diff --git a/chap4/methodology.tex b/chap4/methodology.tex index b2ec338..b38cb87 100644 --- a/chap4/methodology.tex +++ b/chap4/methodology.tex @@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ impact on efficiency and overall satisfaction while using a mechanical keyboard?.''} \begin{longtable}{p{0.3cm} p{0.5cm} p{13cm} p{0.5cm}} - & \textbf{H1} & Lower key actuation force improves typing speed over higher key actuation force (efficiency - speed). & \\ + & \textbf{H1} & Actuation force has an impact on typing speed (efficiency - speed). & \\ \\ & \textbf{H2} & Higher key actuation force decreases typing errors compared to lower key actuation force (efficiency - error rate). & \\ \\ diff --git a/chap5/results.tex b/chap5/results.tex index 079b22f..1ecf7ee 100644 --- a/chap5/results.tex +++ b/chap5/results.tex @@ -6,20 +6,23 @@ This section addresses the statistical analysis of the data obtained throughout the main, within-subject, user study (n = 24) that consisted of five repeated measurements. Because the data was from related, dependent groups, we used -\textit{Repeated Measurement \gls{ANOVA}} if all required assumption were met -and \textit{Friedman's Test} otherwise. To identify the specific pairs of -treatments that differed significantly, we ran either \textit{Dependent T-Tests} -or \textit{Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests} (both with \textit{Holm correction +\textit{\gls{rmANOVA}} if all required assumption were met and +\textit{Friedman's Test} otherwise. To identify the specific pairs of treatments +that differed significantly, we ran either \textit{Dependent T-Tests} or +\textit{Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests} (both with \textit{Holm correction (sequetially rejective Bonferroni test)} \cite{holm_correction}) as post-hoc tests \cite{field_stats, downey_stats}. The reliability of the two sub-scales (hedonic and pragmatic quality) in the \glsfirst{UEQ-S} was estimated using \textit{Cronbach's alpha} \cite{tavakol_cronbachs_alpha}. All results are reported statistically significant with an $\alpha$-level of $p < 0.05$. We used -95\% confidence intervals in visualizations of certain results. Normality of -data or residuals was checked using visual assessment of \gls{Q-Q} plots and -additionally \textit{Shapiro-Wilk} Test \cite{field_stats, downey_stats}. +95\% confidence intervals when presenting certain results. Normality of data or +residuals was checked using visual assessment of \gls{Q-Q} plots and +additionally \textit{Shapiro-Wilk} Test. Further, we used \textit{Mauchly's Test + for Sphericity} to evaluate if there was statistically significant variation +in the variances of the differences of contrasting groups \cite{field_stats, + downey_stats}. -\subsubsection{Own Keyboard \& Reference Values} +\subsection{Own Keyboard} \label{sec:res_OPC} As mentioned in Section \ref{sec:main_design}, the keyboard \textit{Own} was used as a reference for some metrics captured during the experiment. Since the @@ -40,7 +43,9 @@ T0\_2 (M = 52.5, sd = 14.3, t = 2.44, p = 0.023), \glsfirst{CER} for T0\_1 (M = 0.039, t = -4.27, p = 0.0003). Because of the differences, we decided to use the means of all metrics gathered for each participant through T0\_1 and T0\_2 as the reference values to compute the \textit{\gls{OPC}} for the test keyboards -(\textit{Athena, Aphrodite, Nyx} and \textit{Hera}). +(\textit{Athena, Aphrodite, Nyx} and \textit{Hera}). This value was later used +to make statements about the performance of the individual test keyboards +compared to the participant's own, familiar, keyboard. Additionally, using a dependent T-test, we compared the muscle activity (\% of \glsfirst{MVC}) and found, that there are significant differences in left flexor @@ -51,39 +56,336 @@ Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test