Keyboarding is an essential mode of text production. In the context of typing courses, instruments have been developed to gauge typing skills but to our knowledge there is no computerized typing test measuring both motor skills and the influence of different levels of lexicality on typing fluency. That is why, we developed a strictly controlled copy task guiding participants through seven modules in which different prompts are presented, each dealing with complementary levels of lexicality. Fine-grained keystroke logging allows for a range of analyses with Inputlog .
The copy task can be used in writing process studies: research shows that typing fluency has an impact in the quality of text production [1, 24]. In previous writing research studies copy tasks have been used to study the relation between writing fluency and text composition (Wallot and Grabowski, 2013). The Inputlog copy task allows researchers to investigate different levels of lexicality in more detail. At the moment the copy task has been developed in ten different languages. The software is open-access and allows researchers to adapt the tasks to their specific needs.
Funding statement: We thank the department of Management, Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of Antwerp (Belgium) for their financial contribution to this project. We also received support of ELN (European Literacy Network – COST Action IS1401).
Until recently typing dynamics have mainly been analyzed in the domain of biometric studies [2, 4, 21]. After the introduction of keystroke logging in writing and translation studies [16, 23, 27], the analysis of process based typing skills became more important, for instance in studying writing development  or writing fluency . Keystroke logging is especially useful to identify and understand strategies governing the dynamics of writing [12, 13]. These analyses mainly focus on dysfluencies in writing [17, 19], such as pauses and revisions.
It is shown that typing skills are a factor affecting online text production when generating digital texts [1, 6, 24, 31, 29], comparable to the role of handwriting in handwritten text [7, 10, 11, 15]. The advantage of copy tasks is that they produce writing conditions where the cognitive load is low, eliminating to a large extent higher mental processes such as content planning . The current copy task is designed so that it creates a set of measures allowing a fine-grained analysis of low level typing and motor skills.
A first version of this copy task was developed for research into the typing and writing behavior of young adults, cognitively healthy elderly, and age-matched elderly with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer . The task consisted of different subtasks in which specific bigram characteristics were manipulated. This explorative study demonstrates the potential relevance of using a typing copy task in the diagnostic workup of patients with neurodegenerative brain disorders. It was found that the three groups differed significantly from each other in performing the assignment and that their typing speed gradually decreased with age. Moreover, at the methodological level, integrative multilevel modelling shows that all the manipulated bigram characteristics contribute significantly to the model. Based on this experience we further developed the instrument and programmed a user friendly open experimental tool set, facilitating the use of copy tasks in a variety of (multilingual) writing research settings.
The multilingual copy task was developed as part of Inputlog, a keystroke logging program used in writing and translation studies, made available for researchers on www.inputlog.net (; see the download section for more information on the installation procedure). However, the copy task is also directly accessible as a webtool via: http://inputlog.ua.ac.be/WebSite/copytask/tasks.html. The source code is downloadable via GitHub (see below).
At this moment the copy task has been developed for ten languages (Dutch, English, French, German, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, Turkish, and Welsh) and three keyboard layouts (Azerty, Qwerty, and Qwertz). The software has been pretested worldwide in a number of experimental studies in ongoing writing and translation research. More than 3000 copy task logs with participants aged between 14 and 82 years have been collected and analyzed. A typical copy task consists of seven typing assignments (Table 1).
|Tapping task||press the ‘d’ and ‘k’ key alternatively during 15 s|
|Sentence||copy a sentence during 30 s|
|Word combination 1||copy a combination of three words seven times|
|Word combination 2||copy a combination of three words seven times|
|Word combination 3||copy a combination of three words seven times|
|Word combination 4||copy a combination of three words seven times|
|Consonant groups||copy four blocks of six consonants once|
The first task, the tapping task, intends to measure the fastest motor speed by pressing two keys with alternating hands (viz. ‘d’ and ‘k’, resp. a Left-Right and Right-Left hand combination). Participants are asked to type the ‘d’-’k’ key combination for 15 seconds . A time circle at the top right corner is used as a time indicator. The time starts after the first key press, allowing the participants to read the instructions at their own pace.
Finger-tapping tasks are commonly used to study the human motor system. They have the advantage of being simple enough to use in the study of both normal control subjects as well as those with neuropathologies affecting the motor system .
