An evaluation of the ergonomics of three computer keyboards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of keyboard design on hand position, typing productivity and keyboard preference was evaluated by comparing two segmented alternative designs with the linear standard keyboard. The FIXED alternative keyboard featured a split angle of 12 degrees and a moderate lateral inclination angle of 10 degrees. The adjustable OPEN alternative keyboard was used with a 15 degrees split setting, which resulted in a marked 42 degrees of demiboard lateral inclination. Sixteen typists, who completed 10 h of training on both alternative keyboards, were videotaped while typing set texts on all three keyboards. Forearm and wrist angles based on three-dimensional video analyses were significantly different (p<0.05) among the three designs tested. Both alternative keyboards placed the forearm and wrist closer to neutral positions than did the standard keyboard. While the OPEN keyboard reduced pronation, it simultaneously increased radial deviation. The FIXED keyboard kept the forearm in moderate pronation and the wrist closer to neutral. More time was spent in neutral and moderate ranges of wrist motion when subjects typed on the FIXED compared with the other two designs. With respect to the standard keyboard, typing productivity was reduced by 10% on the FIXED and 20% on the OPEN designs. No significant difference in preference was found between the standard and FIXED keyboards, both of which were preferred over the OPEN. It was concluded that, of the three keyboards evaluated, the FIXED design incorporated moderate changes to the standard keyboard. These changes promoted a more natural hand position while typing thereby reducing the potential for cumulative trauma disorders of the wrist. In addition, the FIXED design preserved a reasonable level of productivity and was well accepted by users.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".