Applied Ergonomics 43 (2012) 1016e1025

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Ergonomics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo

The effects of age on symbol comprehension in central rail hubs in Taiwan

Yung-Ching Liu*, Chin-Heng Ho
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Douliu, Yunlin 640, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of age and symbol design features on passengers’
Received 15 April 2011 comprehension of symbols and the performance of these symbols with regard to route guidance.
Accepted 15 February 2012 In the first experiment, 30 young participants and 30 elderly participants interpreted the meanings
and rated the features of 39 symbols. Researchers collected data on each subject’s comprehension time,
Keywords: comprehension score, and feature ratings for each symbol.
Age
In the second experiment, this study used a series of photos to simulate scenarios in which passengers
Comprehension of symbols
follow symbols to arrive at their destinations. The length of time each participant required to follow his/
Central rail hub
her route and his/her errors were recorded.
Older adults experienced greater difficulty in understanding particular symbols as compared to
younger adults. Familiarity was the feature most highly correlated with comprehension of symbols and
accuracy of semantic depiction was the best predictor of behavior in following routes.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The Taiwan High Speed Rail (THSR) was established in 2007 to
solve traffic problems in western Taiwan, and the Kaohsiung rapid
transit system was completed in 2008. Following the completion of
these two transportation systems, central rail hubs, which include
a railway station, a THSR station, and a rapid transit station, have
appeared in Taiwan. Many different people pass through these
stations for different purposes. For example, local residents in the
Kaohsiung rapid transit station may actually intend to take the train
or high speed rail, and tourists in the THSR or railway station may
intend to travel by rapid transit. Various systems of directional and
informational symbols are used in these hubs to guide passengers,
provide them with information, and help them identify directions
according to their travel intentions. However, not only are these
three systems of symbols in the central rail hubs different but many
symbols have been modified and new symbols have been added.
Because the symbols in these transportation hubs are not
standardized and some residents or foreign tourists may not have
seen these symbols before, comprehension of symbols in such hubs
is important for prospective users of transportation systems. It was
hypothesized that detailed investigation of the comprehension of
directional and informational symbols in central railway hubs was
an important need. When the tourists can’t understand the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ886 5 5342601; fax: þ886 5 5312073.
E-mail addresses: liuyc@yuntech.edu.tw, haochh1126@gmail.com (Y.-C. Liu).
symbols of the central rail hubs, they experience confusion and are
at a loss of what to do next. They are likely to feel even more lost in
central rail hubs, and can easily become more flustered. These
conditions could disrupt order and be a serious issue from a safety
perspective (Building Research Establishment for Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister, 2006).
The advantages of using symbols are: (a) symbols can quickly
communicate instructions; (b) use of symbols avoids problems
related to inadequate reading skills or linguistic unfamiliarity; and
(c) passengers may remember symbols better than they remember
text (Wogalter et al., 1997). Because symbols provide a language-
free method of communicating, they can potentially be under-
stood by diverse groups which vary in life experience and reading
ability. However, studies have proved that many symbols currently
in use are difficult to understand (Collins and Lerner, 1982; Davies
et al., 1998; Wolff and Wogalter, 1993; Lesch, 2003).
Picha et al. (1995, 1997) conducted multiple evaluations of
comprehension of different traffic symbols by more than 3000
drivers in Texas. They found that low comprehension levels existed
for several symbols. Paninti (1989) compared several alternative
symbols used to signify work zones, and found that symbols with
good physical resemblance to what they were meant to signify
were all well understood, even when the details of these symbols
were different. In contrast, when the intended message was diffi-
cult to convey symbolically, all proposed alternative symbols were
not clearly understood.
Measurement of symbol design is based on recognition rate.
McDougall et al. (1999) measured characteristics of symbols or

