As you rightfully pointed out there are a lot of articles which mention the increase in productivity levels. To quote this Computer Services Auckland Blog - Pulse IT Blog
A University of Utah and ATI Technologies survey of 108 university &
non university personnel using Dual Screen monitors reported
increases of productivity with 33% fewer errors, 16% faster edits, 6%
quicker access to tasks, as well as usability benefits of 45% easier
task tracking, 32% faster performance and 24% more comfortable to use
than single monitor set ups. Production of work was of a better
quality, performed faster and with fewer errors. Task focus of the
user along with their speed and ease of learning were also increased.
A survey undertaken for Apple on its larger high definition 30in
Cinema screen in comparison to using smaller monitors also offered
statistics boasting at least a 45% increase in productivity across the
board. This was then disputed as inhumanly possible by one
productivity expert who stated that a 5% increase was a more likely
figure for larger screen use and around a 30% increase in productivity
potential for Dual Monitor use. Although it’s advantageous to having
more space to work, it will help some more than others depending on
what they are working on. Larger screens could also have positive
health benefits for workers such as less eye squinting.
Another white paper by Dell also highlights why users find dual or multiple monitors useful
On a scale of 1-10, Wichita study participants ranked dual monitors as more useful than single screens
There is also an interesting paper by Microsoft research titled Toward Characterizing the Productivity Benefits of Very Large Displays which has this to say about the usability of using large monitors and larger screen space
We did observe several usability issues for both display size
conditions. For the small display, there were many problems observed
in terms of managing the level of complexity on the small screen,
including losing files by accidentally closing them, wasting time
resizing for each stage of a task, moving windows so that they weren't
occluding key information, etc. From our windows event monitoring
software, we observed that users on the small display wasted time
bringing windows back to the front when occluded, resizing and
repositioning them. In addition, small display users spent extra time
accidentally opening and closing documents they did not intend to
because the taskbar aggregated window items by application (i.e., all
open web pages would collapse to one tile on the taskbar, with a
numeric indicator of how many items were being represented by that
tile). In all, users performed over 300 more window “focus” events
(i.e., bringing the window to the top of the z-order for input) on the
small display than they did on the large display.
For the large display, brightness of the display was mentioned as an
issue by several users. Also, some users thought that they were
forced to sit "too close" to the display, and they wanted to be able
to back up and interact with it from a distance. In terms of windows
design for the very large display, users mentioned the amount of
navigation required and the problem of losing the cursor on the
display were the two most onerous problems.
With regards to using dual or multiple monitors,this article provides some useful inputs on usability issues
In Tog’s article on Fitts’ Law, he describes how he experimented with
“multiple desktops” (though at the time, it may have seemed more
arbitrary than that). With a second monitor on top of the first, and a
menu that users could “bypass” into the top monitor, it actually
slowed the user down quite considerably: at first, the menu was missed
quite often until the user slowed way down to get at the menu.
When using multiple monitors in a horizontal direction (a typical
layout) the right edge of the left screen and the left edge of the
right screen become very hard to hit. This especially becomes a
problem with programs that are maximized. Consider the example of a
typical scrollbar (normally on the right hand side) on a maximized
application on one of the two monitors. On the left-side monitor, it
becomes a hard target as the user has to directly aim and slow down to
hit it. If on the right-side monitor, the scroll bar essentially
becomes infinitely large and can be hit without any trouble at all.
Using multiple monitors also completely eradicates two of the five
easiest locations to reach: two corners are no longer easily
“reachable” – or perhaps reachable at all. This easy reachability of
the corner is perhaps one reason that programs put the window control
buttons in the top right corner; with another monitor on the right the
corner becomes that much harder to hit. If there is a monitor above,
then it becomes just that much harder.
As per this coding horror article It states that three monitors are optimal for users in general
As good as two monitors is, three monitors is even better. With three
monitors, there's a "center" to focus on. And 50% more display area.
While there's certainly a point of diminishing returns for additional
monitors, I think three is the sweet spot. Even Edward Tufte, in the
class I recently attended, explicitly mentioned multiple monitors
Lastly this paper by Microsoft research is a good resource and worth reading with regards to how perception is determined by screen size and screen area
Partitioning Digital Worlds: Focal and Peripheral Awareness in Multiple Monitor Use