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.
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
Eden M (1962) Handwriting and pattern recognition. Trans IEEE, IT8:160–166
Eden M, Halle M (1961) The characterization of cursive handwriting. In: Cherry C (ed) Information theory — 4th London Symposium. Butterworth, Washington, DC
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
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
Goodnow JJ (1977) Children drawing. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Hollerbach JA (1979) A competence model for handwriting. Vis Lang 13:252–264
Hollerbach JA (1981) An oscillation theory of handwriting. Biol Cybern 39:139–156
Lee DN (1978) The function of vision. In: Pick H, Saltzman F (eds) Modes of perceiving and processing information. Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Lindsay PH, Norman DA (1977) Human Information Processing (2nd edn). Academic Press, New York
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
Shaffer LH (1982) Rhythm and timing in skill. Psychol Rev 89:109–122
Simmer ML (1981) The grammar of action and children's painting. Dev Psychol 17:866–871
Watt WC (1975) What is the proper characterization of the alphabet? I. Desiderata. Vis Lang 9:293–327
Wing AM (1978) Response timing in handwriting. In: Stelmach GE (ed) Information processing in motor control and learning. Academic Press, New York
Wing AM (1979) Variability in handwritten characters. Vis Lang 13:283–298
Wing AM (1980) The height of handwriting. Acta Psychol 46:141–151
Winston PH (ed) (1975) The psychology of computer vision. McGraw-Hill, New York
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights 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
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00308448