0003-6870/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2012.02.004
 Y.-C. Liu, C.-H. Ho / Applied Ergonomics 43 (2012) 1016e1025
icons according to features like familiarity, concreteness, simplicity,
meaningfulness, and accuracy of semantic depiction. Ng and Chan
(2007) also used these same features to investigate the guess-
ability of traffic symbols. These features have become central
concerns in research on symbols and icons (Ng and Chan, 2008,
2009; Chan and Ng, 2010). Familiarity indicates the frequency
with which icons have been encountered. Rosson (2002) also found
that familiarity improves comprehension, a conclusion similar to
that of Ben-Bassat and Shinar (2006). Concreteness indicates the
degree to which something is material and genuine. Icons or
symbols are concrete if they depict real objects, materials, or
people; otherwise, they are abstract. Symbols with concrete design
are more easily understood than those with ambiguous designs
(Wolff and Wogalter, 1993; Foster and Afzainia, 2005; Passini et al.,
2008; Rousek and Hallbeck, 2011). Symbols are regarded as
complex if they are intricate or depict a lot of detail, and simple if
they contain only few elements or details. Dewar (1999) noted that
complicated symbols are more difficult to comprehend compared
to simpler symbols. Meaningfulness refers to the degree of signif-
icance viewers attribute to icons and is seen as an important
characteristic of symbol design (Huang et al., 2002; Lin, 1992).
Accuracy of semantic depiction indicates how closely, accurately,
and comprehensively the design of the symbol represents what the
symbol is meant to signify.
Lesch (2008) suggested that positive symbol characteristics are
easy to understand, and that using positive symbol characteristics
is more effective in helping viewers to understand symbols as
compared to symbol comprehension training. Shinar et al. (2003)
found that ‘infrequent symbols are more likely to be mis-
comprehended and less likely to be correctly learned’ by drivers. It
was hypothesized that users identify symbols more easily if the
symbols are familiar to them. Another hypothesis of this study was
that because concrete symbols provide a direct visual aid to help
viewers comprehend the intended meaning of such depiction,
users comprehend concrete symbols better than they do abstract
symbols. It was expected that simple symbols to be easier to
identify than complex symbols because complex symbols have the
potential to confuse or complicate understanding (Bruyas et al.,
1998). The meaningfulness of a symbol refers to the ability of
a symbol to elicit attribution of meaning from users (Preece et al.,
1994), so researchers expected higher comprehension scores for
meaningful symbols. Higher ratings for accuracy of semantic
depiction indicated that symbols given such ratings were clearly
associated with the concepts they were meant to signify, and thus
should lead to higher comprehension scores. Young and Wogalter
(1990) indicated that users will better identify a symbol that
precisely communicates the semantic meaning.
Statistics show that 20% of the population in most developed
countries is older than 60, and that one third of the earth’s pop-
ulation will be over 60 years old by 2050 (United Nations
Population Division, 2009). In 2009, 2.45 million people (10.7% of
the population) in Taiwan were over 65 years old (Statistical
Yearbook of Interior, Taiwan, 2010), and the population of elderly
adults will only continue to increase. According to population
statistics forecast in the international database of the U.S. Census
Bureau, 12.3% of the population in Taiwan will be older than 65 in
2015. The 65 þ age group represents the fastest growing age group
in Taiwan (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).
Regarding the effect of aging, past studies have indicated that
the use of symbols may pose special problems for the elderly
(Collins and Lerner, 1982; Dewar et al., 1994; Easterby and Hakiel,
1981; Hancock et al., 1999; Jones, 1992; Lesch, 2003; Morrell
et al., 1990; Shinar et al., 2003; Zwaga and Boersema, 1983; Al-
Gadhi et al., 1994; Scialfa et al., 2008). Hancock et al. (1999) indi-
cated that aging is generally associated with a decline in various
1017
perceptual and cognitive abilitiesdfor example, vision and working
memory. However, Al-Madani and Al-Janahi (2002) found that the
differences between the different age groups showed that drivers
in the younger age group (16e24 years) comprehend significantly
less well than those in the older groups (35e44 and over 44 years).
Ng and Chan (2008) also indicated that the poor performance of
older subjects was not evident.
In related experimentation, Dewar et al. (1994) showed 85 color
slides of standard US symbol symbols to 480 volunteer licensed
drivers from the USA and Canada. Results showed that for 39% of
the symbols examined, the understanding of older drivers was
poorer than that of younger drivers. Regarding the remaining
symbols, no difference in comprehension with regard to age was
observed. Jones (1992) reported that a survey of older drivers in
Illinois also showed that older drivers failed to understand some
common traffic control signs. Shinar et al. (2003) evaluated levels of
comprehension of highway traffic symbols used in different
countries, and found that “older drivers tend to do less well at
symbol comprehension than other drivers, including novice drivers
and repeated violators”. Lesch (2003) examined the effectiveness of
three different training conditions to improve comprehension and
remembrance of warning symbols for younger (18e35 years old)
and older (50e67 years old) participants. Results showed that
although training improved participants’ accuracy and speed of
response on a comprehension test, the performance of older
participants was significantly poorer than that of younger partici-
pants, both before (37% vs. 52% of correct answers, respectively, in
the older and younger participant groups) and after training (68%
vs. 88% of correct answers on the immediate post-test). Older
participants also found it more difficult to reject incorrect meanings
(55% vs. 68% of correct answers). According to the abovementioned
research, the effects of aging significantly influence comprehension
of symbols, and the design of symbols in central rail hubs should
take elderly adults into account.
The aims of this study were as follows, and two experiments
were used to assess the objectives.
(1) To evaluate the comprehension of symbols in Taiwanese
central rail hubs by two user groups of different ages;
(2) To explore the correlation between symbol design features and
symbol comprehension;
(3) To examine the differences among participants’ symbol
comprehension performance with regard to various categories
of symbols
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Thirty older participants (20 males and 10 females) and thirty
younger participants (18 males and 12 females) were recruited to
participate in this study. The older participants ranged from 65 to
74 years old (average ¼ 67.6 years old), and the younger partici-
pants ranged from 23 to 30 years old (mean ¼ 26.5 years old).
Because the users of these central rail hubs in real life include local
residents and outside tourists and their demographic details reflect
diversity, one-third of the participants recruited for this study were
local residents and the others were from other places. All partici-
pants had never been to the central railway hub in Kaohsiung City,
Taiwan and had to pass a health screening examination which
tested vision (near sightedness, farsightedness, 18/20 vision or
better), and color blindness (ability to pass the Ishihara card color
blindness test) (Ishihara, 1993). Each participant was paid 10 US
dollars for participating in this study.
1018 Y.-C. Liu, C.-H. Ho / Applied Ergonomics 43 (2012) 1016e1025
2.2. Equipment
This study used a Nikon COOLPIX S3 (at 800  600 resolution) to
take the photographs. The objects in the images were modified
with Adobe Photoshop CS. A microcomputer (PC) was used to
control the stimulus presentation and the images were shown on
a 17 in. color monitor at a viewing distance of approximately 60 cm.
Flash software was used to develop the stimuli in both experiments
and record response time, and Microsoft PowerPoint was used to
display the symbols while participants evaluated the individual
features of each symbol.
2.3. Experiment 1: comprehension of symbols and evaluation of
symbol features
Thirty-nine directional symbols collected from the central rail
hub in Kaohsiung City, Taiwan were used in this study. The symbols
in central rail hubs collected in the study help passengers identify
directions and provide them with information, and were divided
into the symbols from the Taiwan High Speed Rail (THSR), Kaoh-
siung rapid transit, and railway stations. Five traffic signs used in
Taiwan were utilized for practice trials prior to testing participants
with the 39 symbols. Flash software was used to develop the
stimuli for symbol comprehension and record the length of
response time each participant required when identifying symbols.
All the symbols were shown in 7 cm  7 cm squares with no
boundaries and depicted at the centre of the computer screen using
Flash software. Participants viewed the symbols at a distance of
60 cm (subtending 6.67 ) from the screen. All participants pressed
the “Space” key to begin the trial, after which the symbols began to
appear on the screen. Participants were required to view and
conceptually grasp the symbol and then press the “Space” key again
to stop the display of stimuli. Verbal icons in Chinese to describe the
meaning of symbols were used, and the responses of participants
were recorded by a recorder. The responses of participants to each
symbol were classified into one of the following three categories
measuring accuracy: Correct and complete (coded as þ2), partially
correct (e.g. “car park No. 1”, instead of “car park”dcoded as þ1), or
