Stimulus-Response Compatibility Principles¶
Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. L. (2006). Stimulus-Response Compatibility Principles: Data, Theory, and Application. CRC Press.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Simon Effect
- Its applied significance lies in human-factors and ergonomic design: controls placed spatially incongruent with the systems they operate impose a measurable and persistent performance cost — a finding that has influenced cockpit-instrument layout standards, industrial switch and panel design, and human-computer interaction guidelines for button and target placement
This sourceProctor and Vu's monograph on S-R compatibility, whose closing chapter is devoted to incorporating compatibility in design; it establishes the design relevance of the principle but not the specific cockpit, industrial-panel or HCI guideline lineages named here.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- Its applied significance lies in human-factors and ergonomic design: controls placed spatially incongruent with the systems they operate impose a measurable and persistent performance cost — a finding that has influenced cockpit-instrument layout standards, industrial switch and panel design, and human-computer interaction guidelines for button and target placement
- Stimulus–Response Compatibility
- . Not motor difficulty. Well-designed contrasts hold the executed response constant across correspondence conditions; the difference arises in selecting it, not in physically making it
This sourceProctor and Vu's monograph treats compatibility throughout as an effect on selection of action and response-selection efficiency, locating the cost at selection rather than at perception or execution.
SupportedVerified against the source
- . Not motor difficulty. Well-designed contrasts hold the executed response constant across correspondence conditions; the difference arises in selecting it, not in physically making it
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 1 supported, 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:79bc11a92b76 · see in the full table