Reading and Writing

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 927–943 | Cite as

Perception of the cursive handwriting movement in writers and pre-writers

  • Nathalie Bonneton-BottéEmail author
  • Florence Bara
  • Nathalie Marec-Breton
  • Fanny De La Haye-Nicolas
  • Corentin Gonthier


The objective of this study was to confirm the existence of knowledge relating to the cursive writing movement for French pupils in 3rd year of kindergarten, 2nd grade and 5th grade of elementary school. 141 pupils were asked to watch a visual presentation of cursive handwriting to determine whether they were able to detect violations of two rules of handwriting: continuity and sequentiality of the cursive handwriting movement. Our results showed progressive development of the understanding of characteristics of the cursive handwriting movement, with different developmental trajectories of knowledge for the different rules. The ability to detect continuity of the cursive writing movement developed earlier than the ability to detect sequentiality. Correct decisions were not always accompanied by correct justifications, which developed more slowly than detection of rule violations.


Cursive handwriting Perception Continuity Sequentiality Children 

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 1506 kb)

11145_2018_9819_MOESM2_ESM.mpg (7 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (MPG 7218 kb)


  1. Alamargot, D., & Morin, M. F. (2015). Does handwriting on a tablet screen affect students’ graphomotor execution? A comparison between Grades Two and Nine. Human Movement Science, 44, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alamargot, D., Plane, S., Lambert, E., & Chesnet, D. (2010). Using eye and pen movements to trace the development of writing expertise: Case studies of a 7th, 9th and 12th grader, graduate student, and professional writer. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(7), 853–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auzias, M. (1975). Enfants gauchers, enfants droitiers, une épreuve de latéralité de latéralité usuelle [Left-handed children, right-handed children, a lateral laterality test]. Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
  4. Babcock, M. K., & Freyd, J. J. (1988). Perception of dynamic information in static handwritten forms. American Journal of Psychology, 101, 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bara, F., Gentaz, E., Colé, P., & Sprenger-Charolles, L. (2004). The visuo-haptic and haptic exploration of letters increases the kindergarten-children’s understanding of the alphabetic principle. Cognitive Development, 19, 433–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bara, F., Morin, M. F., Alamargot, D., & Bosse, M. L. (2016). Learning different allographs through handwriting: The impact on letter knowledge and reading acquisition. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bara, F., Morin, M.-F., Montésinos-Gelet, I., & Lavoie, N. (2011). Conceptions et pratiques en graphomotricité chez des enseignants de primaire en France et au Québec. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 176, 41–56. Scholar
  8. Bartolomeo, P., Bachoud-lévi, A. C., Chokron, S., & Degos, J. D. (2002). Visually- and motor-based knowledge of letters: Evidence from a pure alexic patient. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1363–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Begay, K., Coleman, K. B., Curtin, G., et al. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 291–304. Scholar
  10. Berry, D. C., & Broadbent, D. E. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36, 209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bidet-Ildei, C., Orliaguet, J.-P., Sokolov, A. N., & Pavlova, M. (2006). Perception of Elliptic Biological Motion. Perception, 35(8), 1137–1147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bo, J., Barta, J., Ferencak, H., Comstock, S., Riley, V., & Krueger, J. (2014). Developmental characteristics in cursive and printed letter-writing for school-age children. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 2(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonneton-Botté, N., & De La Haye, F. (2009). Apprentissage de l’écriture manuscrite: Des difficultés perçues par les enseignants aux difficultés des élèves. In N. Marec-Breton, A. S. Besse, F. De La Haye, N. Bonneton, & E. Bonjour (Eds.), L’apprentissage de la langue écrite: Approche cognitive (pp. 263–277). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
  14. Bonneton-Botté, N., De La Haye, F., Marec-Breton, N., & Bara, F. (2012). Détection et identification d’une caractéristique du mouvement d’écriture manuscrite chez l’enfant [Detection and identification of a characteristic of the handwriting movement in children]. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 66(3), 164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bourdin, B., Cogis, D., & Foulin, J. N. (2010). Influence des traitements graphomoteurs et orthographiques sur la production de textes écrits: perspective pluridisciplinaire [Influence of graphomotor and orthographic treatments on the production of written texts: Multidisciplinary perspective]. Languages, 1, 57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brun-Henin, F., Velay, J. L., Beecham, Y., & Cariou, S. (2013). Troubles d’écriture et dyslexie: revue théorique, aspects cliniques et approche expérimentale [Writing disorders and dyslexia: Theoretical review, clinical aspects and experimental approach]. Développements, 4, 4–28.Google Scholar
  17. Calvo-Merino, B., Grèzes, J., Glaser, D. E., Passingham, R. E., & Haggard, P. (2006). Seeing or doing? Influence of visual and motor familiarity in action observation. Current Biology, 16(19), 1905–1910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Christensen, C. A. (2005). The Role of Orthographic–Motor Integration in the Production of Creative and Well-Structured Written Text for Students in Secondary School. Educational Psychology, 25(5), 441–453. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flores D’Arcaïs, G. B. (1994). Order of strokes writing as a cue for retrieval in reading Chinese characters. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6(4), 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foulin, J. N. (1995). Pauses et débits: les indicateurs temporels de la production écrite [Pauses and flows: Temporal indicators of written production]. L’Année Psychologique, 95, 483–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodnow, J. J., & Levine, R. A. (1973). “The grammar of action”: Sequence and syntax in children’s copying. Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 82–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jolly, C., Palluel-Germain, R., & Gentaz, E. (2013). Evaluation of a tactile training for handwriting acquisition in French kindergarten children: A pilot study (pp. 161–176). Kindergartens: Teaching methods, Expectations and Current Challenges.Google Scholar
  23. Kandel, S., Hérault, L., Grosjacques, G., Lambert, E., & Fayol, M. (2009). Orthographic vs. phonologic syllables in handwriting production. Cognition, 110(3), 440–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kandel, S., Orliaguet, J. P., & Viviani, P. (2000). Perceptual anticipation in handwriting: The role of implicit motor competence. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 62(4), 706–716. Scholar