incorrect (e.g. “tickets”, instead of “convenience store”dcoded as
0). Two researchers used this guide in scoring the comprehension
test, and the average comprehension score of each participant for
each symbol was calculated.
Additionally, participants filled out an evaluation sheet for
symbol features. This evaluation sheet allowed participants to rate
symbol features and was selected from the research of Ng and Chan
(2007). Participants were instructed about the rating instructions
and the meanings of the terms familiarity, concreteness, simplicity,
meaningfulness, and accuracy of semantic depiction, and three
additional symbols were provided to familiarize them with the
rating symbol feature at the beginning of the symbol feature
evaluation. Participants were asked to subjectively rate the famil-
iarity (0 ¼ very unfamiliar, 100 ¼ very familiar), concreteness
(0 ¼ clearly abstract, 100 ¼ clearly concrete), simplicity (0 ¼ very
complex, 100 ¼ very simple), meaningfulness (0 ¼ completely
meaningless, 100 ¼ completely meaningful), and accuracy of
semantic depiction (0 ¼ very weakly related, 100 ¼ very strongly
related) for each of the 39 symbols. These symbols were presented
on the computer screen using Microsoft PowerPoint.
2.4. Experiment 2: scenarios of following directional signs
This study also used a series of photos, taken from inside the
central railway hub in Kaohsiung City, to build various scenarios.
Flash software was used to simulate scenarios in which passengers
followed guide signs to arrive at arranged destinations. Participants
were the same as those in experiment 1 and were asked to imagine
that they were inside the central rail hub in Kaohsiung at the
beginning. Participants were provided with a verbal description of
the experiment procedure and invited to ask questions about the
experiment before signing a consent form. Three practice trials that
followed an introduction of the experiment were provided to the
participants to practice and become familiar with Experiment 2. In
each trail Participants were told to do something at the station (i.e.
buy a ticket) or use specific public facilities (i.e. car park, or toilet),
and then participants pressed the “Space” key to begin the trial and
searched for and followed directional signs in the photos. Partici-
pants controlled the direction of their routes using the up, down,
left, and right keys of the keyboard. If participants selected the
correct route from directional signs in a photo, then a photo with
related directional signs appeared on the screen; if the wrong route
was selected from the first photo, the photo that appeared would be
one without any symbols, thereby indicating to the participant that
he/she was lost, and he/she would then need to return to the first
photo and make another selection for the route to take. When
participants had responded with five continuously correct direc-
tional choices, the trial ended.
Thirty-nine directional route scenarios with guidance symbols
were developed using Flash software. The length of time each
participant spent to follow routes and the number of errors (wrong
direction) was recorded in each trial. The number of errors for
a particular trial meant the number of times participants selected
the wrong route.
2.5. Procedure
Within the first 15 min of the trial, participants completed
a consent form and undertook a health screening examination
consisting of a formal vision test and color blindness test. Before
commencement of the formal experiment, five traffic signs used in
Taiwan were used for practice trials. Each participant completed 39
symbol comprehension trials in random order. Next, participants
were given brief instructions for evaluating and rating symbol
features. Participants subjectively rated each symbol according to
familiarity, concreteness, simplicity, meaningfulness, and accuracy
of semantic depiction.
One week from Experiment 1, each participant was asked to
participate in Experiment 2, which involved various scenarios of
following directional signs or symbols. After being briefed about
this experiment and participating in five practice trials, participants
completed 39 trial scenarios in random order.
2.6. Data collection and analysis
Researchers collected data on each subject’s comprehension
time, comprehension score, and feature ratings for each symbol in
experiment 1; and the length of time each participant spent to
follow his/her route and the number of errors were recorded in
experiment 2. Data collected for this present study were analyzed
by means of four types of analyses. First, reliability analysis was
used to examine the internal consistency in measuring compre-
hension rates of the symbols’ features. The second kind of analysis
investigated some of the differences in symbol comprehension
among the 39 symbols. Cluster analysis was used to classify the
categories of symbol comprehension in this study, and Ward’s
method was used to conduct clustering. In order to examine the
effects of age, the third kind of analysis involved a series of T-tests to
assess variations in symbol comprehension and other elements of
performance as a function of age. The purpose of the fourth type of
analysis was to identify the correlation, among both elderly and
younger participants, between symbol comprehension and related
 Y.-C. Liu, C.-H. Ho / Applied Ergonomics 43 (2012) 1016e1025
Fig. 1. Process of testing symbol comprehension: (a) please press SPACE bar to start the experiment; (b) Viewing and comprehension of symbol; and (c) Verbal answer indicating
perceived meaning of symbol.
elements of performance and symbol features. Canonical correla-
tion analysis was utilized to examine the relationship between
symbol features and symbol comprehension performance.
3. Results
3.1. Categories of symbols
In experiment 1, the Standard Cronbach alpha of 0.929 reflected
a high internal consistency in the feature ratings for each symbol.
Experimental results showed significant differences among symbol
comprehension, with some symbols being fully understood by most
respondents, and others being either misunderstand or not fully
understood by 80% or more of the respondents in a fairly uniform
manner in both groups. However, the error patterns were not the
same for all symbols. In a very few cases, poorer comprehension
performance was due to partially correct answers; however, the
most common errors were due to unknown or misunderstood
meanings. For example, the symbol “Kaohsiung Rapid Transit”
( ) might be misunderstood as Kaohsiung Rail Train Station.
Cluster analysis methods were used to classify the categories of
symbol comprehension in this study, and Ward’s method of cluster
analysis was used to conduct clustering. The screen plot in Figs.1 and
2 was examined to determine the number of categories in this study.
The difference coefficient tended to level off after the first three
clusters; thus, this study set three cluster criterions.
The three categories of symbols examined were well-designed
symbols (optimal performance), poorly-designed symbols (gener-
ating longest response time and poorest comprehension scores), and
symbols easy to misunderstand (average response time but low
comprehension score, as well as significantly poorer scores on time
Fig. 2. Screen plot of cluster analysis. Screen plot was examined to determine the
number of categories. The difference coefficient tended to level off after the first three
clusters.
1019
required to follow routes and number of errors). The 39 symbols
included 26 well-designed symbols,10 poorly-designed symbols, and
3 easy to misunderstand symbols. Table 1 illustrates the performance
of participants in the three symbol categories. Table 2 presents
respective comprehension rates for each of the 39 symbols, and Fig. 3
shows the symbol features in each symbol category.
3.2. Differences between age groups with regard to symbol
comprehension performance and evaluation of features
According to the data scale, ManneWhitney U test which is
a nonparametric statistical measure was used to evaluate age
effects on comprehension scores, number of errors, and symbol
features in three symbol categories. Highly significant differences
were found in symbol comprehension and related elements of
performance between the two groups of participants.
The results of a classification of symbols into symbol compre-
hension categories based on participant performance were
different for each age group. Results indicated that the average
reaction time for symbol comprehension, average comprehension
score, average time required to follow routes, and average number
of errors (all p-value ＜0.05) were significantly different between
the two groups, and that the performance of older participants was
poorer than that of younger participants in three symbol compre-
hension categories. Regardless of any symbol comprehension
category, the responses of young participants were faster and more
accurate (Well-designed symbols: avg. response time ¼ 4.530 s,
avg. comprehension score ¼ 1.817; poorly-designed symbols: avg.
response time ¼ 7.343 s, avg. comprehension score ¼ 0.437; easy to
misunderstand symbols: avg. response time ¼ 6.167 s, avg.
comprehension score ¼ 0.48) regarding symbol comprehension,
and younger participants were also able to search for and deter-
mine the correct directional symbols more rapidly and smoothly
(Well-designed symbols: avg. time required to follow
routes ¼ 8.063 , avg. number of errors ¼ 0.096; poorly-designed
symbols: avg. time required to follow routes ¼ 10.181 s, avg.
number of errors ¼ 0.278; easy to misunderstand symbols: avg.
Table 1
Participant performance in the three symbol categories.
Symbol categories Avg. Avg. Avg. time required Avg. number
response comprehension to follow routes (s) of errors
time (s) score
Well-designed 6.222 1.708 9.688 0.257
Poorly-designed 10.671 0.306 12.487 1.171
Easy to 7.933 0.323 24.493 3.640
misunderstand
1020 Y.-C. Liu, C.-H. Ho / Applied Ergonomics 43 (2012) 1016e1025

