The keyboard, far from being a rudimentary input peripheral, constitutes a sophisticated interface that mediates neurocognitive processes and biomechanical efficiency. Its typographic stratification, vestigial of 19th-century mechanical exigencies, has been perpetuated despite mounting evidence favoring neuroergonomically optimized alternatives. The dichotomy between legacy inertia and adaptive optimization underscores the complex interplay between cognitive automation and motor redundancy. From a neurophysiological perspective, sustained keyboard interaction orchestrates an intricate synaptic interplay involving the premotor cortex, supplementary motor area, and parietal proprioceptive circuits. The consolidation of motor engrams through repetitive keystroke sequences engenders a procedural schematization that attenuates cognitive load, fostering a seamless translation of ideation into textual articulation. This neuroplastic modulation, however, is contingent upon ergonomic consonance; maladaptive input configurations precipitate proprioceptive discordance and exacerbate kinetic asymmetries. Ergonomic misalignment, particularly within the constraints of traditional planar layouts, predicates a heightened susceptibility to cumulative musculoskeletal pathologies, including tenosynovitis and median nerve compression syndromes. The advent of ortholinear and split keyboard architectures seeks to remediate these biomechanical inefficiencies, introducing calibrated actuation thresholds and optimized wrist pronation angles to mitigate chronic strain. In summation, the keyboard is not merely a utilitarian conduit for digital interaction but a pivotal determinant of cognitive fluency and biomechanical sustainability, necessitating an interdisciplinary reassessment of its structural paradigms.