The next task is a sentence copy task. It intends to measure the typing skills related to copying a series of – short and high frequent – words presented in a simple sentence. For example, in the English copy task: “the cat was sleeping under the apple tree”. Participants are asked to repetitively type this sentence for 30 seconds (without capital letters nor punctuation marks).
The prompted sentence consists of seven to nine high frequent short words (one or two syllables). In developing the task for the different languages, we tried to implement these construction characteristics as consistently as possible to allow for interlanguage comparison (Mean(M): 7.9 words; Standard Deviation (SD): 0.8 – M: 32.3 characters – SD: 2.8).
The main part of the copy task consists of four components in which a three-word combination has to be copy-typed seven times: the first three-word combinations target the repetitive production of mainly high frequent bigrams; the fourth contains low frequent bigrams. Table 2 gives an actual example of the presented word combinations (in the English version), together with their characteristics.
|Word combination 1||Word combination 2||Word combination 3||Word combination 4|
|Word 1 (numerical)||four||seven||five||some|
|Word 2 (adjective)||interesting||wonderful||important||awkward|
|Word 3 (noun)||questions||surprises||behaviors||zigzags|
|High Frequent bigrams (HF – e.g., ‘nt’)||19||18||18||8|
|Low Frequent bigrams (LF – e.g., ‘gz’)||0||0||0||4|
|Left-Left (LL – e.g., ‘es’)||4||6||1||5|
|Left-Right (LR – e.g., ‘fo’)||4||6||2||3|
|Right-Right (RR – e.g., ‘ou’)||4||2||5||1|
|Right-Left (RL – e.g., ‘us’)||3||4||2||2|
|Adjacent keys (e.g., ‘io’)||7||6||3||4|
To create the word combinations with high frequent bigrams, we used the following criteria:
For the component with low frequent bigrams (Word combination 4) we used the same criteria, but instead of selecting high frequency bigrams in the words, low frequency bigrams were presented, e.g. three to four bigrams occurring in the 50% lowest frequency percentiles of our corpus. The total length of the prompt across all languages was slightly shorter than in the high frequency components: average number of characters per word combination: M 19.0 (SD: 1.3).
The final component is designed to measure the typing skills in a non-lexical context . Participants are asked to copy four blocks of six consonants once. The blocks are identical for all languages: tjxggl pgkfkq dtdrtt npwdvf.
The copy task is presented to the participant as one fixed flow in which he or she is taken from one component to the next (Figure 2).
The copy task then starts with a brief introduction to instruct and inform the user about the task. For instance: “In this session we ask you to type letters, words and sentences that are shown on the screen. Try to do this as fast and error free as possible.” When pressing ‘start’ the components are shown one by one, always preceded by a brief – and specific – instruction. So as to allow the participants to read the task instructions at their own pace, we explicitly inform them that their time only starts after they have typed the first character.
The prompt needing to be copied is always presented separately and printed in dark red (Figure 3). When switching from the time-based components to the repetition-based components (word combinations that need to be retyped), a separate example screen is presented to further clarify this instruction.
Next, the flow brings the user to a brief closing questionnaire in which the following subjects are addressed: handedness, hardware and browser used for the test, dominant language, reading or writing difficulties, and familiarity with this task. For the handedness test we chose the reduced Edinburgh handedness test [18, 30]. Veale proved his assessment to be reliable with only four questions. Finally, the data are stored on a dedicated server. The participants have the option to download their log files locally.
A default copy task – based on the principles described above – is made available in ten languages. However, if a researcher wants to translate/transpose the default copy task into another language or wants to construct an additional copy task, he/she can use the so called ‘copy task creator’, made available as an integrated tool in Inputlog but also available as an isolated, stand-alone tool (see Github). The copy task creator consists of several building blocks that can be combined into a custom-made task flow. The following components are defined in the interface (see Figure 4):
After having defined and constructed the flow, the copy task file can be uploaded and is ready to start. The opening and closing questions are default.
The copy task analysis as provided in Inputlog consists of a carefully designed set of perspectives to explore the log file. The aim is to characterize a participant’s motoric keyboard interaction based on the different copy task components. The output is presented such that it is possible to use the data in further analyses (e.g., as a co-variate in variance analyses, or in regression and multilevel analyses). Two types of output are generated: an aggregated analysis (synthesis) and an event-based data file (extended raw data) including an automated characterization of all the targeted bigrams together with a precise intra bigram time-stamp. Both are XML-files. The analysis of the copy task log files can be performed in batch in the standard Inputlog version 8.X. Automated merging provides a csv file at group level for large data collections enabling further statistical analyses (e.g., in SPSS or R). A visual representation of the task flow, together with a more detailed description, is included in the documentation folder on Github.