and found an significant difference for T0\_1 (M = 10.8, sd = 8.18, Med = 9.52) and T0\_2 (M = 7.71, sd = 6.08, Med = 5.32, p = 0.021). It has to be noted, that we had to remove two erroneous measurements for the right flexor (n = 22). No significant differences have been found in left or -right extensor (\glsfirst{ED}) \%\gls{MVC} between T0\_1 and T0\_2. +right extensor (\glsfirst{ED}) \%\gls{MVC} between T0\_1 and T0\_2. All results +can be observed in Table \ref{tbl:res_own_before_after}. \begin{table}[ht] \centering + \small \ra{1.3} \begin{tabular}{?l^l^l^l^l^l^l^l} \toprule \rowstyle{\itshape} - Y & Comparison & Statistic & p & Estimate & CI & Method & Alternative \\ + Y & Comparison & Statistic & p & Estimate & CI & Hypothesis \\ \midrule - WPM & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & 1.92 & 0.07 & 1.18 & [-0.09, 2.45] & T-test & two.sided \\ - AdjWPM & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & 2.44 & 0.02* & 1.35 & [0.21, 2.50] & T-test & two.sided \\ - KSPS & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & -1.53 & 0.14 & -0.08 & [-0.19, 0.03] & T-test & two.sided \\ - CER & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & -3.54 & 0.00* & -0.02 & [-0.03, -0.01] & T-test & two.sided \\ - TER & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & -4.27 & 0.00* & -0.02 & [-0.03, -0.01] & T-test & two.sided \\ - \%MVC_{LF} & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & 3.18 & 0.004* & 3.44 & [1.20, 5.68] & T-test & two.sided \\ - \%MVC_{LE} & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & 1.44 & 0.163 & 0.956 & [-0.42, 2.33] & T-test & two.sided \\ - - \%MVC_{RF} & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & 3.18 & 0.004* & 3.44 & [1.20, 5.68] & T-test & two.sided \\ - \%MVC_{RE} & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & 3.18 & 0.004 & 3.44 & [1.20, 5.68] & T-test & two.sided \\ + \multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Parametric (Dependent T-test)}} \\ + WPM & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & 1.92 & 0.07^\dagger & 1.18 & [-0.09, 2.45] & two-tailed \\ + AdjWPM & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & 2.44 & 0.02^* & 1.35 & [0.21, 2.50] & two-tailed \\ + KSPS & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & -1.53 & 0.14 & -0.08 & [-0.19, 0.03] & two-tailed \\ + CER & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & -3.54 & 0.002^* & -0.02 & [-0.03, -0.01] & two-tailed \\ + TER & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & -4.27 & 0.0003^* & -0.02 & [-0.03, -0.01] & two-tailed \\ + \%MVC_{LF} & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & 3.18 & 0.004^* & 3.44 & [1.20, 5.68] & two-tailed \\ + \%MVC_{LE} & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & 1.44 & 0.163 & 0.956 & [-0.42, 2.33] & two-tailed \\ + \multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Non Parametric (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test)}} \\ + \%MVC_{RF} & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & 197 & 0.021^* & 1.83 & [0.39, 3.93] & two-tailed \\ + \%MVC_{RE} & T0\_1 - T0\_2 & 173 & 0.527 & 0.28 & [-0.58, 0.91] & two-tailed \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} + \caption{Statistical analysis of differences between typing tests T0\_1 and + T0\_2 for keyboard \textit{Own}. For $\%MVC_{RF}$ two erroneous measurements + were removed (n = 22). Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) are + marked with an asterisk and p values indicating a trend towards significance + are denoted with $\dagger$. Confidence intervals are given for the estimate + in the difference in means (T-test) and difference of the location parameter + (Wilcoxon). The subscript LF, RF, LE, RE stand for left or right forearm + flexor or extensor muscles} + \label{tbl:res_own_before_after} \end{table} +We also evaluated the means of \glsfirst{KCQ} questions 8 to 12 which concerned +perceived fatigue in fingers, wrists, arms, shoulders and neck respectively +(7-point Likert scale) and the slopes (improving, deteriorating, stable) of the +UX-curves drawn by each participant after the whole experiment, to identify +possible differences in perceived fatigue from T0\_1 to T0\_2. As shown in +Figure \ref{fig:res_own_per_fat}, participants \gls{KCQ} reported slight +improvements in terms of finger (diff = 0.33) and wrist (diff = 0.33) fatigue in +T0\_2 compared to T0\_1, no difference in arm fatigue (diff = 0) and very +slightly increased fatigue in shoulder (diff = -0.12) and neck (diff = -0.13) in +T0\_2 compared to T0\_1. Sixteen of the twenty-four UX-curves regarding overall +perceived fatigue had positive slope when measured from start of T0\_1 to end of +T0\_2 ($\pm$ 1 mm). The subjective reports about the decrease in finger and +wrist fatigue emphasize the decrease in muscle activity for the flexor muscles +we described in the last paragraph. + +\begin{figure}[ht] + \centering + \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{images/res_own_per_fat} + \caption{Trends for reported fatigue through the \gls{KCQ} (questions 8: + finger, 9: wrist, 10: arm, 11: shoulder, 12: neck) and histogram for the + slopes (IM: improving, DE: deteriorating, ST: stable) of UX-curves + concerning perceived fatigue. The curves were evaluated by looking at the y + value of the starting point for T0\_1 and comparing it to y value of the end + point for T0\_2 with a margin of $\pm$ 1 mm} + \label{fig:res_own_per_fat} +\end{figure} + \subsection{Performance Metrics} +% As briefly mentioned in the last section, the individual measurements were then converted into +% percentage values of the mean of the reference values gathered from typing tests +% with keyboard \textit{Own} (\gls{OPC}). \label{sec:res_perf} \subsubsection{Typing Speed} \label{sec:res_typing_speed} The typing speed for each individual keyboard and typing test was automatically captured with the help of the typing test functionality offered by -\glsfirst{GoTT}. We captured \gls{WPM}, \gls{AdjWPM} and -\gls{KSPS} according to the formulas mentioned in Section -\ref{sec:meas_perf}. The individual measurements were then converted into -percentage values of the mean of the reference values gathered from typing tests -with keyboard \textit{Own}. None of the gathered data for the individual -treatments was distributed normally and thus, Friedman's Test was applied. +\glsfirst{GoTT}. We captured \gls{WPM}, \gls{AdjWPM} and \gls{KSPS} according to +the formulas mentioned in Section \ref{sec:meas_perf}. We used the mean of the +results for both typing tests performed with each keyboard to conduct the +following statistical analysis. A \gls{rmANOVA} was performed and revealed +possible differences between at least two of the test keyboards (\textit{Athena, + Aphrodite, Nyx} and \textit{Hera}) in terms of \gls{WPM} (F(3, 69) = 6.036, p += 0.001). We performed dependent T-tests with Holm correction and found +significant differences between \textit{Aphrodite} (M = 51.5, sd = 14.0) and +\textit{Nyx} (M = 49.4, sd = 13.3, t = 3.33, p = 0.014), \textit{Athena} (M = +51.5, sd = 14.2) and \textit{Nyx} (M = 49.4, sd = 13.3, t = 2.76, p = 0.044) and +\textit{Hera} (M = 51.9, sd = 14.6) and \textit{Nyx} (M = 49.4, sd = 13.3, t = +3.53, p = 0.01). Further, the \gls{rmANOVA} for \gls{AdjWPM} yielded (F(3, 69) = +6.197, p = 0.0009) and for \gls{KSPS} (F(3, 69) = 3.566, p = 0.018). All +relevant results of the post-hoc tests and the summary of the performance data +can be observed in Tables \ref{tbl:sum_tkbs_speed} and \ref{tbl:res_tkbs_speed}. + +\begin{table}[ht] + \centering + \footnotesize + \ra{1.2} + \toprule + \parbox{.49\linewidth}{ + \begin{tabular}{?r^l^l^l^l^l} + \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{\gls{WPM}}} \\ + \rowstyle{\itshape} + Pseud. & Mean & Min & Max & SD & SE \\ + \midrule + Athena & 51.47 & 17.96 & 73.86 & 14.21 & 2.90 \\ + Aphrodite & 51.46 & 20.76 & 76.36 & 14.01 & 2.86 \\ + Nyx & 49.39 & 20.80 & 74.26 & 13.28 & 2.71 \\ + Hera & 51.87 & 18.10 & 76.06 & 14.55 & 2.97 \\ + \end{tabular} + } + \parbox{.49\linewidth}{ + \begin{tabular}{?r^l^l^l^l^l^l^l} + \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{\gls{AdjWPM}}} \\ + \rowstyle{\itshape} + Pseud. & Mean & Min & Max & SD & SE \\ + \midrule + Athena & 51.04 & 17.94 & 73.19 & 14.07 & 2.87 \\ + Aphrodite & 50.97 & 20.76 & 75.78 & 13.95 & 2.85 \\ + Nyx & 48.84 & 20.80 & 73.62 & 13.17 & 2.69 \\ + Hera & 51.32 & 18.06 & 75.14 & 14.40 & 2.94 \\ + \end{tabular} + } + \begin{tabular}{?r^l^l^l^l^l^l^l} + \\ + \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{\gls{KSPS}}} \\ + \rowstyle{\itshape} + Pseud. & Mean & Min & Max & SD & SE \\ + \midrule + Athena & 5.23 & 1.68 & 7.94 & 1.54 & 0.31 \\ + Aphrodite & 5.32 & 2.00 & 8.14 & 1.50 & 0.31 \\ + Nyx & 5.31 & 1.95 & 8.15 & 1.48 & 0.30 \\ + Hera & 5.37 & 1.72 & 8.15 & 1.57 & 0.32 \\ + \end{tabular} + \bottomrule + \caption{Summaries for \glsfirst{WPM}, \glsfirst{AdjWPM} and \glsfirst{KSPS} for the test keyboards} + \label{tbl:sum_tkbs_speed} +\end{table} + +\begin{table}[ht] + \centering + \small + \ra{1.3} + \begin{tabular}{?l^l^l^l^l^l^l^l} + \toprule + \rowstyle{\itshape} + Y & Comparison & Statistic & p & Estimate & CI & Hypothesis \\ + \midrule + \multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Parametric (Dependent T-test)}} \\ + WPM & Athena - Nyx & 2.765 & 0.044^* & 2.083 & [0.52, 3.64] & two-tailed \\ + WPM & Aphrodite - Nyx & 3.332 & 0.014^* & 2.069 & [0.78, 3.35] & two-tailed \\ + WPM & Hera - Nyx & 3.541 & 0.010^* & 2.479 & [1.03, 3.93] & two-tailed \\ + AdjWPM & Athena - Nyx & 2.868 & 0.035^* & 2.200 & [0.61, 3.79] & two-tailed \\ + AdjWPM & Aphrodite - Nyx & 3.443 & 0.011^* & 2.132 & [0.85, 3.41] & two-tailed \\ + AdjWPM & Hera - Nyx & 3.515 & 0.011^* & 2.475 & [1.02, 3.93] & two-tailed \\ + KSPS & Athena - Hera & -2.834 & 0.056^\dagger & -0.145 & [-0.25, -0.04] & two-tailed \\ + KSPS & Aphrodite - Athena & 2.566 & 0.086^\dagger & 0.095 & [0.02, 0.17] & two-tailed \\ + \bottomrule + \end{tabular} + \caption{Relevant post-hoc results of speed related metrics for the test + keyboards. Significant p values are denoted with * and p values indicating a + trend towards significance are marked with $\dagger$. Confidence intervals + are given for the estimate in the difference in means} + \label{tbl:res_tkbs_speed} +\end{table} + +\subsubsection{Error Rate} +\label{sec:res_error_rate} +\gls{GoTT} also automatically tracked various error related metrics from which +we analyzed \glsfirst{UER}, \glsfirst{CER} and \glsfirst{TER}. Since we were +interested in whether higher actuation forces lead to a lower error rates +compared to lower actuation forces, we conducted one-tailed post-hoc tests for +the following statistical analyses. Like in Section \ref{sec:res_typing_speed}, +we used the means of the results from both typing test for each keyboard to +conduct the analysis. The Friedman's Tests for \gls{TER} ($\chi^2$(3) = 25.4, p += 0.00001) and the \gls{rmANOVA} for \gls{CER} (F(3, 69) = 13.355, p = 0.0000408 +(\gls{GG})) revealed differences for at least two test keyboards. The Friedman's +Test for \gls{UER} ($\chi^2$(3) = 2.59, p = 0.46) yielded no statistical +significant difference. It should be noted, that the 90th percentile of +\gls{UER} for all keyboards was still below 1\%. Summaries for the individual +metrics and results for all post-hoc tests can be seen in Table +\ref{tbl:sum_tkbs_err} and \ref{tbl:res_tkbs_err}. + +\begin{table}[ht] + \centering + \footnotesize + \ra{1.2} + \toprule + \begin{tabular}{?r^l^l^l^l^l} + \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{\gls{TER}}} \\ + \rowstyle{\itshape} + Pseud. & Mean & Min & Max & SD & SE \\ + \midrule + Athena & 0.08 & 0.02 & 0.17 & 0.03 & 0.01 \\ + Aphrodite & 0.09 & 0.02 & 0.20 & 0.04 & 0.01 \\ + Nyx & 0.11 & 0.03 & 0.25 & 0.06 & 0.01 \\ + Hera & 0.09 & 0.02 & 0.21 & 0.04 & 0.01 \\ + \end{tabular} + \\ + \parbox{.49\linewidth}{ + \begin{tabular}{?r^l^l^l^l^l^l^l} + \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{\gls{UER}}} \\ + \rowstyle{\itshape} + Pseud. & Mean & Min & Max & SD & SE \\ + \midrule + Athena & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.14 & 0.03 & 0.01 \\ + Aphrodite & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.17 & 0.03 & 0.01 \\ + Nyx & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.21 & 0.04 & 0.01 \\ + Hera & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.18 & 0.04 & 0.01 \\ + \end{tabular} + } + \parbox{.49\linewidth}{ + \begin{tabular}{?r^l^l^l^l^l^l^l} + \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{\gls{CER}}} \\ + \rowstyle{\itshape} + Pseud. & Mean & Min & Max & SD & SE \\ + \midrule + Athena & 0.07 & 0.02 & 0.13 & 0.03 & 0.01 \\ + Aphrodite & 0.08 & 0.02 & 0.18 & 0.04 & 0.01 \\ + Nyx & 0.10 & 0.03 & 0.23 & 0.05 & 0.01 \\ + Hera & 0.08 & 0.02 & 0.14 & 0.04 & 0.01 \\ + \end{tabular} + } + \bottomrule + \caption{Summaries for \glsfirst{TER}, \glsfirst{UER} and \glsfirst{CER} for the test keyboards} + \label{tbl:sum_tkbs_err} +\end{table} + +\begin{table}[ht] + \centering + \small + \ra{1.3} + \begin{tabular}{?l^l^l^l^l^l^l^l} + \toprule + \rowstyle{\itshape} + Y & Comparison & Statistic & p & Estimate & CI & Hypothesis \\ + \midrule + \multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Non Parametric (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test)}} \\ + TER & Athena - Hera & 38.0 & 0.004^* & -0.011 & [-Inf, -0.01] & less \\ + TER & Athena - Aphrodite & 58.5 & 0.009^* & -0.012 & [-Inf, 0] & less \\ + TER & Athena - Nyx & 18.0 & 0.00009^* & -0.027 & [-Inf, -0.02] & less \\ + TER & Aphrodite - Nyx & 35.5 & 0.002^* & -0.018 & [-Inf, -0.01] & less \\ + TER & Hera - Aphrodite & 181.0 & 0.816 & 0.002 & [-Inf, 0.01] & less \\ + TER & Hera - Nyx & 29.5 & 0.002^* & -0.016 & [-Inf, -0.01] & less \\ + \multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Parametric (Dependent T-test)}} \\ + CER & Athena - Hera & -2.796 & 0.015^* & -0.011 & [-Inf, 0] & less \\ + CER & Athena - Aphrodite & -2.772 & 0.015^* & -0.011 & [-Inf, 0] & less \\ + CER & Athena - Nyx & -4.356 & 0.0007^* & -0.030 & [-Inf, -0.02] & less \\ + CER & Aphrodite - Nyx & -3.821 & 0.002^* & -0.019 & [-Inf, -0.01] & less \\ + CER & Hera - Aphrodite & 0.050 & 0.520 & 0.000 & [-Inf, 0.01] & less \\ + CER & Hera - Nyx & -3.825 & 0.002^* & -0.019 & [-Inf, -0.01] & less \\ + \bottomrule + \end{tabular} + \caption{Post-hoc results of error rates for the test keyboards. Significant p + values are denoted with *. Confidence intervals are given for the estimate + in the difference in means (T-test) and difference of the location parameter + (Wilcoxon)} + \label{tbl:res_tkbs_err} +\end{table} + +\subsubsection{Muscle Activity} +\label{sec:res_muscle_activity} +We utilized the \gls{EMG} device described in Section \ref{sec:main_design} to +gather data about the muscle activities (\% of \glsfirst{MVC}) during typing +tests for the extensor and flexor muscles of both forearms. For our analysis, we +used the mean values of the results for both typing tests with each keyboard. +It has to be noted, that we had to remove two erroneous measurements concerning +the right flexor muscle (n = 22). We found no significant differences in +\%\gls{MVC} for any of the test keyboards in neither flexor, nor extensor +\gls{EMG} measurements. Further, we analyzed the effect of the individual +keyboards