Skip to main content
Log in

Do we see what makes our script characteristic — or do we only feel it? Modes of sensory control in handwriting

  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

How does a person produce handwritten letters which are both legible and also show an individuality of script? Three production control models are proposed: 1) Visual control, 2) Kinesthetic control, and 3) Parallel Kinesthetic and Visual control. In Experiment 1 24 subjects wrote text samples by hand under normal lighting, reduced lighting, or in complete darkness. The subjects addressed the samples to themselves, to close friends, or to other students. The handwriting did not degenerate under the reduction of visibility if the subjects addressed the samples to themselves, but it did undergo marked changes if directed at someone unknown. This result rules out the visual control model. In Experiment 2 the same subjects were asked to answer questions about the characteristics of their own handwritten letters while holding an image of the letter in mind. There were four types of imagery instructions: subjects were told to form either 1) a static visual image, 2) a dynamic image, 3) a kinesthetic image, 4) a combined kinesthetic and dynamic visual image. Subjects were able to answer questions about their handwritten letters more correctly with the fourth type of imagery instructions, suggesting Parallel Kinesthetic and Visual control of handwriting, the third of the proposed control models. A closer examination of the results of Experiment 2 reveals that the control processes are interactive; the idiosyncratic letter forms which make up the individuality in handwriting are controlled exclusively by kinesthetic information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Eden M (1961) On the formalization of handwriting. In: Jacobson R (ed) Structure of language and its mathematical aspects. American Mathematical Society, Providence

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden M (1962) Handwriting and pattern recognition. Trans IEEE, IT8:160–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden M, Halle M (1961) The characterization of cursive handwriting. In: Cherry C (ed) Information theory — 4th London Symposium. Butterworth, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson EF, Osser H, Schiff W, Smith J (1963) An analysis of critical features of letters tested by a confusion matrix. Coop Res Proj 639, US Office of Education, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodnow JJ (1972) Rules and repertoires, rituals and tricks of the trade: Social and informational aspects to cognitive representational development. In: Farnham-Diggory S, Information processing in children. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodnow JJ (1977) Children drawing. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollerbach JA (1979) A competence model for handwriting. Vis Lang 13:252–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollerbach JA (1981) An oscillation theory of handwriting. Biol Cybern 39:139–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee DN (1978) The function of vision. In: Pick H, Saltzman F (eds) Modes of perceiving and processing information. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay PH, Norman DA (1977) Human Information Processing (2nd edn). Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • McClelland JL, Rumelhart DE (1981) An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychol Rev 88:375–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer LH (1982) Rhythm and timing in skill. Psychol Rev 89:109–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmer ML (1981) The grammar of action and children's painting. Dev Psychol 17:866–871

    Google Scholar 

  • Watt WC (1975) What is the proper characterization of the alphabet? I. Desiderata. Vis Lang 9:293–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing AM (1978) Response timing in handwriting. In: Stelmach GE (ed) Information processing in motor control and learning. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing AM (1979) Variability in handwritten characters. Vis Lang 13:283–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing AM (1980) The height of handwriting. Acta Psychol 46:141–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Winston PH (ed) (1975) The psychology of computer vision. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer A (1981) The cultural constraints on models of cognitive representation. In: Wilensky W (ed) The proceedings of the 3rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zimmer, A. Do we see what makes our script characteristic — or do we only feel it? Modes of sensory control in handwriting. Psychol. Res 44, 165–174 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00308448

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00308448

Keywords

Navigation