A study of handwriting production: educational and developmental aspects (original) (raw)

Abstract

Chapter 1 Introduction Setting the framework of the study 11 Chapter 2 The production of line drawings Foreperiod duration and the analysis of motor stages in a line-drawing task 31 Chapter 3 The production of stroke sequences Movement analysis of repetitive writing behaviour of first, second and third-grade primary-school children 51 Chapter 4 The production of letter forms Perceptual-motor complexity of printed and cursive letters 77 The acquisition of skilled handwriting: Discontinuous trends in kinematic variables 93 Chapter 5 The production ofbigrams The production of connecting strokes in cursive writing: Developing co-articulation in 8 to 12 year-old children 105 Chapter 6 The production of words Variations in cursive-handwriting performance as a function of handedness, hand posture, and gender Chapter 7 Epilogue Applications of handwriting research to the organization and contents of handwriting curricula Collected references Summary Samenvatting Curriculum vitae 183 primary-school children producing simple stroke sequences, single cursive letter forms and cursive bigrams. The order of these tasks corresponds closely to the order in which children are taught the skill of cursive handwriting. The nature of our successive research questions changes correspondingly. At the start they are predominantly concerned with peripheral aspects of handwriting. Subsequently they increasingly pertain to 14 Chapter 1 empirical findings in the literature concerning the development of grasping and reaching. The series ends with a final laboratory study focussing on the written production of words by adults. The experiment was designed to investigate variations in handwriting performance as a function of the important subject variables of handedness, hand posture, and gender. Writing with the left hand is a specific matter of concern for teachers and educationalists. We argued that left-handed writing may well be studied in adult subjects because these subjects, having years of writing experience subsequent to their formal writing education, may be expected to have developed consistent, more or less efficient movement strategies. An analysis of these strategies should yield useful insights for the design of training situations for left-handed children. The thesis is concluded with a chapter which consists of an epilogue discussing the application of fundamental insights in handwriting to the field of education. The implications of a recent theoretical model of handwriting production (Van Galen, Meulenbroek & Hylkema 1986; Van Galen, Smyth, Meulenbroek & Hylkema, in press) for the organization and the content of a handwriting curriculum are discussed. Subsequently, an attempt is made to exploit the empirical findings of the present series of experiments, as well as the research technique with which their data were collected and analyzed, in the applied settings of formal writing education and the treatment of writing problems. Having described the global organization of the thesis we are now able to indicate how the present experiments differ from the educationally oriented studies of handwriting mentioned previously. In the present experiments we make use of sophisticated computer techniques to record and analyze both the spatial and kinematic aspects of handwriting movements with great precision, whereas the earlier studies were generally aimed at the handwriting products to evaluate performance. In order to evaluate these finished products, researchers mainly relied on subjective judgement in which techniques such as error classification, observation by means of transparent overlays, and the employment of assessment scales play a central role. In contrast to these studies, the present thesis may be characterized as a study of handwriting movement instead of a study of handwriting products. Furthermore, we claim that the systematic analysis of the kinematics of handwriting movements enables us to make inferences about the underlying psychomotoric processes and their development. In our view, these processes determine to a relatively high degree the actual handwriting performance (Van Galen 1980; Van Galen & Teulings 1983; Van Galen et al. 1986; Van 16 Chapter 1 tactile) is used for the evaluation of motor performance. This evaluation of task performance on the basis of information from various senses is supposed to be necessary for the build-up of internal representations which contain essential information regarding task performance. It is assumed that these representations initiate and shape future actions. The information-processing approach uses constructs such as feedback, schemata, motor programmes and open and closed-loop motor-control mechanisms, not only to explain skilled behaviour, but also to describe changes in skilled behaviour as a result of learning and development (

Figures (40)

central aspects of the skill. The control of simple hand and finger movements is investigated first. This is followed by a search for the factors determining the perceptual and motoric complexity of letter forms. Finally, the requirement of coordinating the production of two joined letters is examined. In studying the handwriting movements of school children, special attention is given to developmental aspects. Age-related changes in movement-control strategies are inferred from the recorded handwriting movements. These changes are verified in three of the four experiments conducted with primary-school children, and they are related to other

central aspects of the skill. The control of simple hand and finger movements is investigated first. This is followed by a search for the factors determining the perceptual and motoric complexity of letter forms. Finally, the requirement of coordinating the production of two joined letters is examined. In studying the handwriting movements of school children, special attention is given to developmental aspects. Age-related changes in movement-control strategies are inferred from the recorded handwriting movements. These changes are verified in three of the four experiments conducted with primary-school children, and they are related to other

Figure 1. Graphic display of stimuli and experimental conditions. S = centre o! display and starting position of penpoint. One line starting at S and ending at one o: the four bisection points of the sides of a diamond (1) indicated the movemen direction of the first element. When a second line had to be drawn a second line wa: displayed starting at (1) and ending at one of the two comer-points (2) along the bisected side of the diamond indicating the movement direction of the seconc element. Required movement size was indicated by the size of the displayed stimulu: lines (1 or 2 cm; equal lengths of lines in the 2-element task situation). Movement: along the direction indicated by the dots consisted of wrist movements, along the direction indicated by the stripes consisted of finger movements.

