CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7Motor Control and AdaptationEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFree Will and Agency

Differences in Mechanical Parameters of Keyboard Switches Modulate Motor Preparation: A Wearable EEG Study

Open access
Watanabe, Hiroki, Nakajima, Kae, Takagi, Shunsuke, Mizuyama, Ryo, Saito, Mayumi, Furusawa, Koichi, Nakatani, Kunio, Yokota, Yusuke +3 more·2021·Frontiers in Neuroergonomics
DOI 10.3389/fnrgo.2021.644449PMC PMC10790865
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The mechanical parameters of keyboard switches affect the psychological sense of pressing. The effects of different mechanical parameters on psychological sense have been quantified using questionnaires, but these subjective evaluations are unable to fully clarify the modulation of information processing in the brain due to these differences. This study aimed to elucidate the ability of electroencephalography (EEG) measurements to detect the modulation of subconscious information processing according to mechanical parameter values. To this end, we prepared five mechanical switches with linearly increasing values of pretravel (PT: the distance from the free position until the operating position). We hypothesized that the differences in PTs would subconsciously affect the motor preparation prior to pressing switches because switches with PTs that deviated from those commonly used were predicted to increase the users' attention level when pressing. Differences in motor preparation were quantified using the mean amplitudes of the late contingent negative variation (CNV). We recorded EEGs of 25 gamers during a reaction task for fast switch pressing after a response cue preceded by a pre-cue for response preparation; we also measured the reaction time feedback on each switch pressing trial. Participants performed five sessions (60 trials per session) in total. For the analysis, trials were divided into first (session 1, 2, and 3) and second half sessions (session 4 and 5). In the latter session, CNV amplitudes were significantly higher for the switch with the highest PT than for that with a medium PT, which is closest to that commonly used in commercial mechanical switches. On the other hand, the questionnaire did not detect any significant differences between PTs in their subjective rankings of the psychological effects of switch pressing. These results suggest that differences in PTs modulate motor preparation to press switches, and that EEG measurements may provide a novel objective evaluation of the mechanical parameters of keyboard switches.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnrgo.2021.644449

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Handwriting activates brain regions associated with episodic memory and deeper encoding processes.

    “As Watanabe et al. [52] note, handwriting activates brain regions associated with episodic memory and deeper encoding processes.”

    From The Neuroscience Behind Writing: Handwriting vs. Typing—Who Wins the Battle? (2025) · cites this paper as [52]

