Viability of using digital signals from the keyboard to capture typing force exposures

Differences in typing forces, muscle activity, wrist posture, typing performance, and self-reported comfort among conventional and ultra-low travel keyboards

This study investigated the relative impact of ultra-low travel keyboards on typing force, muscle activity, wrist posture, typing performance, and self-reported comfort/preference as compared to a conventional keyboard. In a repeated-measures laboratory-based study, 20 subjects were invited to type for 10 min on each of five keyboards with different travel distances of 0.5, 0.7, 1.2, 1.6 (ultra-low travel keyboards), and 2.0 mm (a conventional keyboard). During the typing sessions, we measured typing force; muscle activity in extrinsic finger muscles (flexor digitorum superficialis and extensor digitorum communis), shoulder (trapezius) and neck (splenius capitis); wrist posture; typing performance; and self-reported comfort/preference. While using the ultra-low travel keyboards, subjects typed with less force and wrist extension, and had more ulnar deviation (p's < 0.0001) compared with conventional keyboard. However, these differences in typing forces were less than 0.5 N and less than 4° for both wrist extension and ulnar deviation. The general trend of data did not show any consistent or substantial differences in muscle activity (less than 2 %MVC) and typing performance (<5 WPM in speed; < 3% in accuracy), despite the observed statistical difference in the finger flexors and extensors muscle activity (p's < 0.19) and typing performance (p < 0.0001). However, the subjects preferred using conventional keyboards in most of the investigated self-reported comfort and preference criteria (p's < 0.4). In conclusion, these small differences indicate that using ultra-low travel keyboards may not have substantial differences in biomechanical exposures and typing performance compared to conventional keyboard; however, the subjective responses indicated that the ultra-low keyboards with the shortest key travel tended to be the least preferred.

Key Strike Forces and Their Relation to High Level of Musculoskeletal Symptoms

Background

This study aimed to investigate the relation between key strike forces and musculoskeletal symptoms (MSS). Moreover, this study presents a key strike force measurement method to be used in a workplace setting. The correlation between key strike force characteristics and MSS was previously studied, but the measurement methods used either a single-key switch or force platforms applied under the keyboard. Most of the studies were conducted in a laboratory setting. The uniqueness of measurement methods in the current study is their ability to measure forces applied to a specific key in a workplace setting and to provide more information about specific key strike forces during typing.

Methods

Twenty-four healthy computer workers were recruited for the study. The demographic questionnaire, and self-reported questionnaires for psychosocial status (General Nordic Questionnaire for Psychological and Social Factors at Work) and for detecting MSS were filled up, which later helped in dividing the participants into two groups (12 participants with pain and 12 without pain). Participants typed a predetermined text that utilized the instrumented keys multiple times. The dynamic forces applied to the keys were recorded and collected, using four thin and flexible force sensors attached to the preselected keys according to their location.

Results

The results demonstrated that participants with high levels of MSS, specifically in the back and neck, in the last year exerted significantly higher key strike forces than those with lower levels of symptoms (p < 0.005).

Conclusion

The key strike force exerted while typing on a keyboard may be a risk factor for MSS, and should therefore be considered in ergonomic evaluations and interventional programs.

The effect of key size of touch screen virtual keyboards on productivity, usability, and typing biomechanics

OBJECTIVE

We investigated whether different virtual keyboard key sizes affected typing force exposures, muscle activity, wrist posture, comfort, and typing productivity.

BACKGROUND

Virtual keyboard use is increasing and the physical exposures associated with virtual keyboard key sizes are not well documented.

METHOD

Typing forces, forearm/shoulder muscle activity, wrist posture, subjective comfort, and typing productivity were measured from 21 subjects while they were typing on four different virtual keyboards with square key sizes, which were 13, 16, 19, and 22 mm on each side with 2-mm between-key spacing.

RESULTS

The results showed that virtual keyboard key size had little effect on typing force, forearm muscle activity, and ulnar/radial deviation. However, the virtual keyboard with the 13-mm keys had a 15% slower typing speed (p < .0001), slightly higher static (10th percentile) shoulder muscle activity (2% maximum voluntary contractions, p = .0 I), slightly greater wrist extension in both hands (2 degrees to 3 degrees, p <.01), and the lowest subjective comfort and preference ratings (p < .1).

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings indicate that virtual keyboards with a key size less than 16 mm may be too small for touch typing given the slower typing speed, higher static shoulder muscle activity, greater wrist extension, and lowest subjective preferences.

APPLICATIONS

We evaluated the effects of virtual keyboard key sizes on typing force exposures, muscle activity, comfort, and typing productivity.

Differences in typing forces, muscle activity, comfort, and typing performance among virtual, notebook, and desktop keyboards

The present study investigated whether there were physical exposure and typing productivity differences between a virtual keyboard with no tactile feedback and two conventional keyboards where key travel and tactile feedback are provided by mechanical switches under the keys. The key size and layout were same across all the keyboards. Typing forces; finger and shoulder muscle activity; self-reported comfort; and typing productivity were measured from 19 subjects while typing on a virtual (0 mm key travel), notebook (1.8 mm key travel), and desktop keyboard (4 mm key travel). When typing on the virtual keyboard, subjects typed with less force (p's < 0.0001) and had lower finger flexor/extensor muscle activity (p's < 0.05). However, the lower typing forces and finger muscle activity came at the expense of a 60% reduction in typing productivity (p < 0.0001), decreased self-reported comfort (p's < 0.0001), and a trend indicating an increase in shoulder muscle activity (p's < 0.10). Therefore, for long typing sessions or when typing productivity is at a premium, conventional keyboards with tactile feedback may be more suitable interface.