Figure 1. Graphic display of stimuli and experimental conditions. S = centre o! display and starting position of penpoint. One line starting at S and ending at one o: the four bisection points of the sides of a diamond (1) indicated the movemen direction of the first element. When a second line had to be drawn a second line wa: displayed starting at (1) and ending at one of the two comer-points (2) along the bisected side of the diamond indicating the movement direction of the seconc element. Required movement size was indicated by the size of the displayed stimulu: lines (1 or 2 cm; equal lengths of lines in the 2-element task situation). Movement: along the direction indicated by the dots consisted of wrist movements, along the direction indicated by the stripes consisted of finger movements.

variations in movement distance of the first as well as of the second element The mean movement distance of the first element was 1.305 cm in the small and 1.686 cm in the large size condition (F(1,13)=388.52; p<.01). Mea movement distance of the second element was 1.319 cm in the small, ans 1.583 cm in the large size condition (F(1,13)=86.99; p<.01). Movemen distance varied little as a result of size instructions because (1) lines of 1 an 2 cm were presented on a screen 135 cm in front of the subject and (2) n spatial tolerance limits for the subjects’ performance were used. Size effect on movement distance were equal accross experimental conditions except fo a significant reduction in movement distance of the first element (0.074 cm when this element was performed in the context of a second elemen (F(1,13)=16.98; p<.01). ——— eo Table 1 summarizes the main effects and interactions of the CRT data. Number of elements had a significant (F(1,13)=112.2; p<.01) effect on CRT : on the average the 1l-element task situation was 37 ms faster than the 2-elements task situation. Movement size had a small, but also significant (F(1,13)=5.37; p<.05) effect on CRT: the large figures were 5 ms faster than the small figures. The effect of movement direction was also significant (F(1,13)=21.30; p<.01): lines initiated by wrist movements had 7 ms shorter CRTs than lines initiated by finger movements. The latter two main effects seem to be rather small in relation to the temporal resolution with which the ariations in movement distance of the first as well as of the second element. The mean movement distance of the first element was 1.305 cm in the small, nd 1.686 cm in the large size condition (F(1,13)=388.52; p<.01). Mean novement distance of the second element was 1.319 cm in the small, and .583 cm in the large size condition (F(1,13)=86.99; p<.01). Movement listance varied little as a result of size instructions because (1) lines of 1 and . cm were presented on a screen 135 cm in front of the subject and (2) no patial tolerance limits for the subjects’ performance were used. Size effects yn movement distance were equal accross experimental conditions except fot | significant reduction in movement distance of the first element (0.074 cm) vhen this element was performed in the context of a second element F(1,13)=16.98; p<.01).

variations in movement distance of the first as well as of the second element The mean movement distance of the first element was 1.305 cm in the small and 1.686 cm in the large size condition (F(1,13)=388.52; p<.01). Mea movement distance of the second element was 1.319 cm in the small, ans 1.583 cm in the large size condition (F(1,13)=86.99; p<.01). Movemen distance varied little as a result of size instructions because (1) lines of 1 an 2 cm were presented on a screen 135 cm in front of the subject and (2) n spatial tolerance limits for the subjects’ performance were used. Size effect on movement distance were equal accross experimental conditions except fo a significant reduction in movement distance of the first element (0.074 cm when this element was performed in the context of a second elemen (F(1,13)=16.98; p<.01). ——— eo Table 1 summarizes the main effects and interactions of the CRT data. Number of elements had a significant (F(1,13)=112.2; p<.01) effect on CRT : on the average the 1l-element task situation was 37 ms faster than the 2-elements task situation. Movement size had a small, but also significant (F(1,13)=5.37; p<.05) effect on CRT: the large figures were 5 ms faster than the small figures. The effect of movement direction was also significant (F(1,13)=21.30; p<.01): lines initiated by wrist movements had 7 ms shorter CRTs than lines initiated by finger movements. The latter two main effects seem to be rather small in relation to the temporal resolution with which the ariations in movement distance of the first as well as of the second element. The mean movement distance of the first element was 1.305 cm in the small, nd 1.686 cm in the large size condition (F(1,13)=388.52; p<.01). Mean novement distance of the second element was 1.319 cm in the small, and .583 cm in the large size condition (F(1,13)=86.99; p<.01). Movement listance varied little as a result of size instructions because (1) lines of 1 and . cm were presented on a screen 135 cm in front of the subject and (2) no patial tolerance limits for the subjects’ performance were used. Size effects yn movement distance were equal accross experimental conditions except fot | significant reduction in movement distance of the first element (0.074 cm) vhen this element was performed in the context of a second element F(1,13)=16.98; p<.01).