Table 2
Respective comprehension rates for each of the 39 symbols.

Well-designed symbols Familiarity Concreteness Simplicity Meaningfulness Accuracy of semantic

depiction

Public telephone 95.08 87.25 92.17 97.58 92.92

Elevator 89 83.15 87.25 92.235 93.185

Toilet 98.92 97.085 96.585 97.75 98.08

Refreshments 88.58 72.75 80.75 86.085 74.335

Service counter 47.415 45.085 82.085 75.75 71.5

Bus stop 68.815 84.415 83.5 88.67 89.33

Car parking 95.5 94.915 95.415 95.92 96.25

High speed rail station 77 82.665 83.665 85.25 85.335

Nursery room 83.4 89.635 83.585 90.58 90.23

Rapid transit station 53.5 65.5 69.165 66.335 66.17

Elevator 87.22 88.985 88.75 95.665 92.08

Rail Train Station 74.17 82.415 83.415 86.58 89.165

Health Care Room 63.335 61.085 70.335 66.415 63.085

Toilet 94.915 93.25 93.5 93.33 95.415

Police 51.085 60.585 76.33 70.75 69.335

Elevator 91.4 91.33 92.33 93.65 92.98

First car park 85.92 88.75 93.5 91.58 94

High speed rail station 84.335 81 83.65 85.665 83.5

Taxi pickup area 92.47 87.25 94.965 94.715 94.165

Toilet 97.92 94.835 94.585 96.25 96

 Y.-C. Liu, C.-H. Ho / Applied Ergonomics 43 (2012) 1016e1025 1021

Table 2 (continued )

Well-designed symbols Familiarity Concreteness Simplicity Meaningfulness Accuracy of semantic

depiction

Breastfeeding room 84.315 91.465 91.33 93.415 92.715

Service counter 52.83 56.915 81.915 84.17 78.25

Motorcycle parking 94.15 96.15 95.15 95.985 97

Escalator 83.355 87.37 83.56 90.155 87.915

Disabled facility 84.845 88.725 94.94 92.04 89.57

Motorcycle parking 91.835 88.9 87 94.98 94.75

Poorly-designed symbols Familiarity Concreteness Simplicity Meaningfulness Accuracy of semantic

depiction

Shuttle services 29.665 38.67 63 45.835 33.5

Rest room 36.33 42.5 57.75 60.165 57.5

Ticket vending machine 33.335 45.585 56.42 54.17 53.665

Kiss and ride 42.835 64.08 66.415 72.415 69.25

Tickets 23.585 38.585 58.835 46.165 47.92

Car rental 34.665 35.165 62.5 42.25 46.335

Ticket barrier 32.5 53.75 69.9 63.415 64.58

MPS liaison section 30.915 50.75 75.5 72.83 68.585

Travel services 46.75 61.17 64.915 61.17 61.08

Ticket vending machine 42.5 55.565 68.635 70.4 67.235

Easy to misunderstand symbols Familiarity Concreteness Simplicity Meaningfulness Accuracy of semantic