on \%\gls{MVC}s separately for first and second typing tests (Tn\_1 \& +Tn\_2, n := 1, ..., 4), but did not find any statistically significant results +as well. Lastly, we analyzed possible differences between \%\gls{MVC} +measurements of first and second typing tests for each individual keyboard, +using either dependent T-tests or Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests. There were no +statistically significant differences in \%\gls{MVC} between the first and the +second typing test for any keyboard/muscle combination. The summaries for all +test keyboards of the mean values for both typing tests combined can be observed +in Table \ref{tbl:sum_tkbs_emg}. + +\begin{table}[ht] + \centering + \footnotesize + \ra{1.2} + \toprule + \parbox{.49\linewidth}{ + \begin{tabular}{?r^l^l^l^l^l} + \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{Left Flexor \%\gls{MVC}}} \\ + \rowstyle{\itshape} + Pseud. & Mean & Min & Max & SD & SE \\ + \midrule + Athena & 9.90 & 0.94 & 41.91 & 9.03 & 1.84 \\ + Aphrodite & 8.82 & 0.26 & 23.10 & 6.37 & 1.30 \\ + Nyx & 8.84 & 2.13 & 24.37 & 6.65 & 1.36 \\ + Hera & 9.98 & 2.82 & 25.18 & 6.91 & 1.41 \\ + \end{tabular} + } + \parbox{.49\linewidth}{ + \begin{tabular}{?r^l^l^l^l^l^l^l} + \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{Right Flexor \%\gls{MVC}} \textit{(n = 22)}} \\ + \rowstyle{\itshape} + Pseud. & Mean & Min & Max & SD & SE \\ + \midrule + Athena & 9.69 & 2.13 & 23.88 & 5.67 & 1.21 \\ + Aphrodite & 9.33 & 2.15 & 16.96 & 4.51 & 0.96 \\ + Nyx & 8.60 & 1.68 & 16.16 & 4.43 & 0.94 \\ + Hera & 9.26 & 1.42 & 20.39 & 5.75 & 1.23 \\ + \end{tabular} + } + \\ + \parbox{.49\linewidth}{ + \begin{tabular}{?r^l^l^l^l^l^l^l} + \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{Left Extensor \%\gls{MVC}}} \\ + \rowstyle{\itshape} + Pseud. & Mean & Min & Max & SD & SE \\ + \midrule + Athena & 12.24 & 5.17 & 18.98 & 4.11 & 0.84 \\ + Aphrodite & 11.60 & 4.80 & 16.86 & 3.67 & 0.75 \\ + Nyx & 11.43 & 5.14 & 16.45 & 3.87 & 0.79 \\ + Hera & 11.73 & 4.80 & 21.05 & 4.10 & 0.84 \\ + \end{tabular} + } + \parbox{.49\linewidth}{ + \begin{tabular}{?r^l^l^l^l^l^l^l} + \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{Right Extensor \%\gls{MVC}}} \\ + \rowstyle{\itshape} + Pseud. & Mean & Min & Max & SD & SE \\ + \midrule + Athena & 10.78 & 3.34 & 17.58 & 3.86 & 0.79 \\ + Aphrodite & 10.66 & 3.56 & 19.05 & 4.41 & 0.90 \\ + Nyx & 10.57 & 3.81 & 21.55 & 4.33 & 0.88 \\ + Hera & 10.79 & 4.11 & 19.50 & 4.09 & 0.83 \\ + \end{tabular} + } + \bottomrule + \caption{Summaries for the mean values of measured muscle activity (\% of + \glsfirst{MVC}) in both typing tests conducted with each keyboard.} + \label{tbl:sum_tkbs_emg} +\end{table} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/glossary.tex b/glossary.tex index 206f2dd..7361c02 100644 --- a/glossary.tex +++ b/glossary.tex @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ \newacronym{KSPS}{KSPS}{Keystrokes per Second} \newacronym{CER}{CER}{Corrected Error Rate} \newacronym{UER}{UER}{Uncorrected Error Rate} +\newacronym{TER}{TER}{Total Error Rate} \newacronym{KSPC}{KSPC}{Keystrokes per Character} \newacronym{UEQ-S}{UEQ-S}{short version of the user experience questionnaire} \newacronym{UEQ}{UEQ}{user experience questionnaire} @@ -36,7 +37,8 @@ \newacronym{OLED}{OLED}{organic light-emitting diode} \newacronym{GMMK}{GMMK}{Glorious Modular Mechanical Keyboards} -\newacronym{ANOVA}{ANOVA}{Analysis Of Variance} +\newacronym{rmANOVA}{rmANOVA}{Repeated Measurement Analysis Of Variance} +\newacronym{GG}{GG}{Greenhouse–Geisser corrected} \newacronym{Q-Q}{Q-Q}{quantile-quantile} \newacronym{OPC}{OPC}{percentage of keyboard ``Own''} diff --git a/images/res_own_per_fat.png b/images/res_own_per_fat.png new file mode 100644 index 0000000..005c771 Binary files /dev/null and b/images/res_own_per_fat.png differ