    The Introduction and Discussion address brain activity during keyboard-switch use and motor preparation, not handwriting. Searches for handwriting, episodic memory, and encoding found no passage in our copy supporting the attributed claim; the indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Aldayel M. Ykhlef M. Al-Nafjan A. (2020). Deep learning for EEG-based preference cassification in neuromarketing. Appl. Sci. 10: 1525. 10.3390/app10041525 · DOI
  2. Aricó P. Borghini G. Di Flumeri G. Colosimo A. Bonelli S. Golfetti A.. (2016). Adaptive automation triggered by EEG-based mental workload index: a passive brain-computer interface application in realistic air traffic control environment. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10: 539. 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00539 27833542 PMC5080530 · DOI
  3. Ariely D. Berns G. S. (2010). Neuromarketing: the hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11, 284– 292. 10.1038/nrn2795 20197790 PMC2875927 · DOI
  4. Bates D. Mächler M. Bolker B. Walker S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1– 48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bazzani A. Ravaioli S. Faraguna U. Turchetti G. (2020). Is EEG suitable for marketing research? A systematic review. Front. Neurosci. 14: 594566. 10.3389/fnins.2020.594566 33408608 PMC7779633 · DOI
  6. Benjamini Y. Hochberg Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 57, 289– 300. 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · DOI · Paper page
  7. Buck L. (1966). Reaction time as a measure of perceptual vigilance. Psychol. Bull. 65, 291– 304. 10.1037/h0023207 5325893 · DOI
  8. Carsten T. Kostandyan M. Boehler C. N. Krebs R. M. (2021). Comparing the motivational value of rewards and losses in an EEG-pupillometry study. Eur. J. Neurosci. 53, 1822– 1838. 10.1111/ejn.15064 33244798 · DOI
  9. Delorme A. Makeig S. (2004). EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J. Neurosci. Methods 134, 9– 21. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009 15102499 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Dmochowski J. P. Bezdek M. A. Abelson B. P. Johnson J. S. Schumacher E. H. Parra L. C. (2014). Audience preferences are predicted by temporal reliability of neural processing. Nat. Commun. 5: 4567. 10.1038/ncomms5567 25072833 PMC4124862 · DOI
  11. Eckner J. T. Kutcher J. S. Richardson J. K. (2010). Pilot evaluation of a novel clinical test of reaction time in national collegiate athletic association division I football players. J. Athl. Train. 45, 327– 332. 10.4085/1062-6050-45.4.327 20617905 PMC2902024 · DOI
  12. Gaillard A. W. K. (1977). The late CNV wave: preparation versus expectancy. Psychophysiology 14, 563– 568. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1977.tb01200.x 928607 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Golnar-Nik P. Farashi S. Safari M. S. (2019). The application of EEG power for the prediction and interpretation of consumer decision-making: a neuromarketing study. Physiol. Behav. 207, 90– 98. 10.1016/j.physbeh.2019.04.025 31047949 · DOI
  14. Guo F. Qu Q. X. Nagamachi M. Duffy V. G. (2020). A proposal of the event-related potential method to effectively identify Kansei words for assessing product design features in Kansei engineering research. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 76: 102940. 10.1016/j.ergon.2020.102940 · DOI
  15. Hajcak G. Holroyd C. B. Moser J. S. Simons R. F. (2005). Brain potentials associated with expected and unexpected good and bad outcomes. Psychophysiology 42, 161– 170. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00278.x 15787853 · DOI
  16. Hajcak G. Moser J. S. Holroyd C. B. Simons R. F. (2007). It's worse than you thought: The feedback negativity and violations of reward prediction in gambling tasks. Psychophysiology 44, 905– 912. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00567.x 17666029 · DOI
  17. Higashi Y. Yokota Y. Naruse Y. (2017). Signal correlation between wet and original dry electrodes in electroencephalogram according to the contact impedance of dry electrodes, in Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (Jeju Island), 1062– 1065. 10.1109/EMBC.2017.8037010 29060057 · DOI
  18. Hillyard S. A. Hink R. F. Schwent V. L. Picton T. W. (1973). Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain. Science 182, 177– 180. 10.1126/science.182.4108.177 4730062 · DOI
  19. King M. F. Bruner G. C. (2000). Social desirability bias: a neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychol. Mark. 17, 79– 103. 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200002)17:2<79::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-0 · DOI
  20. Kiss M. Eimer M. (2008). ERPs reveal subliminal processing of fearful faces. Psychophysiology 45, 318– 326. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00634.x 17995905 PMC2375009 · DOI
  21. Krebs R. M. Boehler C. N. Appelbaum L. G. Woldorff M. G. (2013). Reward associations reduce behavioral interference by changing the temporal dynamics of conflict processing. PLoS ONE 8: e53894. 10.1371/journal.pone.0053894 23326530 PMC3542315 · DOI
  22. Leuthold H. Sommer W. Ulrich R. (2004). Preparing for action: inferences from CNV and LRP. J. Psychophysiol. 18, 77– 88. 10.1027/0269-8803.18.23.77 · DOI
  23. Liebrand M. Pein I. Tzvi E. Krämer U. M. (2017). Temporal dynamics of proactive and reactive motor inhibition. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11: 204. 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00204 28496405 PMC5406465 · DOI
  24. Liu J. Wu G. Luo Y. Qiu S. Yang S. Li W.. (2020). EEG-based emotion classification using a deep neural network and sparse autoencoder. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 14: 43. 10.3389/fnsys.2020.00043 32982703 PMC7492909 · DOI
  25. Luck S. J. Gaspelin N. (2017). How to get statistically significant effects in any ERP experiment (and why you shouldn't). Psychophysiology 54, 146– 157. 10.1111/psyp.12639 28000253 PMC5178877 · DOI
