Effects of Time Pressure on a Typing Task with Two Keyboard Layouts

Transcription

1 The Huron University College Journal of Learning and Motivation Volume 49 Issue 1 Article Effects of Time Pressure on a Typing Task with Two Keyboard Layouts Connor Beck Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Beck, Connor (2011) "Effects of Time Pressure on a Typing Task with Two Keyboard Layouts," The Huron University College Journal of Learning and Motivation: Vol. 49: Iss. 1, Article 9. Available at: This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology at Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Huron University College Journal of Learning and Motivation by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact kmarsha1@uwo.ca.

2 ^ Effects of Time Pressure on a Typing Task with Two Keyboard Layouts Connor Beck Huron University College The present study investigated the effects of pressure on typing task performance with two different types of keyboard layouts - QWERTY and DVORAK. It was predicted that The QWERTY condition would improve when under pressure, while the performance of the DVORAK condition would decline when under pressure. There was no significant interaction between keyboard and pressure, no main effect of pressure, and no differences within each keyboard group as a result of pressure. Problems with control, measurement, and sample. are discussed, and future directions are suggested. The mechanisms behind attention and distraction are of concern in many different fields: education and business are two prominent examples. Education is limited by the attention of the students: to teach someone who is not trying to learn would be quite an accomplishment. Business is often concerned with efficiency of work and production, which can be severely limited by distractions. Though management of attention and prevention of distractions are priorities in these sectors, the question of antecedents and mechanisms must first be addressed. Lavie (1995) summarizes two early theories in the literature that seek to account for the mechanisms responsible for attention. The Early Selection Theory (Broadbent, 1958) states that all stimuli are initially (and involuntarily) processed, and then stimuli are selected to be individually identified. This is a serial process - one stimulus is identified at a time. Thus, stimuli relevant to the task can be identified fully, while irrelevant stimuli will not be processed to the level of identification. As a response to Early Selection Theory, several psychologists proposed Late Selection Theories, which held the common theme that both physical

3 ^ Effects of Time Pressure on a Typing Task with Two Keyboard Layouts Connor Beck Huron University College The present study investigated the effects of pressure on typing task performance with two different types of keyboard layouts - QWERTY and DVORAK. It was predicted that The QWERTY condition would improve when under pressure, while the performance of the DVORAK condition would decline when under pressure. There was no significant interaction between keyboard and pressure, no main effect of pressure, and no differences within each keyboard group as a result of pressure. Problems with control, measurement, and sample. are discussed, and future directions are suggested. The mechanisms behind attention and distraction are of concern in many different fields: education and business are two prominent examples. Education is limited by the attention of the students: to teach someone who is not trying to learn would be quite an accomplishment. Business is often concerned with efficiency of work and production, which can be severely limited by distractions. Though management of attention and prevention of distractions are priorities in these sectors, the question of antecedents and mechanisms must first be addressed. Lavie (1995) summarizes two early theories in the literature that seek to account for the mechanisms responsible for attention. The Early Selection Theory (Broadbent, 1958) states that all stimuli are initially (and involuntarily) processed, and then stimuli are selected to be individually identified. This is a serial process - one stimulus is identified at a time. Thus, stimuli relevant to the task can be identified fully, while irrelevant stimuli will not be processed to the level of identification. As a response to Early Selection Theory, several psychologists proposed Late Selection Theories, which held the common theme that both physical