depiction

Kaohsiung rapid transit 30 22.165 65.165 43.835 37.42

Rail train station 47.665 50.08 58.22 61.5 53.83

Platform 35.5 28.25 52.835 30.915 23.915

1022 Y.-C. Liu, C.-H. Ho / Applied Ergonomics 43 (2012) 1016e1025

Familiarity Table 5 illustrates the canonical loadings for the two significant
100 canonical functions associated with both data sets. Variables with
an absolute canonical loading value exceeding 0.5 indicate high
50 correlation between the variable and the canonical variable (c). The
Semanic distance Concreteness
canonical variate c1 explained 90.9% of the variance of all symbol
0
features, and the canonical variate c2 explained 5.6% of the variance
of all symbol features. Regarding symbol comprehension and
route-following performance, the canonical variate h1 explained
Meaningfulness Complexity
61.1% of the variance of all performances, and the canonical variate
h2 explained 26.0% of the variance of all performances. The two
redundancy coefficients of participant performance were 0.581 and
0.110, respectively. This indicates that the canonical variates c1, c2
Well-designed Bad-designed Misunderstood composed of symbol features explained almost 70% of the variance
of all performances.
Fig. 3. Radar diagram of the three symbol categories.
Regarding evaluation of symbol features, the five features of
familiarity, concreteness, simplicity, meaningfulness, and accuracy
time required to follow routes ¼ 18.397 s, avg. number of
of semantic depiction in the first canonical function were highly
errors ¼ 1.39) compared to older participants (Well-designed
positively correlated with canonical variate c1, and the canonical
symbols: avg. response time ¼ 7.914 s, avg. comprehension
loadings were 0.992, 0.952, 0.950, 0.942, and 0.930, respectively. In
score ¼ 1.599, avg. time required to follow route ¼ 11.312 s, and avg.
the second canonical function, accuracy of semantic depiction was
number of errors ¼ 0.418; poorly-designed symbols: avg. response
negatively correlated with canonical variate c2, and the canonical
time ¼ 13.998 s, avg. comprehension score ¼ 0.176, avg. time
loading was 0.561.
required to follow route ¼ 14.793 s, and avg. number of
Regarding symbol comprehension performance, in the first
errors ¼ 2.063; easy to misunderstand symbols: avg. response
canonical function, average response time, average comprehension
time ¼ 9.7 s, avg. comprehension score ¼ 0.167, avg. time required
score, average time required to follow routes, and average number
to follow route ¼ 30.59 s, and avg. number of errors ¼ 5.89).
of errors were either highly positively or negatively correlated with
However, the ratio of older to younger participants implied the
the canonical variate h1, and the canonical loadings were 0.764,
performances of older participants decreased more greatly than
0.987, 0.599, and 0.726, respectively. In the second canonical
those of younger ones in the “poorly-designed” symbol category,
function, only time required to follow routes and number of errors
and comprehension scores of the older participants declined more
were highly positively correlated with canonical variate h2, the
greatly than those of the younger participants in the “easy to
canonical loadings were 0.800 and 0.592, respectively.
misunderstand” symbol category, as shown in Table 3. The results
The results of canonical correlation analysis indicated a higher
also show the differences in comprehension performance between
evaluation of symbol features, thus implying better participant
the two groups significantly influenced time required to follow
performance, especially in terms of symbol comprehension scores.
routes in the “easy to misunderstand” symbol category.
Familiarity had the highest correlation with symbol comprehension
Regarding symbol features, this study used ManneWhitney U
performance. This result implies designing symbols that users are
test to examine the age effect, and the different symbol categories
familiar with, which would help users in comprehending these
also showed differences in evaluation of symbol features between
symbols promptly. Additionally, lower scores in terms of accuracy
the two participant groups (Table 4). In the “well-designed” symbol
of semantic depiction resulted in increased time required to follow
category, the differences in each features evaluation between the
routes and a higher number of errors. This result implies that users
two groups were not highly significant, and no significant differ-
would likely be lost in central rail hubs due to lower accuracy of
ence appeared in familiarity and accuracy of semantic depiction.
semantic depiction for symbols in genuine circumstances. The
However, older participants reported less familiarity than young
designers should try to design symbols that users are familiar with
participants in the categories of “poorly-designed” (U ¼ 283.00, p-
and, in particular, have a higher accuracy of semantic depiction.
value ¼ 0.013) and “easy to misunderstand” symbols (U ¼ 202.50,
p-value ¼ 0.000). Older participants reported less accuracy of
semantic depiction than young participants in the category of 4. Discussion and conclusions
“poorly-designed” symbols as well (U ¼ 256.50, p-value ¼ 0.004).
The cluster analysis method was applied to classify symbols into
3.3. Correlation between symbol features and symbol symbol comprehension categories. Results indicated that 33.33% of
comprehension performance directional symbols in central railway hubs were difficult to
comprehend or easy to misunderstand for both older and younger
Canonical correlation analysis was utilized to examine the adults. Average response time for poorly-designed symbols was
relationship between symbol features and symbol comprehension longer than that for easy to misunderstand symbols. However, easy
performance. Results of the analysis are shown in Table 5. to misunderstand symbols resulted in increased time required to

Table 3
Symbol comprehension performance in three categories between two age groups.

Well-designed symbols Poorly-designed symbols Easy to misunderstand symbols

Older Younger Ratioa Older Younger Ratio Older Younger Ratio

Avg. response time (s) 7.914 4.530 1.747 13.998 7.343 1.906 9.7 6.167 1.573
Avg. comprehension score 1.599 1.817 0.880 0.176 0.437 0.402 0.167 0.48 0.347
Avg. time required to follow route(s) 11.312 8.063 1.403 14.793 10.181 1.453 30.59 18.397 1.663
Avg. number of errors 0.418 0.096 4.352 2.063 0.278 7.421 5.89 1.39 4.237
a
Ratio ¼ performance of older participant group/performance of younger participant group.
 Y.-C. Liu, C.-H. Ho / Applied Ergonomics 43 (2012) 1016e1025 1023

Table 4
Evaluation of symbol features in three symbol categories between two age groups by ManneWhitney test.