  25. Kandel, S., & Perret, C. (2015). How does the interaction between spelling and motor processes build up during writing acquisition? Cognition, 136, 325–336. Scholar
  26. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective in cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lambert, E., & Espéret, E. (1997). Le début du langage écrit: les premières productions grapho-motrices [The beginning of written language: the first grapho-motor productions]. Arob@se, 1(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
  28. Lété, B., Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Colé, P. (2004). MANULEX: A grade-level lexical database from French elementary-school readers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 156–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Louis Dam, A., Kandel, S., & Orliaguet, J. P. (2000). Perception visuelle des mouvements humains: Anticipation visuelle et anticipation motrice [Visual perception of human movements: Visual anticipation and motor anticipation]. Psychologie Française, 45(4), 333–342.Google Scholar
  30. Maldarelli, J. E., Kahrs, B. A., Hunt, S. C., & Lockman, J. J. (2015). Development of early handwriting: Visual-motor control during letter copying. Developmental Psychology, 51(7), 879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matthewman, S., & Triggs, P. (2004). ‘Obsessive compulsive font disorder’: The challenge of supporting pupils writing with the computer. Computers & Education, 43(1), 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Medwell, J., & Wray, D. (2008). Handwriting–A forgotten language skill? Language and Education, 22(1), 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mojet, J. W. (1991). Characteristics of the developing handwriting skill in elementary education. In J. Wann, A. M. Wing, & N. Sovik (Eds.), Development of graphic skills (pp. 53–75). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8, 61–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Norton, E. S., & Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency: Implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 427–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olive, T., Favart, M., Beauvais, C., & Beauvais, L. (2009). Children’s cognitive effort and fluency in writing: Effects of genre and of handwriting automatization. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Orliaguet, J. P., Kandel, S., & Boë, L. J. (1997). Visual perception of motor anticipation in cursive handwriting: Influence of spatial and movement information on the prediction of forthcoming letters. Perception, 26, 905–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parkinson, J., Dyson, B. J., & Khurana, B. (2010). Line by line: The ERP correlates of stroke order priming in letters. Experimental Brain Research, 201(3), 575–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paz-Villagrán, V., Danna, J., & Velay, J. L. (2014). Lifts and stops in proficient and dysgraphic handwriting. Human Movement Science, 33, 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perruchet, P. (2008). Implicit learning. Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference. Scholar
  41. Pontart, V., Bidet-Ildei, C., Lambert, E., Morisset, P., Flouret, L., & Alamargot, D. (2013). Influence of handwriting skills during spelling in primary and lower secondary grades. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 818. Scholar
  42. Prunty, M. M., Barnett, A. L., Wilmut, K., & Plumb, M. S. (2014). An examination of writing pauses in the handwriting of children with Developmental Coordination Disorder. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(11), 2894–2905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(6), 855–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82(4), 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simner, M. L. (1981). The grammar of action and children’s printing. Developmental Psychology, 17(6), 866. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sutherland, R., Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Brawn, R., Breeze, N., Gall, M., et al. (2004). Transforming teaching and learning: Embedding ICT into everyday classroom practices. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 20(6), 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Velay, J. L., & Longcamp, M. (2013). Motor skills and written language perception: Contribution of writing knowledge to visual recognition of graphic shapes. In Y. Coello, & A. Bartolo (Eds.), Language and action in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 161–176).
  48. Vinter, A., & Chartrel, E. (2008). Visual and proprioceptive recognition of cursive letters in young children. Acta Psychologica, 129(1), 147–156. Scholar
  49. Vinter, A., & Chartrel, E. (2010). Effects of different types of learning on handwriting movements in young children. Learning and Instruction, 20(6), 476–486. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vinter, A., & Marot, V. (2007). The development of context sensitivity in children’s graphic copying strategies. Developmental Psychology, 43(1), 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vinter, A., & Perruchet, P. (1999). Isolating unconscious influences: The neutral parameter procedure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 857–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vinter, A., & Perruchet, P. (2000). Implicit learning in children is not related to age: Evidence from drawing behavior. Child Development, 71, 1223–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vinter, A., & Perruchet, P. (2002). Implicit motor learning through observational training in adults and children. Memory and Cognition, 30, 256–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Viviani, P., & Stucchi, N. (1992). Biological movements look uniform: Evidence of motor-perceptual interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(3), 603.Google Scholar
  55. Weeks, D. L., & Anderson, L. P. (2000). The interaction of observational learning with overt practice: Effects on motor skill learning. Acta Psychologica, 104, 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wong, T. H., & Kao, H. S. R. (1991). The development of drawing principles in Chinese. In Development of graphic skills: Research Perspectives and Educational Implications (pp. 93–112).Google Scholar
  57. Zesiger, P. (1992). L’écriture chez l’enfant de 8 à 12 ans et chez l’adulte: aspects perceptivo-moteurs et effets linguistiques. [Writing in children aged 8 to 12 years and in adults: perceptual-motor aspects and linguistic effects]. Unpublished doctoral thesis Université de Genève: faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l’Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cognition, Langues, Langage, Ergonomie (CLLE-LTC), UMR 5263Université Toulouse Jean-JaurèsToulouse Cedex 9France
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Psychologie, Cognition, Comportement et Communication (LP3C), Equipe d’accueil 1285Université Rennes 2RennesFrance
  3. 3.ESPE de BretagneSaint-BrieucFrance

Personalised recommendations