4 2 characteristics and identities were processed together (e.g. Deutsch & Deutsch, 1963; Norman, 1968). This meant that all irrelevant stimuli were processed and identified. Lavie goes on to investigate a third account of attention - The Load Theory (Lavie & Tsal, 1994). The Load Theory draws much inspiration from the Early Selection Theory, but says that spare attention not dedicated to identifying selected stimuli can be taken up by irrelevant stimuli, thus leading to distraction. Distraction under pressure is an important and well-studied phenomenon, because it often leads to "choking": a decrement in performance from the person's norm (Beilock & Carr, 2001, 2005; Beilock, Kulp, Holt, & Carr, 2004). Hill, Hanton, Matthews, and Fleming (2010) review the two types of theories put forward to account for choking under pressure: Self-Focus Theories and Distraction Theories. Two major self-focus theories they identify are the Explicit Monitoring Hypothesis (Beilock & Carr, 2001) and the Consciousness Processing Hypothesis (Masters, 1992). Both maintain that high amounts of pressure will cause even skilled professionals to experience anxiety, and thus to turn their attention inward. The Explicit Monitoring Hypothesis states that when attention is turned inward, the subject will start to monitor their actions, thus impairing the automaticity of the skill and causing a decline in performance. However, the Consciousness Processing Hypothesis maintains that the inward attention will result in the subject consciously controlling their actions, again leading to performance deterioration. Distraction theories, on the other hand, state that choking is a result of pressure-induced anxiety overwhelming the subject's working memory. Processing Efficiency Theory (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992), a well-established distraction theory, maintains that the subject will be overcome by thoughts and feelings

5 ^ of anxiety, and that these thoughts will distract the person and take away from his or her ability to perform at full capacity. The present study sought to examine the effects of pressure on two similar tasks: typing on a keyboard with a familiar layout and typing on a keyboard with an alternate layout. In order to create pressure for the participants, some of them were informed of their one-minute time limit and told to complete as much of the task as possible, while the others were simply told to begin, and that they would receive notice when they should stop. Typing on a keyboard with a familiar QWERTY layout is a task that, for many people, can be completed with relative ease. Gucciardi and Dimmock (2008) found that when people are put under slight pressure on a task they are skilled at, they were more likely to perform better than their average. However, opposite results have often been found in higher-pressure scenarios (e.g. Beilock, Kulp, Holt & Carr, 2004; Beilock and Carr, 2005). Beilock and Carr (2005) foimd that, in a task requiring working memory, pressure led to a decline in performance, supporting Processing Efficiency Theory. The alternative keyboard layout used in the present study is the DVORAK layout. None of the participants had ever used a DVORAK-style keyboard before, and so the task amounted to a simple visual search exercise: Participants had to find a particular character among many irrelevant stimuli. The Load Account of attention would identify these irrelevant stimuli as distractors that would be processed, despite only one key being the relevant stimulus. Under pressure, subjects would be more likely to be affected by the distraction hypothesis, as their working memory would become overloaded (Oh & Kim, 2004).

6 ^ The present study takes hypotheses from these theories. It is hypothesized that pressure will positively affect participants in the QWERTY condition, but will cause performance decrements for participants in the DVORAK condition. Method Participants Participants for this study were primarily recruited at the convenience of the experimenter by verbal request in person. All participants were between the ages of 18 and 23. The final sample was made up of 20 males and 20 females, with a total of 40 participants. Each group was composed of 5 males and 5 females. Materials The primary data collection tool used in this study was a particular typing test hosted by the website The test in question (Review 7, accessible at was a typing review of all of the letters and several common punctuation marks. It did not include any symbols or numbers. Participants were required to type out the given paragraph (Appendix A) with accurate punctuation. If an error was made, an error message would show (e.g. "oops! type: Q"), the character that was missed would highlight red, and the participant was not allowed to continue typing the rest of the paragraph until he or she correctly inputted the character. Before the correction was made, all key presses following the error counted as further errors. The paragraph was long enough (384 characters) that only those in the top 7.5% of typing speeds would be able to finish the paragraph in the allotted time (Ostrach, 2007). Combined with the error correction