Familiarity Concreteness Simplicity Meaningfulness Accuracy of semantic

depiction
Well designed Older 81.827 80.263 88.750 90.468 87.807
Younger 80.581 84.465 85.052 86.571 86.598
p-value 0.539 0.041 0.016 0.001 0.327
Poorly-designed Older 29.216 47.284 70.05 67.233 60.1
Younger 41.4 49.88 58.724 50.53 53.83
p-value 0.013 0.307 0.000 0.000 0.004
Easy to misunderstand Older 29.22 28.5 60.223 47.887 36.443
Younger 46.223 38.497 57.257 42.947 40.333
p-value 0.000 0.038 0.730 0.123 0.219

follow routes and number of errors as compared to poorly-designed
symbols. These results indicated that tourists are more confused by
easy to misunderstand symbols than poorly-designed symbols in
central railway hubs, and this could cause them to get lost.
The three easy to misunderstand symbols indicated Kaohsiung
Rapid Transit ( ), a platform at a high speed rail station (
and direction of the rail train ( ). In genuine circumstances, the
symbol ( ) is arranged with “platform” in Chinese words inside
central rail hubs, and most passengers could arrive to platform
successfully. However, the foreign tourists and few older passen-
gers don’t understand the meaning in Chinese words, so this
symbol is misunderstood easily. Personnel in related railway
departments should consider modifying the symbol to be the
symbol with concrete platform. When meeting Kaohsiung Rapid
Transit ( ), most participants imagined Kaohsiung rail train
station, rather than Kaohsiung Rapid Transit. The results showed
most participants were more familiar with Kaohsiung Rail Train
Station than Kaohsiung Rapid Transit. They also misunderstood the
meaning of the rail train station’s logo ( ) to other meanings
(e.g. office etc.). The phenomenon implied corporate identities of
both transportation systems needed to be strengthened. The idea of
a corporate identity integrates the look and feel of designs and
communications, along with the corporation’s behavior, including
logos, corporate colors, uniforms etc. It is an easily recognizable
sign because of an increased sense of familiarity due to a well-
designed corporation’s logo (Gregg, 2003). The result showed that
the corporate logos of both transportation systems were not clear
enough to make users familiar. Signs in related transportation
systems need to be strengthened by the corporate identity, to fit the
architecture, spaces and interiors of the institution, henceforth
tourists and passengers will be more familiar with the symbols.
Past research has indicated that many symbols are poorly
understood and may pose particular difficulty to the elderly (Collins
and Lerner, 1982; Dewar et al., 1994; Easterby and Hakiel, 1981;
Hancock et al., 1999; Jones, 1992; Lesch, 2003; Morrell et al., 1990;
),
Shinar et al., 2003; Zwaga and Boersema, 1983; Al-Gadhi et al.,
1994). This study provided additional evidence that older adults
experience greater difficulty in understanding particular symbols
as compared to younger adults and that older adults as a group
merit particular attention in symbol design.
Older participants performed much more poorly than younger
participants, obtaining a comprehension score of only 1.0248 in
symbols comprehension as compared to the comprehension score
of 1.4607 obtained by younger participants. The older participants
possibly preferred to restrict themselves to familiar environments
and thus were unfamiliar with these directional symbols from
central railway hubs. Some of the symbols are also likely to be used
for the first time today, so the elderly participants had never
learned them. This supposition is supported by the findings of
Lajunen et al. (1996) which indicated that traffic signs introduced
after elderly drivers obtained their licenses were less familiar to
them than previously existing signs.
Previous studies have also found that older adults have
reduced visual processing speed and visual attention (Batchelder
et al., 2004; Caird et al., 2005; Ho et al., 2001). The findings of
experiment 2 were consistent with those of previous studies
which indicated that older passengers required more time to
arrive at arranged destinations. Older participants often spent
more time to search directional signs in the photos than younger
participants, and were dull for a few seconds by getting lost.
Furthermore, older participants’ physiological movements were
slowed down by age. The results obviously showed poor visual

Table 5
Canonical correlation analysis results.

Independent variable Canonical loadings Dependent variable Canonical loadings

c1 c2 c3 c4 h1 h2 h3 h4
Familiarity 0.992a 0.087 0.007 0.019 Avg. response time 0.764a 0.223 0.601 0.074
Concreteness 0.952a 0.185 0.172 0.051 Avg. score of comprehension 0.987a 0.012 0.150 0.060
Simplicity 0.950a 0.169 0.043 0.106 Avg. time required to follow routes 0.599a 0.800a 0.004 0.016
Meaningfulness 0.942a 0.279 0.012 0.176 Avg. number of errors 0.726a 0.592a 0.141 0.319
Accuracy of semantic depiction 0.930a 0.561a 0.029 0.054
Proportion of variance 90.9 5.6 0.7 1.0 Proportion of variance % 61.1 26.0 10.1 2.8
Redundancy coefficient 0.864 0.024 0.000 0.000 Redundancy coefficient 0.581 0.110 0.003 0.000

