I couldn't find any. Could anyone provide some pointers, please?

> I'm talking about modal editing. Obviously I'm not against context.

When scientific proof lacks, appropriate analogies can be our only tool in analyzing a issue and reaching a conclusion. My point is that people don't seem to have issues with modality in other contexts, provided that they know how to cope with it, thus why should I doubt their ability to cope with modality while editing?

> This isn't how we progress. Do you have a study that demonstrates the opposite? Then claiming the study was flawed is meaningless.

Sadly, progress is slower than we wish. If a study contradicting empirical evidence is flawed, it doesn't prove anything, for empirical evidence wins and we are back to square one.

> I knew how to use it just fine, but mode management slows everything down.

This proves that some people have issues with modal editing. Why? Maybe: - they didn't approach it effectively (in the case of Vim, they lingered in Insert mode); - their tools were inappropriate (in the case of Vim, the Esc key was too far). - or modal editing requires some mental capability which not everyone possess (some people can type on Dvorak and Qwerty, indifferently); - or modal thinking is a learned skill; - or... If we can solve this problem, instead of saying that modal editing is better, we could say that modal editing is better when some conditions are met.

EDIT: I've also thought about reasons for Vi-style editing not being as superior as it was in the past: - keyboard layouts do not resemble the keyboard layout used while designing Vi; - keyboards with integrated touch-pads and/or track-pads are available to make switching to a pointing device quicker.