7 ^ requirement, this was judged a sufficient challenge to avoid a ceiling effect. No participant finished the test in the allotted time. All participants were required to complete the task on a " Apple Macbook Pro laptop. For participants in the DVORAK condition, all of the key caps were popped out of their sockets and repositioned in the DVORAK layout, and the computer's settings were changed to recognize the switch to DVORAK. Procedure After reading a letter of information and completing a consent form, participants were presented with the laptop, which had the paragraph already present on the screen. Participants were randomly assigned to complete the task on the either the traditional QWERTY layout or the alternative DVORAK layout. The experimenter provided each participant with brief instructions on how to do the typing task, including a short tutorial of the error correction procedure and how to start the task (clicking the start button on screen). Participants in the DVORAK condition were also alerted to the fact that they were using a non-standard keyboard layout. Finally, participants in each keyboard condition were randomly divided into either the Low Pressure or High Pressure group. The High Pressure group was informed there was a 1-minute time limit, and that the goal was to finish as much of the paragraph as possible within that time limit. The Low Pressure group was given no specific instructions as to what their goal was, but was told that they would be notified when they should stop. Participants were instructed to click the start button whenever they were ready, and timing started as soon as they pressed the first key. After 1 minute, participants were instructed to stop. Total key presses and errors made were recorded, and correct key presses were calculated by subtracting the

8 ^ number of errors from the total number of key presses. Participants were debriefed, and then allowed to leave. Results In order to analyze the effects of the two independent variables (Pressure and Keyboard) on the three dependent variables (Total Key Presses, Errors, and Correct Key Presses), while controlling for sex, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was employed. Means, standard deviations, and group sizes can be found in Appendix B, and a summary table of the MANCOVA results can be found in Appendix C. A graph of the comparisons can be found in Figure 1. A main effect of keyboard was found for Total Key Presses (F , p<.05), Errors (F=39.02, p<.05), and Correct Key Presses (F=71.47, p<.05) between the QWERTY group and the DVORAK group. No main effect of pressure was found, and no interaction between keyboard and pressure was found (all Fs<\). Discussion The present study sought to support previous literature on a novel task - a typing activity. Previous research supported the prediction that a small amount of pressure would improve typing performance on a QWERTY keyboard (Gucciardi & Dimmock, 2008), while the same pressure would result in a decline in typing performance on a DVORAK keyboard (Lavie & Tsal, 1994). However, the interaction between the type of keyboard and pressure was not significant, and so the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Research done by Beilock and Carr (2001) may explain why the interaction was not significant. It is possible that participants in the QWERTY condition that were under pressure "choked", and so their performance declined. It is also possible that the role of

9 7 a) 160 QWERTY a DVORAK 20 0 b) High Pranura Tim* PrMcurt Low Pressura IS QWERTY o DVORAK High ProMura Lqw Praaaura Urn* Prmurt c) ISO I 100 I so I^ QWERTY 40 ^ DVORAK 20 0 High PraasuPB Tim* Praaaura Low Praaaura Figure 1. Key presses recorded over one minute for the Low Pressure-QWERTY, High Pressure-QWERTY, Low Pressure-DVORAK, and High Pressure-DVORAK groups, a) Total key presses recorded for each group, b) Total incorrect key presses recorded for each group, c) Calculated total of correct key presses (Total - Errors).

10 ^ pressure had no significant effect on the performance of the participants because it was only a slight pressure. Inherent in typing tasks is a goal of attaining the highest words per minute possible. It is possible that the pressure generated by the test itself was so great that the pressure generated by the timer was insignificant. This can be supported by anecdotal evidence, as participants in the low-pressure conditions would often become frustrated if they made a mistake or if they did not think that they were typing fast enough. The error correction procedure may also have been a source of pressure. Participants would often become frustrated because they would make one error, and then make several more errors before they had realized they had made a mistake. This not only increased pressure, but it also artificially raised the participant's error count - they were pressing the right keys at the right time, but because an earlier key had been missed, the whole string was wrong. Self-focus theories would account for the reduction in performance that might result from this: a mistake might draw the person's attention inward, such that they begin to take care with each key press, either by explicitly monitoring (Explicit Monitoring Hypothesis) or consciously controlling (Consciousness Processing Hypothesis) their hands. Regardless, future studies using typing tasks as a data collection tool should not employ an error correction procedure, and instead should allow participants to continue typing if they make a mistake. The paragraph itself was also problematic. It was chosen for its incorporation of all of the major characters on the keyboard; however, it was a review of 'Q', 'Z', 'P', ' ' ', and ' " ', and so it focused on some of the least common and most difficult keys to type on the keyboard. Future studies should ensure the paragraph is no more difficult on a QWERTY keyboard than on a DVORAK keyboard.