The analysis report (styled XML) is preceded by a brief summary of the session information, together with the answers to the initial and final questionnaire. Next, the report addresses the following bigram characteristics (cf. supra):
For each level within the copy task analysis, several descriptive measures are reported (see Figure 5 for an excerpt). For instance: ‘Count (targeted)’ reports the number of characters typed that correspond to a character that was prompted in one of the respective copy task components; ‘Mean IKI’ is the arithmetic mean (in milliseconds) of the targeted bigrams within the scope of the respective analyses. Characters per minute (CPM): calculation of (theoretical number of) characters per minute based on the mean IKI, specifically 60 000 (ms)/mean IKI (ms).
For a more detailed description (and an example of a full sample analysis output) we refer to the Github repository mentioned below.
The task creator consists of a single C# WinForm that allows the user to build a custom copy task by adding their own sequence of specific tasks. Their task configuration is then exported to an XML file that contains the copy task definition.
The logging accuracy of the copy task is tested and compared to the Inputlog logging accuracy . The time log accuracy has the same maxdiff of 8 ms , which is in line with other keystroke logging programs, like Scriptlog or CyWrite.
In a test-retest experiment the copy task reliability has been measured. Fifty participants completed the task twice (with a time lag of 4 months in between). The results show that the test results are highly consistent: Pearson r = .932 (p < .001 – overall Median interkey intervals: Mt1 = 116 ms; SD = 17; Mt1 = 115 ms; SD = 19). Additional analysis with GLM repeated measures Anova at the component level showed a strong main effect of the components, (F (4,192) = 227.353; p < .001; ηp2 = .826). Post-hoc Bonferroni also shows a significant effect at the individual component level, indicating that the different (main) components address different (lexical) characteristics of motor related typing skills.
The copy task is web based and is tested on most common browsers (Chrome, Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari and Opera – OSX/Windows). The copy task creator is only available for Windows (version 8 and higher).
We thank Sebastian Fierens and Tom Pauwaert for their help in programming the copy task.
The compiled ready-to-use software is hosted on the Inputlog website and is downloadable from there: http://www.inputlog.net (Inputlog version 8). This website hosts the main application as well as additional materials (manual; presentations; articles; videos). The software is free to use after completing a simple registration procedure.
The source code for the copy task itself and the copy task creator is hosted in the GitHub repository, mentioned below.
Archive and Code repository: GitHub
At the moment we are building a Forum that is related to the Inputlog website (www.inputlog.net). This will accommodate easy interactions with the community.
To add a new language that is currently not supported in the default copy task, do not hesitate to contact the authors (see contact information).
We thank the following colleagues for their help in developing the different language versions: English: Lise Fontaine (Cardiff University, UK) and Mark Torrance (Nottingham University, UK); French: Thierry Olive (CNRS@University of Poitiers, France); German: Esther Breuer (University of Cologne, Germany); Norwegian: Anne Sætersdal Myklestad & Vibeke Ronneberg (Western Norway University of Applied Sciences & University of Stravanger, Norway); Polish: Olga Witczak (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland); Portuguese: Teresa Limpo (University of Porto, Portugal); Spanish: Anna Sala (University of Barcelona, Spain); Swedish: Asa Wengelin (University of Gothenburgh, Sweden) & Victoria Johansson (University of Lund, Sweden); Turkish: Gulay Tiryakioglu (University of Lyon 2, France); Welsh: Lise Fontaine (Cardiff University, UK).
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Alvès, R A, Castro, S L, de Sousa, L and Strömqvist, S 2007 Influence of typing skill on pause-execution cycles in written composition. In: Torrance, M, Galbraith, D and Van Waes, L (eds.), Recents developments in writing-process research, 55–65. Dordrecht-Boston-London: Kluwer Academic Press.
