Abstract
To explore the dynamics of processing in manuscript production, it is necessary to possess a system for recording the writer's graphic activity. This work describes the new version of the Eye and Pen program (version 3.01). In addition to the fact that it is now freely available (https://www.eyeandpen.net), the improvements described focus on its use for handwritten word production. First, we give some examples of the new features and improvements included in this new version, e.g., compatibility with previous versions and with other writing dynamics acquisition programs; “in-air” measurements; the choice of driver for timestamping; signal processing tools. The second part is dedicated to the issue of synchronization and temporal precision for the display of stimuli. The material presented here is available on OSF (http://osf.io/afpvz; project Eye and Pen).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This “system” string was modified with Windows Vista, then again with Windows 7, suggesting that the version of the operating system used plays a role in the time taken for the image to be effectively displayed on the screen (Plant & Turner, 2009).
StarTech EC1PECPS PCMIA (IEEE1284) parallel (SPP/EPP/CEP).
Conrad Electronic DT-105 PCI express adapter for the Expresscard card.
Maximum refresh rate of 75 Hz, reaction time of 14 ms and 1280 × 1024 native resolution.
Maximum refresh rate of 165 Hz, Gray to Gray of 1 ms and 2560 × 1440 native resolution.
References
Afonso, O., & Álvarez, C. J. (2019). Measuring writing durations in handwriting research: What do they tell us about the spelling process? In C. Perret & T. Olive (Eds.), Spelling and writing words: Theoretical and methodological advances. Studies in writing (pp. 151–162). Brill.
Alamargot, D., David, C., Dansac, C., & Ros, C. (2006). Eye and Pen: A new device for studying reading during writing. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 287–299. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192780
Bridges, D., Pitiot, A., MacAskills, M. R., & Peirce, J. W. (2020). The timing mega-study: Comparing a range of experiment generators, both lab-based and online. PeerJ, 8, e9414. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9414
Chesnet, D., & Alamargot, D. (2005). Analyse en temps réel des activités oculaires et grapho-motrices du scripteur : Intérêt du dispositif « Eye and Pen » [Real-time analysis of the writer’s graphomotoric and ocular activities: Interests of the “Eye and Pen” device]. L’année Psychologique, 105, 477–520. https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.2005.29706
Chesnet, D., Guillabert, F., & Espéret, E. (1994). G-STUDIO: Un logiciel pour l’étude en temps réel des paramètres temporels de la production écrite. [G-STUDIO: A software devoted to the online study of cognitive processes in writing]. L’année Psychologique, 94, 283–293. https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.1994.28757
Dupré, J.-C., Valle, V., Alamargot, D., & Chesnet, D. (2009). Measuring Wacom Cintiq 18SX and 21UX LCD tablets display. Unpublished technical report. Laboratoire de Mécanique des Solides, University of Poitiers.
Guinet, E., & Kandel, S. (2010). Ductus: A software package for the study of handwriting 1016/j.cognition production. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 326–332. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.326
Kandel, S., & Perret, C. (2015). How does the interaction between spelling and motor processes build up during writing acquisition? Cognition, 136, 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.014
Maggio, S., Chenu, F., Bes de Berc, G., Pesci, B., Lété, B., Jisa, H., & Fayol, M. (2015). Producing written noun phrases in French. Written Language and Literacy, 18, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.18.1.01mag
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Olive, T. (2014). Toward a parallel and cascading model of the writing system: A review of research on writing processes coordination. Journal of Writing Research, 6, 173–194. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2014.06.02.4
Perret, C., & Olive, T. (2019). Spelling and writing words: Theoretical and methodological advances. Brill.
Plant, R. R., Hammond, N., & Turner, G. (2004). Self-validating presentation and response timing in cognitive paradigms: How and why? Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 291–303. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195575
Plant, R. P., & Turner, G. (2009). Millisecond precision psychological research in a world of commodity computers: New hardware, new problems? Behavior Research Methods, 41, 598–614. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.3.598
Séraphin-Thibon, L., Gerber, S., & Kandel, S. (2019). Analyzing variability in upper-case letter production in adults. In C. Perret & T. Olive (Eds.), Spelling and writing words: Theoretical and methodological advances. Studies in writing (pp. 163–178). Brill.
Suárez-Coalla, P., Afonso, O., Martínez-García, C., & Cuetos, F. (2020). Dynamics of sentence handwriting in dyslexia: The impact of frequency and consistency. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 319. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00319
Summer, E., Connelly, V., & Barnett, A. L. (2013). Children with dyslexia are slow writers because they pause more often and not because they are slow at handwriting execution. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 991–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9403-6
Wang, P., & Nikolic, D. (2011). An LCD monitor with sufficiently precise timing for research in vision. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00085
Wimmer, R., Schmid, A., & Bockes, F. (2019). On the latency of USB-connected input devices. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Paper 420 (pp. 1–12).
Acknowledgements
This work has received support from the Nouvelle Aquitaine Region and the European Union within the framework of the “FEDER/FSE Operational Programme 2014–2020”. The authors wish to thank Thierry Olive and Eric Lambert for their scientific input into this work. They also wish to thank Qingqing Qu and an anonymous reviewer for very helpful comments on a previous version of this paper.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chesnet, D., Solier, C., Bordas, B. et al. A quick briefing on the new version of Eye and Pen (version 3.01): news and update. Read Writ 37, 253–264 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10267-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10267-5