murchison, N. M., & Proctor, R. W. (2013). Spatial compatibility effects for unimanual and bimanual wheel-rotation responses: An homage to Guiard (1983). Journal of Motor Behavior, 45, 441–454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., Arning, K., & Proctor, R. W. (2009). Reversed effects of spatial compatibility in natural scenes. American Journal of Psychology, 122, 325–336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nacenta, M. A., Aliakseyeu, D., Stach, T., Subramanian, S., & Gutwin, C. (2007). Two experiments on co-located mobile groupware (HCI-USASK Tech. Rep.), 1.
   Google Scholar
• Nacenta, M. A., Gutwin, C., Aliakseyeu, D., & Subramanian, S. (2009). There and back again: Cross-display object movement in multi-display environments. Human–Computer Interaction, 24, 170–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neilson, P. D., & Neilson, M. D. (1980). Influence of control–display compatibility on tracking behaviour. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 125–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicoletti, R., Anzola, G. P., Luppino, G., Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà, C. (1982). Spatial compatibility effects on the same side of the body midline Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 664–673.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1984). Right–left prevalence in spatial compatibility. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 333–343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nishimura, A., & Yokosawa, K. (2006). Orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility effects emerge even when the stimulus position is task irrelevant. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1021–1032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Nuerk, H., Iversen, W., & Willmes, K. (2004). Notational modulation of the SNARC and the MARC (linguistic markedness of response codes) effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 57A, 835–863.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pappas, Z. (2014). Dissociating Simon and affordance compatibility effects: Silhouettes and photographs. Cognition, 133, 716–728.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne, S. J. (1995). Naive judgments of stimulus–response compatibility. Human Factors, 37, 495–506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peña, J., Hancock, J. T., & Merola, N. A. (2009). The priming effects of avatars in virtual settings. Communication Research, 36, 838–856
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira, A., Wachs, J. P., Park, K., & Rempel, D. (2015). A user-developed 3-D hand gesture set for human–computer interaction. Human Factors, 57, 607–621.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, J. R. (1965). Response–response compatibility effects in a two-hand pointing task. Human Factors, 7, 231–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, J. G., Meehan, J. W., & Triggs, T. J. (2003). Effects of cursor orientation and required precision on positioning movements on computer screens. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 15, 379–389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picard, R. W. (2003). Affective computing: challenges. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 59, 55–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pick, D. F., Specker, S., Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2014). Effects of face and inanimate-object contexts on stimulus–response compatibility. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 376–383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postman, L., & Murphy, G. (1943). The factor of attitude in associative memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 228–238.
   Google Scholar
• Prasad, S. M., Maniar, H. S., Soper, N. J., Damiano, R. J., & Klingensmith, M. E. (2002). The effect of robotic assistance on learning curves for basic laparoscopic skills. The American Journal of Surgery, 183, 702–707.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416–442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proctor, R. W., & Lu, C. H. (1999). Processing irrelevant location information: Practice and transfer effects in choice–reaction tasks. Memory & Cognition, 27, 63–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proctor, R. W., Marble, J. G., & Vu, K. P. L. (2000). Mixing incompatibly mapped location-relevant trials with location-irrelevant trials: Effects of stimulus mode on the reverse Simon effect. Psychological Research, 64, 11–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proctor, R. W., & Miles, J. D. (2014). Does the concept of affordance add anything to explanations of stimulus–response compatibility effects? In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 60, pp. 227–266). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (1999). Deconstructing Marilyn: Robust effects of face contexts on stimulus–response compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 27, 986–995.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2002). Mixing location-irrelevant and location-relevant trials: Influence of stimulus mode on spatial compatibility effects. Memory & Cognition, 30, 281–293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006a). The cognitive revolution at age 50: Has the promise of the human information-processing approach been fulfilled? International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 21, 253–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006b). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2009a). Determinants of the benefit for consistent stimulus-response mappings in dual-task performance of four-choice tasks. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 71, 734–756.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2009b). Determinants of the benefit for consistent stimulus–response mappings in dual-task performance of three-choice tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 1771–1781.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2009c). Task-defined associations are mode specific for selection of relevant dimension but mode independent for selection of mapping. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 371–392.
   Google Scholar
• Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2010). Universal and culture-specific effects of display-control compatibility. American Journal of Psychology, 123, 425–435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2012). Human information processing: An overview for human–computer interaction. In J. Jacko (Ed.), The human–computer interaction handbook (3rd ed., pp. 21–40). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Proctor, R. W., Vu, K.-P. L., & Pick, D. F. (2005). Aging and response selection in spatial choice tasks. Human Factors, 47, 250–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proctor, R. W., Yamaguchi, M., Zhang, Y., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2009). Influence of visual stimulus mode on transfer of acquired spatial associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 434–445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rakubutu, T., Gelderblom, H., & Cohen, J. (2014, September). Participatory design of touch gestures for informational search on a tablet device. In SAICSIT 2014: Proceedings of the Southern African Institute for Computer Scientist and Information Technologists Annual Conference 2014 ( pp. 276–285). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Ren, P., Nicholls, M. E., Ma, Y. Y., & Chen, L. (2011). Size matters: Non-numerical magnitude affects the spatial coding of response. PLoS One, 6(8), e23553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romaiguère, P., Hasbroucq, T., Possamaï, C., & Seal, J. (1993). Intensity to force translation: A new effect of stimulus–response compatibility revealed by analysis of response time and electromyographic activity of a prime mover. Cognitive Brain Research, 1, 197–201.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rothermund, K., Teige-Mocigemba, S., Gast, A., & Wentura, D. (2009). Minimizing the influence of recoding in the implicit association test: The recoding-free implicit association test (IAT–RF). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 84–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubichi, S., Vu, K.-P. L., Nicoletti, R., & Proctor, R. W. (2006). Spatial coding in two dimensions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 201–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rusconi, E., Kwan, B., Giordano, B. L., Umilta, C., & Butterworth, B. (2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: the SMARC effect. Cognition, 99, 113–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santens, S., & Gevers, W. (2008). The SNARC effect does not imply a mental number line. Cognition, 108, 263–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 943–974.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus–response compatibility: An integrated perspective ( pp. 31–86). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Small, A. M. (1990). Foreword. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus–response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. v–vi). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Stock, A., & Stock, C. (2004). A short history of ideo-motor action. Psychological Research, 68, 176–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stößel, C., Wandke, H., & Blessing, L. (2009). An evaluation of finger–gesture interaction on mobile devices for elderly users. Prospektive Gestaltung von Mensch-Technik-Interaktion, 8, 470–475.