  26. Ma Q. Meng L. Wang L. Shen Q. (2014). I endeavor to make it: effort increases valuation of subsequent monetary reward. Behav. Brain Res. 261, 1– 7. 10.1016/j.bbr.2013.11.045 24308956 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Maris E. Oostenveld R. (2007). Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG-and MEG-data. J. Neurosci. Methods 164, 177– 190. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024 17517438 · DOI · Paper page
  28. McCallum W. C. Walter W. G. (1968). The effects of attention and distraction on the contingent negative variation in normal and neurotic subjects. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 25, 319– 329. 10.1016/0013-4694(68)90172-7 4176536 · DOI
  29. Morin C. (2011). Neuromarketing: the new science of consumer behavior. Society 48, 131– 135. 10.1007/s12115-010-9408-1 · DOI
  30. Mullen T. R. Kothe C. A. Chi Y. M. Ojeda A. Kerth T. Makeig S.. (2015). Real-time neuroimaging and cognitive monitoring using wearable dry EEG. IEEE. Trans. Biomed. Eng. 62, 2553– 2567. 10.1109/TBME.2015.2481482 26415149 PMC4710679 · DOI
  31. Näätänen R. Picton T. (1987). The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: a review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology 24, 375– 425. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1987.tb00311.x 3615753 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Nagamachi M. (1995). Kansei engineering: a new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 15, 3– 11. 10.1016/0169-8141(94)00052-5 12164511 · DOI
  33. Osgood C. E. Suci G. J. Tannenbaum P. H. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
  34. Pantazatos S. P. Talati A. Pavlidis P. Hirsch J. (2012). Cortical functional connectivity decodes subconscious, task-irrelevant threat-related emotion processing. Neuroimage 61, 1355– 1363. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.051 22484206 PMC3393600 · DOI
  35. Plassmann H. O'Doherty J. Rangel A. (2007). Orbitofrontal cortex encodes willingness to pay in everyday economic transactions. J. Neurosci. 27, 9984– 9988. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2131-07.2007 17855612 PMC6672655 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Ramsøy T. Z. Skov M. Christensen M. K. Stahlhut C. (2018). Frontal brain asymmetry and willingness to pay. Front. Neurosci. 12: 138. 10.3389/fnins.2018.00138 29662432 PMC5890093 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Sammer G. Blecker C. Gebhardt H. Bischoff M. Stark R. Morgen K.. (2007). Relationship between regional hemodynamic activity and simultaneously recorded EEG-theta associated with mental arithmetic-induced workload. Hum. Brain Mapp. 28, 793– 803. 10.1002/hbm.20309 17080437 PMC6871320 · DOI
  38. Sargent A. Watson J. Ye H. Suri R. Ayaz H. (2020). Neuroergonomic assessment of hot beverage preparation and consumption: an EEG and EDA study. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 14: 175. 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00175 32499688 PMC7242644 · DOI
  39. Scheffé H. (1952). An analysis of variance for paired comparisons. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 47, 381– 400. 10.1080/01621459.1952.10501179 · DOI
  40. Schevernels H. Bombeke K. Krebs R. M. Boehler C. N. (2016). Preparing for (valenced) action: the role of differential effort in the orthogonalized go/no-go task. Psychophysiology 53, 186– 197. 10.1111/psyp.12558 26481327 · DOI
  41. Schevernels H. Krebs R. M. Santens P. Woldorff M. G. Boehler C. N. (2014). Task preparation processes related to reward prediction precede those related to task-difficulty expectation. Neuroimage 84, 639– 647. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.09.039 24064071 PMC3863725 · DOI
  42. So W. K. Y. Wong S. W. H. Mak J. N. Chan R. H. M. (2017). An evaluation of mental workload with frontal EEG. PLoS ONE 12: e0174949. 10.1371/journal.pone.0174949 28414729 PMC5393562 · DOI
  43. Spence C. (2019). Neuroscience-inspired design: from academic neuromarketing to commercially relevant research. Organ. Res. Methods 22, 275– 298. 10.1177/1094428116672003 · DOI
  44. Verleger R. Wauschkuhn B. van der Lubbe R. Jaśkowski P. Trillenberg P. (2000). Posterior and anterior contribution of hand-movement preparation to late CNV. J. Psychophysiol. 14, 69– 86. 10.1027//0269-8803.14.2.69 · DOI
  45. Walter W. G. Cooper R. Aldridge V. J. McCallum W. C. Winter A. L. (1964). Contingent negative variation: an electric sign of sensori-motor association and expectancy in the human brain. Nature 203, 380– 384. 10.1038/203380a0 14197376 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Wang X. W. Nie D. Lu B. L. (2014). Emotional state classification from EEG data using machine learning approach. Neurocomputing 129, 94– 106. 10.1016/j.neucom.2013.06.046 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Winkielman P. Berridge K. C. Wilbarger J. L. (2005). Unconscious affective reactions to masked happy versus angry faces influence consumption behavior and judgments of value. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31, 121– 135. 10.1177/0146167204271309 15574667 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Watanabe, H., Nakajima, K., Takagi, S., Mizuyama, R., Saito, M., Furusawa, K., Nakatani, K., Yokota, Y., Kataoka, H., Nakajima, H., & Naruse, Y.
Affiliations
  • Center for Information and Neural Networks (JP)
  • Omron (Japan) (JP)
Corresponding author
Naruse, Yasushi
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroergonomics
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2021-08-18
Volume
2
Pages
644449-644449
ISSN
2673-6195 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fnrgo.2021.644449
PMC
PMC10790865
OpenAlex
W3193718285
Cited by
7
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2
FWCI
0.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroergonomics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
OMRON Corporation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
mechanical parameters, motor preparation, contingent negative variation, attention, gamers, reaction time

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review