Effects of input methods on inter-key press intervals during continuous typing

Two popular input methods for Chinese typing, Microsoft New Phonetic and Boshiamy, were compared in terms of hand and finger loading, key-pressing speed and typing efficiency. Sixteen subjects typed an English and a Chinese text for 30 min each during two test sessions and all keystrokes and their inter-key press intervals were recorded by electronic activity monitoring software. Typing with Microsoft New Phonetic and with Boshiamy was found to have equal hand loadings, but typing with Microsoft New Phonetic was associated with a higher proportion of keystrokes at the number row. The subjects who used Boshiamy typed significantly more words per min than those who used Microsoft New Phonetic, though both groups had similar English typing speeds. The features of requiring fewer keystrokes to build a character and no need to choose matched words among homophones made Boshiamy a more efficient tool, but the risk of musculoskeletal disorders should be studied further. This study examined two input methods for typing Chinese and showed that typing with Boshiamy had a higher efficiency, including a higher proportion of key presses on the home row, required fewer key presses to build characters and resulted in a faster speed than with Microsoft New Phonetic. However, the potential risk of development of upper limb symptoms warrants further study.

[1]  T. Salthouse Perceptual, cognitive, and motoric aspects of transcription typing. , 1986, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  Andy Whitefield,et al.  Skilled Typing: A Characterization Based on the Distribution of Times Between Responses , 1983 .

[3]  Mark L Nagurka,et al.  Effect of keyswitch design of desktop and notebook keyboards related to key stiffness and typing force , 2006, Ergonomics.

[4]  E Grandjean,et al.  VDT Workstation Design: Preferred Settings and Their Effects , 1983, Human factors.

[5]  E. A. Bosman Age-related differences in the motoric aspects of transcription typing skill. , 1993, Psychology and aging.

[6]  W S Marras,et al.  An assessment of alternate keyboards using finger motion, wrist motion and tendon travel. , 2000, Clinical biomechanics.

[7]  Huey-Wen Liang,et al.  Temporal Change in Bimanual Interkeypress Intervals and Self-Reported Symptoms During Continuous Typing , 2008, Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation.

[8]  F. Gerr,et al.  Keyboard use and musculoskeletal outcomes among computer users , 2006, Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation.

[9]  Jung-Der Wang,et al.  Development of a monitoring system for keyboard users' performance , 2004, Ergonomics.

[10]  Alan Barr,et al.  The Effect of Six Keyboard Designs on Wrist and Forearm Postures , 2006, Applied ergonomics.

[11]  M. Chee,et al.  Overlap and Dissociation of Semantic Processing of Chinese Characters, English Words, and Pictures: Evidence from fMRI , 2000, NeuroImage.

[12]  D. Rempel,et al.  The effects of keyswitch stiffness on typing force, finger electromyography, and subjective discomfort. , 1999, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[13]  D. Rumelhart,et al.  Studies of Typing from the LNR Research Group , 1983 .

[14]  Ying Zhu,et al.  The long-term modality effect: In search of differences in processing logographs and alphabetic words , 1992, Cognition.

[15]  D Anson,et al.  Efficiency of the Chubon versus the QWERTY Keyboard , 2001, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[16]  R Arndt,et al.  Working posture and musculoskeletal problems of video display terminal operators--review and reappraisal. , 1983, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[17]  P. Fox,et al.  The Neural System Underlying Chinese Logograph Reading , 2001, NeuroImage.