Canonical Correlation rib 0.975 0.650 0.183 0.070

Eigenvalue rib 0.951 0.423 0.033 0.004
Significant p 0.000 0.040 0.972 0.921
a
Absolute value of canonical loadings >0.5.
b
ri is the index of canonical correlation. i ¼ 1,2,3,4.
1024 Y.-C. Liu, C.-H. Ho / Applied Ergonomics 43 (2012) 1016e1025
searching ability, longer information processing time, and
motoric slowing have led to slower destination arrival time for
older adults. Results also indicated that well-designed symbols
improved information processing ability and time required to
follow routes, particularly for older participants. Older partici-
pants rated lower familiarity and lower accuracy of semantic
depiction as being greater challenges than younger participants
in the categories of “poorly-designed” and “easy to misunder-
stand” symbols. This result indicates that practitioners in their
application of ergonomic principles and practices pay attention to
familiarity and accuracy of semantic depiction of elderly-friendly
symbols when designing.
Canonical correlation analysis demonstrated that higher ratings
of symbol features implied better symbol comprehension and
performance in following routes. Lower ratings of accuracy of
semantic depiction resulted in increased time required to follow
routes and number of errors. Canonical correlation analysis
explained almost 70% of variance among the features of familiarity,
concreteness, simplicity, meaningfulness, and accuracy of semantic
depiction. All five features were highly positively correlated (all
correlations >0.9) with canonical variates. Past research has indi-
cated that familiarity, concreteness, simplicity, meaningfulness,
and accuracy of semantic depiction affect comprehension and
guessability of symbols (Lin, 1992; Wolff and Wogalter, 1993;
Dewar, 1999; McDougall et al., 1999; Huang et al., 2002; Rosson,
2002; Ben-Bassat and Shinar, 2006; Ng and Chan, 2007; Passini
et al., 2008). This study also showed that the five symbol features
significantly influence comprehension of symbols and performance
in following routes. Symbol comprehension score, in particular, was
significantly influenced by these features (correlation ¼ 0.987), and
this provided additional evidence to support the above-described
outcome, which is of considerable concern to research on
symbols and icons.
Familiarity had the highest correlation with symbol compre-
hension performance (response time and comprehension scores),
which was similar to the result of past studies (Rosson, 2002; Ben-
Bassat and Shinar, 2006). This result implies that designers should
try to design symbols that users are familiar with, which would
assist users in comprehending these symbols promptly. Familiar
aspects of daily life are combined into new symbols. For instance,
the symbol of a public telephone ( ) and a refreshment (
show usage of common appliances as icon representations.
Furthermore, standardized symbol provided an advantage in terms
of increasing users’ familiarity as well (i.e the symbol for toilet,
). Familiar aspects and standard of symbolic representations
both help to build and maintain a user’s mental model of symbolic
comprehension. To reflect genuine circumstances, this study
simulated the central railway hub in Kaohsiung City, Taiwan, and
found that accuracy of semantic depiction was the best predictor of
behavior in following routes for both older and younger adults. This
confirmed the findings of McDougall et al. (2001): accuracy of
semantic depiction is more significant than concreteness in eval-
uation of icon effectiveness. Ng and Chan (2007) also indicated that
accuracy of semantic depiction is a better guessability of traffic
symbols compared to other symbol features.
To improve poor comprehension of certain symbols and the
reduced efficiency of these symbols in route guidance, symbol
comprehension training or promotion is effective in enhancing
comprehension of directional symbols. TV advertisements or
programs, newspaper inserts and introduction in network are
useful training and promotion methods. Promotion in clubs of
senior citizens may bring an outstanding benefit for older adults in
Taiwan because older adults are used to gathering in such clubs.
The design of directional and informational signs involves the
concept of repetitive reinforcement. Signs designed with both text
descriptions and icons/pictures would improve user recognition
ability (Wiseman et al., 1985) and significantly enhance user
comprehension (Wolff and Wogalter, 1998; Scialfa et al., 2008). In
addition, the findings of this study provide beneficial recommen-
dations to design new interactive signs. An interactive sign such as
a warning sign is a sign that reacts to the behavior of users and
presents a corresponding meaning. The designers should use
a familiar component in real life as a principal element of an
interactive sign, and consider the semantic distance between
symbol and meaning. This would lead to users comprehending the
meaning of the interactive sign clearly and responding rapidly
when they encounter it.
In conclusion, this study demonstrated that age and symbol
features are factors of influence in effective communication
through symbols in public transportation systems. We suggest that
training in symbol comprehension or material articulating symbol
meaning be provided to residents or tourists, especially older
adults. This would improve the usefulness of these symbols and
satisfaction rate of passengers regarding the use of such icons, as
well as avoid wasted time due to misunderstanding of confusion of
symbol meaning.
References
Al-Gadhi, S.A., Naqvi, S.A., Abdul-Jabbar, A.S., 1994. Driver factors affecting traffic
sign detection and recall. Transp. Res. Rec. 1464, 36e41.
Al-Madani, H., Al-Janahi, A.R., 2002. Assessment of drivers’ comprehension of traffic
signs based on their traffic, personal and social characteristics. Transp. Res. Part
F 5, 63e76.
Batchelder, S., Rizzo, M., Vanderleest, R., Vecera, S., 2004. Traffic scene related
change blindness in older drivers. In: Proceedings of the Second International
driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and
Vehicle Design.
Ben-Bassat, T., Shinar, D., 2006. Ergonomic guidelines for traffic symbol design to
increase symbol comprehension. Hum. Factors 48, 182e195.
Bruyas, M.P., Le Breton, B., Pauzié, A., 1998. Ergonomic guidelines for the design of
pictorial information. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 21, 407e413.
Building Research Establishment for Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2006.
Final Report for Signage and Wayfinding for People with Learning Difficulties.
Retrieved February 10, 2012, from: http://www.communities.gov.uk/
documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/144248.pdf.
Caird, J.K., Edwards, C.J., Creaser, J.I., Horrey, W.J., 2005. Older driver failures of