Araújo, L C, Sucupira, L H, Jr, Lizarraga, M G, Ling, L L and Yabu-Uti, J B T 2005 User authentication through typing biometrics features. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 53: 851–855. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TSP.2004.839903
Banerjee, S P and Woodard, D L 2012 Biometric authentication and identification using keystroke dynamics: A survey. Journal of Pattern Recognition Research, 7: 116–139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13176/11.427
Berninger, V W, Abbott, R D, Augsburger, A and Garcia, N 2009 Comparison of pen and keyboard transcription modes in children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32: 123–141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/27740364
Berninger, V W, Vaughan, K B, Abbott, R D, Abbott, S P, Rogan, L W, Brooks, A, Reed, E and Graham, S 1997 Treatment of Handwriting Problems in Beginning Writers: Transfer from Handwriting to Composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89: 652–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-06188.8.131.522
Evgeny Chukharev-Hudilainen, E 2018 Empowering automated writing evaluation with keystroke logging. In: Sullivan, K and Lindgren, E (eds.), Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting. Leiden: Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004392526_007
Grabowski, J, Weinzierl, C and Schmitt, M 2010 Second and fourth graders’ copying ability: from graphical to linguistic processing. Journal of Research in Reading, 33: 39–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01431.x
Graham, S, Harris, K R and Fink, B 2000 Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92: 620–633. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-06184.108.40.2060
Graham, S and Weintraub, N 1996 A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8: 7–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01761831
Hayes, J R 1996 A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In: Levy, C M & Ransdell, S E (eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications, 1–27. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hayes, J R 2012 Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29: 369–388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260
Keuleers, E, Brysbaert, M and New, B 2010 SUBTLEX-NL: A new frequency measure for Dutch words based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods, 42: 643–650. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.643
Lambert, E, Alamargot, D and Fayol, M 2012 Why use a copy task to study spelling in handwriting? In: Fayol, M, Alamargot, D and Berninger, V W (eds.), Translation of thought to written text while composing: Advancing theory, knowledge, research methods, tools, and applications, 339–356. New York/London: Psychology press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Leijten, M and Van Waes, L 2013 Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30: 358–392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313491692
Medimorec, S and Risko, E F 2016 Effects of disfluency in writing. British Journal of Psychology, 107: 625–650. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12177
Oldfield, R C 1971 The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9: 97–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4
Olive, T and Kellogg, R T 2002 Concurrent activation of high- and low-level production processes in written composition. Memory and Cognition, 30: 594–600. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194960
Pinet, S, Zielinski, C, Mathôt, S, Dufau, S, Alario, F-X and Longcamp, M 2017 Measuring sequences of keystrokes with jsPsych: Reliability of response times and interkeystroke intervals. Behavior research methods, 49: 1163–1176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0776-3
Rodrigues, R N, Yared, G F, Costa, C R d N, Yabu-Uti, J B, Violaro, F and Ling, L L 2005 Biometric access control through numerical keyboards based on keystroke dynamics. Advances in biometrics, 640–646. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11608288_85
Salthouse, T A 1984 Effects of age and skill in typing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 113: 345–371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-34220.127.116.115
Van Waes, L and Leijten, M 2015 Fluency in Writing: A Multidimensional Perspective on Writing Fluency Applied to L1 and L2. Computers & Composition, 38: 79–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2015.09.012
Van Waes, L, Leijten, M, Lindgren, E and Wengelin, Å 2015 Keystroke logging in writing research: Analyzing online writing processes. In: MacArthur, C A, Graham, S and Fitzgerald, J (eds.), Handbook of Writing Research, 410–426. second edition. New York: Guilford Press.
Van Waes, L, Leijten, M, Mariën, P and Engelborghs, S 2017 Typing competencies in Alzheimer’s disease: An exploration of copy tasks. Computers in Human Behavior, 73: 311–319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.050
Van Weerdenburg, M, Tesselhof, M and Van der Meijden, H 2019 Touch-typing for better spelling and narrative-writing skills on the computer. 35: 143–152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12323
Veale, J F 2014 Edinburgh Handedness Inventory – Short Form: A revised version based on confirmatory factor analysis. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 19: 164–177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2013.783045
Weigelt-Marom, H and Weintraub, N 2018 Keyboarding versus handwriting speed of higher education students with and without learning disabilities. Comput. Educ, 117: 132–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.008
Witt, S T, Laird, A R and Meyerand, M E 2008 Functional neuroimaging correlates of finger-tapping task variations: an ALE meta-analysis. Neuroimage, 42: 343–356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.04.025