The training effect on typing on two alternative keyboards

Fagarasanu, Mircea; Kumar, Shrawan; Narayan, Yogesh

doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2004.12.001

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some studies reported that typing speed on the split fixed-angle keyboard was within 10% of standard after 8 hr of training (Fagarasanu et al, 2005) and 11% after 10 hr of training (Zecevic et al, 2000). There are some methodological differences between the current and previous studies that may account for these differences (e.g., duration of the typing trials, pool of participants, nature of the typing task).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 48%

“…Participants were required to be able to type at least 25 wpm on the conventional QWERTY keyboard (Fagarasanu et al, 2005;Szeto & Ng, 2000). The average typing speed of the participants on the conventional QWERTY keyboard was 63 wpm (standard deviation 14.6; range 30 to 83), and all used a keyboard regularly.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of studies have attempted to quantify this productivity impact and how, in the short term, it changes as a person becomes more proficient with the new keyboard (e.g., Chen et al, 1994;Fagarasanu, Kumar, & Narayan, 2005;Gerard, Jones, & Wang, 1994;Smith & Cronin, 1993;Swanson, Galinsky, Cole, Pan, & Sauter, 1997;Zecevic, Miller, & Harburn, 2000). Zecevic et al (2000) evaluated the performance of 16 experienced computer users with a split fixedangle keyboard and showed that after 10 hr of use, participants' typing speed was at about 90% of their speed with the conventional QWERTY design.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Analysis of Alternative Keyboards Using Learning Curves

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To quantify learning percentages for alternative keyboards (chord, contoured split, Dvorak, and split fixed angle) and understand how physical, cognitive, and perceptual demand affect learning. Background: Alternative keyboards have been shown to offer ergonomic benefits over the conventional, single-plane QWERTY keyboard design, but productivityrelated challenges may hinder their widespread acceptance. Method: Sixteen participants repeatedly typed a standard text passage using each alternative keyboard. Completion times were collected and subsequent learning percentages were calculated. Participants were asked to subjectively rate the physical, cognitive, and perceptual demands of each keyboard, and these values were then related to the calculated learning percentages. Results: Learning percentage calculations revealed the percentage for the split fixed-angle keyboard (90.4%) to be significantly different (p < .05) from the learning percentages for the other three keyboards (chord, 77.3%; contour split, 76.9%; Dvorak, 79.1%). The average task completion time for the conventional QWERTY keyboard was 40 s, and the average times for the fifth trial on the chord, contoured split, Dvorak, and split fixed-angle keyboards were 346, 69, 181, and 42 s, respectively. Conclusions: Productivity decrements can be quickly regained for the split fixed-angle and contour split keyboard but will take considerably longer for Dvorak and chord keyboards. The split fixed-angle keyboard involved physical learning, whereas the others involved some combination of physical and cognitive learning, a result supported by the subjective responses. Application: Understanding the changes in task performance time that come with learning can provide additional information for a cost-benefit analysis when considering the implementation of ergonomic interventions.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 48%

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analysis of Alternative Keyboards Using Learning Curves

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been found that several muscles perform an important stabilization function in the execution of industrial and office work (Fagarasanu, Kumar, & Narayan, 2005;Szeto, Straker, & O'Sullivan, 2005).…”

Section: Tetteh Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data were collected on quantitative measures of EMG signals on the left and right upper back muscles, which consist of the trapezius p. descendens, deltoideus p. scapularis, infraspinatus, and latissimus dorsi (Fagarasanu et al, 2005;Szeto et al, 2005). The skin areas were chosen by following the anatomical guide by Konrad (2005) shown in Figure 2.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of frequency and posture on body mass index in manual handling tasks

Tetteh

Latif

McGlothlin

et al. 2009

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Workspace design plays an important role in ensuring workers' safety and welfare. The issue is more pressing in the manufacturing industry, where many workers must remain in a standing position, assume awkward postures, and perform repetitive tasks for extended periods of time. In this research, an electromyographic measurement technique was used to measure activity of four back muscles: the trapezius p. descendens, the deltoideus p. scapularis, the infraspinatus, and the latissimus dorsi. The results showed a statistically significant (p < 0.05) impact of left versus right side of the body, the degree of rotation to the right side of the body (0, 30, and 60 degrees rotation to the mid-sagittal plane), body mass index level (normal weight [<25 kg/m 2 ] vs. overweight [≥25 kg/m 2 ]), and tasks (high vs. low frequency). In this study, the role that workers and workspace variation play is clearly associated with an increase in the amplitude of electromyography at the targeted back muscles. C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract