% A rapid method that creates many corrected errors, has efﬁcient error correction, and leaves
% few uncorrected errors can still be considered a successful method, since it produces
% accurate text in relatively little time. pp. 56 MacKenzie
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
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
  (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}.

\subsubsection{Own Keyboard \& Reference Values}
\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
measurements with \textit{Own} took place at the start (T0\_1) and end (T0\_2)
of the experiment, we compared the results of both typing tests to detect
possible variations in performance due to fatigue. Using dependent T-tests, we
found that there were no significant differences in \glsfirst{KSPS} for T0\_1 (M
= 5.39, sd = 1.49) compared to T0\_2 (M = 5.47, sd = 1.48, t = -1.53, p =
0.139), \glsfirst{UER} was overall negligible with T0\_1 (M = 0.005, sd = 0.013,
85th percentile = 0.0051) and T0\_2 (M = 0.008, sd = 0.028, 85th percentile =
0.0052) and \glsfirst{WPM} showed a trend to approach significance with T0\_1 (M
= 54.2, sd = 14.7) compared to T0\_2 (M = 53.0, sd = 14.5, t = 1.92, p =
0.067). Further, using dependent T-tests we were able to find statistically
significant differences in \glsfirst{AdjWPM} for T0\_1 (M = 53.9, sd = 14.5) and
T0\_2 (M = 52.5, sd = 14.3, t = 2.44, p = 0.023), \glsfirst{CER} for T0\_1 (M =
0.057, sd = 0.028) and T0\_2 (M = 0.078, sd = 0.038, t = -3.54, p = 0.002) and
\glsfirst{TER} for T0\_1 (M = 0.063, sd = 0.031) and T0\_2 (M = 0.086, sd =
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}).

Additionally, using a dependent T-test, we compared the muscle activity (\% of
\glsfirst{MVC}) and found, that there are significant differences in left flexor
(\glsfirst{FDP} \& \glsfirst{FDS}) \%\gls{MVC} for T0\_1 (M = 12.0, sd = 8.27)
and T0\_2 (M = 8.53, sd = 7.16, t = 3.18, p = 0.004). Residuals of right flexor
(\gls{FDF} \& \gls{FDS}) were not normally distributed, therefore we used the
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.

\begin{table}[ht]
  \centering
  \ra{1.3}
  \begin{tabular}{?l^l^l^l^l^l^l^l}
    \toprule
    \rowstyle{\itshape}
    Y      & Comparison    & Statistic & p      & Estimate & CI             & Method & Alternative \\
    \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 \\
    \bottomrule
  \end{tabular}
\end{table}

\subsection{Performance Metrics}
\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.
