Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 45 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Human Factors

Compatibility Effects With Simple Lever Tools: A Replication and Extension Beyond Simple Button Responses

  • Valentin Koob1
  • Markus Janczyk1
  1. 1University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Read full textDOICite

Abstract

Objective: We examined how response–effect (RE), stimulus–response (SR), and stimulus–effect (SE) compatibility jointly influence performance in lever tool use, and test the robustness of previous results across different input modalities.

Background: According to the ideomotor principle, motor actions are selected via anticipating their effects. This becomes particularly relevant in tool use, where the relationship between hand movement and tool movement might be inverted. While various compatibilities are known to influence performance, their interactions remain poorly understood.

Method: We built upon work by Müsseler and Skottke (2011) using orthogonal manipulations of RE, SR, and SE compatibility. Across four experiments with student samples (2022–2024), we varied input modality (button presses, continuous sliders, touchless gestures) and lever rotation type (discrete vs. continuous) to assess the generalizability of the original findings.

Results: Müsseler and Skottke (2011) showed that the interaction of SR and SE compatibility depends on the RE compatibility condition. Consistent with this, we found that under RE compatible conditions, performance was improved when SR and SE compatibilities aligned. However, under RE incompatible conditions, the SR × SE interaction disappeared with button press responses (Experiments 1 and 2) or reversed with more continuous responses (Experiments 3 and 4).

Conclusion: These findings highlight the dynamic interplay of various compatibility relations for untrained participants, and that this interplay depends on, for example, the input device.

Application: Our results inform the design of human-tool interfaces by highlighting when aligning response–effect mappings benefits performance and when mismatches can alter or even reverse other compatibility relationships.

Related

  1. Registered Replication Report and Extension of Maas & Hox (2005), Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Models
    Joao F. Guassi Moreira, Jared Block, Alondra M. Cruz +2
    PsyArXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textGeneral biologyOSF
  2. Differential Effects of Task-Context and Stimulus-Category Changes on Recognition Memory: A Replication and Extension of Morse et al. (2023)
    Raju Pooja, Pritha Ghosh, Vishnu Sreekumar
    PsyArXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textNeuroscienceOSF
  3. Amygdala Persistence in Aging: Replication and Extension of Puccetti et al. (2021)
    Adam Turnbull, Meishan Ai, James J. Gross +1
    bioRxivPreprintCC BYFull textNeurosciencebioRxivPMC
  4. Registered Report: Replication and Extension of Nozaradan et al. (2011)
    Karli M. Nave, Erin E. Hannon, Joel S. Snyder +40
    Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological SciencePeer-reviewedCC BY-NC8 citedNeuroscienceOpenAlex
  5. Effect of exogenous interferons on rhinovirus replication and airway inflammatory responses
    T. M. Becker, S. R. Durrani, Y. A. Bochkov +3
    Annals of Allergy, Asthma and ImmunologyPeer-reviewedLicence not stated30 citedMicrobiologyHAL

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{koob2026compatibility,
  title = {{Compatibility Effects With Simple Lever Tools: A Replication and Extension Beyond Simple Button Responses}},
  author = {Valentin Koob and Markus Janczyk},
  journal = {Human Factors},
  year = {2026},
  month = jul,
  doi = {10.1177/00187208261463136},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208261463136},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Compatibility Effects With Simple Lever Tools: A Replication and Extension Beyond Simple Button Responses
AU  - Valentin Koob
AU  - Markus Janczyk
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/07/02
JO  - Human Factors
DO  - 10.1177/00187208261463136
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208261463136
AB  - Objective: We examined how response–effect (RE), stimulus–response (SR), and stimulus–effect (SE) compatibility jointly influence performance in lever tool use, and test the robustness of previous results across different input modalities.  Background: According to the ideomotor principle, motor actions are selected via anticipating their effects. This becomes particularly relevant in tool use, where the relationship between hand movement and tool movement might be inverted. While various compatibilities are known to influence performance, their interactions remain poorly understood.  Method: We built upon work by Müsseler and Skottke (2011) using orthogonal manipulations of RE, SR, and SE compatibility. Across four experiments with student samples (2022–2024), we varied input modality (button presses, continuous sliders, touchless gestures) and lever rotation type (discrete vs. continuous) to assess the generalizability of the original findings.  Results: Müsseler and Skottke (2011) showed that the interaction of SR and SE compatibility depends on the RE compatibility condition. Consistent with this, we found that under RE compatible conditions, performance was improved when SR and SE compatibilities aligned. However, under RE incompatible conditions, the SR × SE interaction disappeared with button press responses (Experiments 1 and 2) or reversed with more continuous responses (Experiments 3 and 4).  Conclusion: These findings highlight the dynamic interplay of various compatibility relations for untrained participants, and that this interplay depends on, for example, the input device.  Application: Our results inform the design of human-tool interfaces by highlighting when aligning response–effect mappings benefits performance and when mismatches can alter or even reverse other compatibility relationships.
SN  - 0018-7208
SN  - 1547-8181
ER  -