11 g Problems also existed in the control of the keyboard itself. Many participants commented that the keyboard "felt different" and that they "could type much faster on [their own] keyboard". Although most QWERTY keyboards are constructed to be roughly the same, the look and feel of the keyboard is often drastically different. Certain keys may be larger or smaller, and the weight required to press a key down may differ from keyboard to keyboard. However, in order to create the DVORAK condition, the keyboard needed to be modified to match the new layout: modifying each participant's personal keyboard to match the layout would have been unfeasible, and requiring all of the DVORAK group to type on one keyboard while the QWERTY group was able to use their own would have created a confound. There was also very little diversity in the population. All of the participants were university students between the ages of 18 and 23. No data was collected as to how experienced they were at typing, or whether they had had previous training in typing. Indeed, the differences between typing skill in the QWERTY group lead to a large standard deviation, which contributed to the insignificance found. Future studies should focus on people in a certain range of typing ability in order to control for differences in typing skill. Each theory addressed in this study has its merits and is worthy of further investigation. Exploration of the mechanisms and antecedents behind choking under pressure could lead to effective techniques for the prevention of anxiety-induced choking in professional athletes, test-taking students, and public speakers. In the highspeed and high-pressure modem world, it is critical that people are able to function and perform to the best of their abilities, even when under pressure.

12 10 References Beilock, S. & Carr, T. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? Jowrna/ of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, Beilock, S. & Carr, T. (2005). When high-powered people fail: Working memory and 'Ehoking under power" in math. Psychological Science, 16, Beilock, S., Kulp, C, Holt, L., & Carr, T. (2004). More of the fragility of performance: Choking under pressure in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, Broadbent, D. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Permagon Press. Deutsch, J., & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review, 70, Eysenck, M. & Calvo, M. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, Gucciardi, D. & Dimmock, J. (2008). Choking under pressure in sensorimotor skills: Conscious processing or depleted attentional resources? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, Hill, D., Hanton, S., Matthews, N., & Fleming, S. (2010). A qualitative exploration of choking in elite golf. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 4, Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, Lavie, N. & Tsal, Y. (1994). Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, Masters, R. (1992). Knowledge, knerves and know how: The role of explicit versus implicit knowledge in the breakdown of a complex sporting motor skill under pressure. The British Journal of Psychology, 83, Norman, D. A. (1968). Toward a theory of memory and attention. Psychological Review, 75, Oh, S.-H., & Kim, M.-S. (2004). The role of spatial working memory in visual search efficiency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11,

13 ^ ^ Online free typing lessons for Qwerty-US standard keyboard (2010). Retrieved March 11, 2011, from Ostrach, T. (2007). Typing Speed: How Fast is Average - 4,000 Typing Scores Analyzed and Interpreted. Unpublished Manuscript.

14 12 Appendix A Quebec provides quality zeppelins. Zamboni plowed dizzy player. Popular Penelope whispered: Mazola, quit quarrelling with Zeus about the Zodiac's picture. Quick zinger zigzagged through the Zoo; queen applauded and slapped her quick quarter horse; Zen, Quark, Paul and Power zoomed on pie; But they felt, they knew, they could smell, touch, they could taste the truth all around them.

15 13 Appendix B High Pressure Low Pressure Keyboard M SD N M SD N Total Key Presses QWERTY DVORAK Errors QWERTY DVORAK Correct Key Presses QWERTY DVORAK

16 14 Appendix C Source SS MS F P Total Key Presses Keyboard (K) * >0.001 Pressure (P) KxP Error Total Errors Keyboard (K) * >.001 Pressure (P) KxP Error Total Correct Key Presses Keyboard (K) * >.001 Pressure (P) KxP Error Total Note: * indicates significant values.