) attention at intersections: using change blindness methods to assess turn
decision accuracy. Hum. Factors 47, 235e249.
Collins, B.L., Lerner, N.D., 1982. Assessment of fire-safety symbols. Hum. Factors 24,
75e84.
Chan, A.H.S., Ng, A.W.Y., 2010. Investigation of guessability of industrial safety signs:
effects of prospective-user factors and cognitive sign features. Int. J. Ind. Ergon.
40, 689e697.
Davies, S., Haines, H., Norris, B., Wilson, J.R., 1998. Safety pictograms: are they
getting the message across? Appl. Ergon. 29 (1), 15e23.
Dewar, R.E., Kline, D.W., Swanson, H.A., 1994. Age differences in comprehension of
traffic symbol symbols. Transp. Res. Rec. 1456, 1e10.
Dewar, R., 1999. Design and evaluation of public information symbols. In:
Zwaga, H.J.G., Boersema, T., Hoonhout, H.C.M. (Eds.), Visual Information for
Everyday Use: Design and Research Perspectives. Taylor & Francis, London,
pp. 285e303.
Easterby, R.S., Hakiel, S.R., 1981. Field testing of consumer safety symbols: the
comprehension of pictorially presented messages. Appl. Ergon. 12, 143e152.
Foster, J.J., Afzainia, M.R., 2005. International assessment of judged symbol
comprehensibility. Int. J. Psychol. 40 (3), 169e175.
Gregg, B., 2003. UTS Sign Standards. Retrieved February 10, 2012, from: http://
www.fmu.uts.edu.au/for/consultants/docs/UTSSignStandards.pdf.
Hancock, H.E., Rogers, W.A., Fisk, A.D., 1999. Understanding age-related differences
in the perception and comprehension of symbolic warning information. In:
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual
Meeting. Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 617e621.
Ho, G., Scialfa, C.T., Caird, J.K., Graw, T., 2001. Visual search for traffic symbols: the
effects of clutter, luminance, and aging. Hum. Factors 43 (2), 194e207.
Huang, S.M., Shieh, K.K., Chi, C.F., 2002. Factors affecting the design of computer
icons. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 29, 211e218.
Ishihara, S., 1993. Ishihara’s Test for Colour-Blindness. Kanehara, Tokyo.
Jones, R.W., 1992. Older drivers say... Stop symbols of confusion. Traffic Saf. 11 (6),
6e9.
 Y.-C. Liu, C.-H. Ho / Applied Ergonomics 43 (2012) 1016e1025
Lajunen, T., Hakkarainen, P., Summala, H., 1996. Ergonomics of road symbols:
explicit and embedded speed limits. Ergonomics 39, 1069e1083.
Lesch, M.F., 2003. Comprehension and memory for warning symbols: age-related
differences and impact of training. J. Saf. Res. 34, 495e505.
Lesch, M.F., 2008. A comparison of two training methods for improving warning
symbol comprehension. Appl. Ergon. 39, 135e143.
Lin, R., 1992. An application of the semantic differential to icon design. In:
Proceeding of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica,
CA, pp. 336e340.
McDougall, S.J.P., Curry, M.B., de Bruijn, O., 1999. Measuring symbol and icon
characteristics: norms for concreteness, simplicity, meaningfulness, familiarity,
and semantic distance for 239 symbols. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput.
31 (3), 487e519.
McDougall, S.J.P., Curry, M., de Bruijn, O., 2001. The effects of visual information on
users’ mental models: an evaluation of pathfinder analysis as a measure of icon
usability. Int. J. Cogn. Ergon. 5 (1), 59e84.
Morrell, R.W., Park, D.C., Poon, L.W., 1990. Effects of labeling techniques on memory
and comprehension of prescription information in young and old adults.
J. Gerontol. 45, 166e172.
Ng, A.W.Y., Chan, A.H.S., 2007. The guessability of traffic symbols: effects of
prospective-user factors and symbol design features. Accid. Anal. Prev. 39,
1245e1257.
Ng, A.W.Y., Chan, A.H.S., 2008. The effects of driver factors and sign design features
on the comprehensibility of traffic signs. J. Saf. Res. 39, 321e328.
Ng, A.W.Y., Chan, A.H.S., 2009. What makes an icon effective? In: Ao, S.I., et al. (Eds.),
IAENG Transactions on Engineering Technologies Special Edition of the Inter-
national Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists 2008, vol. I.
American Institute of Physics Press, pp. 104e114.
Paninti, J.F., 1989. Redesign and evaluation of selected work zone symbol symbols.
Transp. Res. Rec. 1213, 47e55.
Passini, S., Strazzari, F., Borghi, A., 2008. Icon-function relationship in toolbar icons.
Displays 29 (5), 521e525.
Picha, D.L., Hawkins Jr., H.G., Womack, K.N., 1995. Motorist Understanding of
Alternative Designs for Traffic Symbols. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas
1025
A&M University, College Station, TX. Final Report to the Federal Highway
Administration.
Picha, D.L., Hawkins Jr., H.G., Womack, K.N., Rhodes, L.R., 1997. Driver understanding
of alternative traffic symbols. Transp. Res. Rec. 1605, 8e16.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Beryon, D., Holland, S., Carey, T., 1994. Human-
computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley Press, England, pp. 99e122.
Rosson, M.B., 2002. Usability Engineering: Scenario-Based Development of Human-
Computer Interaction. Academic Press, San Francisco, pp. 119e125.
Rousek, J.B., Hallbeck, M.S., 2011. Improving and analyzing signage within
a healthcare setting. Appl. Ergon. 42, 771e784.
Scialfa, C., Spadafora, P., Klein, M., Lesnik, A., Dial, L., Heinrich, A., 2008. Iconic
signcomprehension in older adults: the role of cognitive impairment and text
enhancement. Can. J. Aging 27 (3), 253e265.
Shinar, D., Dewar, R.E., Summala, H., Zakowska, L., 2003. Traffic symbol compre-
hension: a cross-cultural study. Ergonomics 46 (15), 1549e1565.
Statistical Yearbook of Interior, 2010. The Ministry of Interior, Taiwan. Retrieved
September 20, 2010, from: http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/year/y02-01.xls.
United Nations Population Division, 2009. World Population Aging 2009. United
Nations, New York.
U.S. Census Bureau, International Data Base, 2010. Retrieved September 21, 2010,
from: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/excel_output.php?Taiwan.
Wiseman, S., Macleod, C.M., Lootsteen, P.J., 1985. Picture recognition improves with
Subsequent verbal information. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 11, 588e595.
Wogalter, M.S., Sojourner, R.J., Brelsford, J.W., 1997. Comprehension and retention of
safety pictorials. Ergonomics 40, 531e542.
Wolff, J.S., Wogalter, M.S., 1993. Test and development of pharmaceutical pictorials.
In: Proceedings of Interface ’93, Santa Monica, CA. Human Factors and Ergo-
nomics Society, pp. 187e192.
Wolff, J.S., Wogalter, M.S., 1998. Comprehension of pictorial symbol: effects of
context and test method. Hum. Factors 40, 173e186.
Young, S.L., Wogalter, M.S., 1990. Comprehension and memory of instruction manual
warnings: conspicuous print and pictorial icons. Hum. Factors 32, 637e649.
Zwaga, H.J., Boersema, T., 1983. Evaluation of a set of graphic symbols. Appl. Ergon.
14, 43e54.