Exploring structural learning in handwriting

Abstract

Structural learning suggests that the human nervous system learns general rules that can be applied when controlling actions involving similar structures (e.g. using a variety of bicycles when learning to ride). These general rules can then facilitate skill acquisition in novel but related situations (e.g. a new bicycle). We tested this concept by investigating whether learned asymmetries in handwriting (greater ease in moving the hand rightwards and downwards within Western-educated populations) are present in the non-preferred hand as predicted by structural learning. We found these asymmetries in both hands of a right-handed population when tracing abstract shapes. We then ruled out biomechanical explanations by finding the same results with a left-handed population. These findings provide support for structural learning and explain: (1) the rapidity with which individuals can learn to write with their non-preferred hand; (2) the presence of a higher abstract (effector independent) level within voluntary motor control organisation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Abeele S, Bock O (2001) Mechanisms for sensorimotor adaptation to rotated visual input. Exp Brain Res 139:248–253

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Blank R, Miller V, von Voß H (2000) Human motor development and hand laterality: a kinematic analysis of drawing movements. Neurosci Lett 295(3):89–92

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonoti F, Vlachos F, Metallidou P (2005) Writing, drawing performance of school aged children: is there any relationship? Sch Psychol Int 26(2):243–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Braun DA, Aersten A, Wolpert DM, Mehring C (2009) Motor task variation induces structural learning. Curr Biol 19(4):352–357

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chapman J, Henneberg M (1999) Switching the handedness of adults: results of 10 weeks training of the non-preferred hand. Perspect Hum Biol 4(1):211–217

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Culmer PR, Levesley MC, Mon-Williams M, Williams JHG (2009) A new tool for assessing human movement: the kinematic assessment tool. J Neurosci Methods 184:184–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Meulenbroek RGJ, van Galen GP (1986) Movement analysis of repetitive writing behaviour of first, second and third grade primary school children. In: Kao HSR, van Galen GP, Hoosain R (eds) Graphonomics: contemporary research in handwriting. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 71–92

    Google Scholar 

  8. O’Mahony P, Dempsey M, Killeen H (2008) Handwriting speed: duration of testing period, relation to socio-economic disadvantage, handedness. Occup Ther Int 15(3):165–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Plamondon R, Alimi AM (1997) Speed/accuracy trade-offs in target-directed movements. Behav Brain Sci 20(2):279–303

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Provins KA, Magliaro J (1993) The measurement of handedness by preference and performance tests. Brain Cogn 22:171–181

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sovik N, Arntzen O (1991) A developmental study of the relation between movement patterns in letter combinations (words) and writing. In: Wann J, Wing AM, Sovik N (eds) Development of graphic skills: research, perspectives and educational implications. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 77–90

    Google Scholar 

  13. Thorndike L, Woodworth RS (1901) The influence of improvement in one mental function upon efficiency of other functions. Psychol Rev 8:247–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Thoroughman KA, Shadmehr R (2000) Learning of action through adaptive combination of motor primitives. Nature 407:742–747

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tresilian JR (1999) Abstract levels of motor control in prehension: normal and pathological performance. Hum Mov Sci 18:219–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Walker L, Henneberg M (2007) Writing with the non-dominant hand: cross-handedness trainability in adult individuals. Laterality Asymmetries Body Brain Cogn 12(2):121–130

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wolpert DM, Flanagan JR (2010) Motor learning. Curr Biol 20(11):R467–R472

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to The Magstim Company Limited and the Biomedical and Health Research Centre at the University of Leeds for their support of this project.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard M. Wilkie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, R.L., Culmer, P.R., Burke, M.R. et al. Exploring structural learning in handwriting. Exp Brain Res 207, 291–295 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2438-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Handwriting
  • Kinematic
  • Learning
  • Motor control
  • Non-preferred hand
  • Preferred hand
  • Structural learning
  • Task structure