   Google Scholar
• Tagliabue, M., Zorzi, M., Umiltà, C., & Bassignani, F. (2000). The role of long-term-memory and short-term-memory links in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 648–670.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theeuwes, M., Liefooghe, B., & De Houwer, J. (2014). Eliminating the Simon effect by instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1470–1480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Töbel, L., Hübner, R., & Stürmer, B. (2014). Suppression of irrelevant activation in the horizontal and vertical Simon task differs quantitatively not qualitatively. Acta Psychologica, 152, 47–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 830–846.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich, R., Schröter, H., Leuthold, H., & Birngruber, T. (2015). Automatic and controlled stimulus processing in conflict tasks: Superimposed diffusion processes and delta functions. Cognitive Psychology, 78, 148–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urakami, J. (2012). Developing and testing a human-based gesture vocabulary for tabletop systems. Human Factors 54, 636–653.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voss, A., Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2003). Estimating the valence of single stimuli: A new variant of the affective Simon task. Experimental Psychology, 50, 86–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2001). Determinants of right–left and top–bottom prevalence effects for two-dimensional spatial compatibility effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 813–828.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vu, K.-P. L, & Proctor, R. W. (2002). The prevalence effect for two-dimensional S–R compatibility is a function of the relative salience of the dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 815–828.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Naïve and experienced judgments of stimulus–response compatibility: Implications for interface design. Ergonomics, 46, 169–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: Elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 539–556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2006). Emergent perceptual features in the benefit of consistent stimulus–response mappings on dual-task performance. Psychological Research, 70, 468–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2008). Age differences in response selection for pure and mixed stimulus–response mappings and tasks. Acta Psychologica, 129, 49–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vu, K.-P. L., Rabas, A., & Roberson, R. (2009). The effects of practice and speed stress with different stimulus–response mappings. In M. J. Smith & G. Salvendy (Eds.), Human interface (Part I, LNCS 5617, pp. 709–717). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, R. J. (1971). S–R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354–360.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang, D.-Y, D., Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (2003). The Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35, 261–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickens, C. D., & Carswell, C. M. (1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors, 37, 473–494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickens, C. D., Vidulich, M., & Sandry-Garza, D. (1984). Principles of SCR compatibility with spatial and verbal tasks: The role of display–control location and voice-interactive display–control interfacing. Human Factors, 26, 533–543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wobbrock, J. O., Morris, M. R., & Wilson, A. D. (2009). User-defined gestures for surface computing. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1083–1092). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, G., Willmes, K., Nuerk, H. C., & Fischer, M. H. (2008). On the cognitive link between space and number: A meta-analysis of the SNARC effect. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 489–525.
   Google Scholar
• Worringham, C. J., & Beringer, D. B. (1989). Operator orientation and compatibility in visual–motor task performance. Ergonomics, 32, 387–399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worringham, C. J., & Beringer, D. B. (1998). Directional stimulus–response compatibility: A test of three alternative principles. Ergonomics, 41, 864–880.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiong, A., & Proctor, R. W. (in press). Decreasing auditory Simon effects across reaction-time distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xiong, A., & Proctor, R. W. (2015). Referential coding of steering-wheel button presses in a simulated driving cockpit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21, 418–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2006). Stimulus–response compatibility with pure and mixed mappings in a flight task environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 207–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2012). Multidimensional vector model of stimulus–response compatibility. Psychological Review, 119, 272–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2015). Perception and attention: A multidimensional approach to human performance modeling. In R. R. Hoffman, P. A. Hancock, M. W. Scerbo, R. Parasuraman, & J. L. Szalma, (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of applied perception research (Vol. 1, pp. 107–125). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, Y., & Proctor, R. W. (2008). Influence of intermixed emotion-relevant trials on the affective Simon effect. Experimental Psychology, 55, 409–416.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, Y., Proctor, R. W., & Wegner, D. T. (2012). Approach–avoidance actions or categorization? A matching account of reference valence effects in affective S–R compatibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 609–616.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zorzi, M., & Umiltà, C. (1995). A computational model of the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 58, 193–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zupanc, C. M., Burgess-Limerick, R. J., & Wallis, G. (2007). Performance consequences of alternating directional control–response compatibility: Evidence from a coal mine shuttle car simulator. Human Factors, 49, 628–636.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zupanc, C. M., Burgess-Limerick, R., & Wallis, G. (2015). Strategy influences directional control–response compatibility: Evidence from an underground coal mine shuttle car simulation. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 16, 1–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar