Typing Style and the Use of Different Sources of Information during Typing: An Investigation Using Self-Reports

Abstract

We investigated to what extent different sources of information are used in typing on a computer keyboard. Using self-reports 10 finger typists and idiosyncratic typists estimated how much attention they pay to different sources of information during copy typing and free typing and how much they use them for error detection. 10 finger typists reported less attention to the keyboard and the fingers and more attention to the template and the screen than idiosyncratic typists. The groups did not differ in attention to touch/kinaesthesis in copy typing and free typing, but 10 finger typists reported more use of touch/kinaesthesis in error detection. This indicates that processing of tactile/kinaesthetic information may occur largely outside conscious control, as long as no errors occur. 10 finger typists reported more use of internal prediction of movement consequences for error detection than idiosyncratic typists, reflecting more precise internal models. Further in copy typing compared to free typing attention to the template is required, thus leaving less attentional capacity for other sources of information. Correlations showed that higher skilled typists, regardless of typing style, rely more on sources of information which are usually associated with 10 finger typing. One limitation of the study is that only self-reports were used. We conclude that typing task, typing proficiency, and typing style influence how attention is distributed during typing.

Errors in Imagined and Executed Typing

“…Hunt-and-peck typists often have to look at the keyboard to find the exact position of the required key. Correspondingly, ten-finger typists report that they use kinesthesis/touch and internal monitoring more often in order to detect an error than idiosyncratic typists [34]. Therefore, we expected to find that error detection in ten-finger typists relies relatively more on kinesthetic/tactile feedback and the screen, whereas error detection in hunt-and-peck typists relies relatively more on visual feedback from the keyboard and fingers [34].…”

“…Correspondingly, ten-finger typists report that they use kinesthesis/touch and internal monitoring more often in order to detect an error than idiosyncratic typists [34]. Therefore, we expected to find that error detection in ten-finger typists relies relatively more on kinesthetic/tactile feedback and the screen, whereas error detection in hunt-and-peck typists relies relatively more on visual feedback from the keyboard and fingers [34]. We further expected that ten-finger typists differ less in the use of sources for error detection in MI and ME than hunt-and-peck typists, because ten-finger typists presumably have more precise internal models of typing [14].…”

Observations on Typing from 136 Million Keystrokes

“…Slow typists use less rollover (8% versus 50%). They rely more on visual search [5,32] and use fewer fingers, which restricts the use of rollover.…”

“…They argued that trained touch typists are able to type more rapidly because they use more fingers and type more consistently, using the same finger for a given key. Rieger and Bart [32] compared touch typists and 'idiosyncratic' (non-touch) typists and found that faster typists rely less on visual information about the typing process (e.g. location of fingers on keyboard).…”

“…The study presented here contributes to recent efforts to revisit the scientific understanding of typing in the era of modern computer keyboards [5,22,24,32]. Historically, most studies of typing were carried out with trained typists using the touch typing system on typewriters [4,34,36].…”