Figure 2. Averages of the median latencies for the line drawing task as a function of: number of elements and movement size (upper-left graph), movement size and movement direction (upper-middle graph), movement direction and number of elements (upper-right graph), foreperiod duration and number of elements (lower-left graph), foreperiod duration and movement size (lower-middle graph), foreperiod duration and movement direction (lower-right graph).

Figure 2. Averages of the median latencies for the line drawing task as a function of: number of elements and movement size (upper-left graph), movement size and movement direction (upper-middle graph), movement direction and number of elements (upper-right graph), foreperiod duration and number of elements (lower-left graph), foreperiod duration and movement size (lower-middle graph), foreperiod duration and movement direction (lower-right graph).

Velocity aata Table 2 summarizes the main effects and interactions of the velocity data of the first and second element. The mean velocity of the first element (V1) was larger in the one-element than in the two-element task (V1: 6.767 and 6.519 cm/s respectively; F(1,13)=6.0; p<.03). Small line drawings were significantly slower than large line drawings (V1: 5.998 and 7.294 cm/s respectively; F(1,13)=159.49; p<.01; V2: 6.740 and 7.516 cm/s respectively; F(1,13)=133.39; p<.01). Wrist movements performed as first element of the line-drawing task were significantly faster than movements of thumb and fingers as first element (V1: 7.210 and 6.071 cm/s, respectively; F(1,13)=83.65; p<.01). As second element, however, wrist movements were performed significantly slower than finger movements (V2: 6.167 and 8.100 Eee ee ee ee Table 2 summarizes the main effects and interactions of the velocity data of the first and second element. The mean velocity of the first element (V1) was larger in the one-element than in the two-element task (V1: 6.767 and 6.519 cm/s respectively; F(1,13)=6.0; p<.03). Small line drawings were Significantly slower than large line drawings (V1: 5.998 and 7.294 cm/s respectively; F(1,13)=159.49; p<.01; V2: 6.740 and 7.516 cm/s respectively; F(1,13)=133.39; p<.01). Wrist movements performed as first element of the line-drawing task were significantly faster than movements of thumb and fingers as first element (V1: 7.210 and 6.071 cm/s, respectively; F(1,13)=83.65; p<.01). As second element, however, wrist movements were performed significantly slower than finger movements (V2: 6.167 and 8.100 foreperiod duration and, number of elements (lower-left graph), movemer size (lower-middle graph) and movement direction (lower-right graph). Th analysis of variance showed no significant first order interaction ¢ foreperiod duration with number of elements (F(1,13)=0.16; p>.10 Foreperiod duration and movement size significantly interacte (F(1,13)=6.56; p<.03), whereas the interaction between foreperiod duratio and movement direction appeared not to be significant (F(1,13)=1.4 p>.10). While the main effects on CRT of movement size and direction wer very small (5 and 7 ms, respectively) it appeared that the effect of movemer size was so consistent that its interaction with foreperiod duration reache significance whereas the interaction between direction and foreperio duration did not. No significant higher-order interactions were present.

Velocity aata Table 2 summarizes the main effects and interactions of the velocity data of the first and second element. The mean velocity of the first element (V1) was larger in the one-element than in the two-element task (V1: 6.767 and 6.519 cm/s respectively; F(1,13)=6.0; p<.03). Small line drawings were significantly slower than large line drawings (V1: 5.998 and 7.294 cm/s respectively; F(1,13)=159.49; p<.01; V2: 6.740 and 7.516 cm/s respectively; F(1,13)=133.39; p<.01). Wrist movements performed as first element of the line-drawing task were significantly faster than movements of thumb and fingers as first element (V1: 7.210 and 6.071 cm/s, respectively; F(1,13)=83.65; p<.01). As second element, however, wrist movements were performed significantly slower than finger movements (V2: 6.167 and 8.100 Eee ee ee ee Table 2 summarizes the main effects and interactions of the velocity data of the first and second element. The mean velocity of the first element (V1) was larger in the one-element than in the two-element task (V1: 6.767 and 6.519 cm/s respectively; F(1,13)=6.0; p<.03). Small line drawings were Significantly slower than large line drawings (V1: 5.998 and 7.294 cm/s respectively; F(1,13)=159.49; p<.01; V2: 6.740 and 7.516 cm/s respectively; F(1,13)=133.39; p<.01). Wrist movements performed as first element of the line-drawing task were significantly faster than movements of thumb and fingers as first element (V1: 7.210 and 6.071 cm/s, respectively; F(1,13)=83.65; p<.01). As second element, however, wrist movements were performed significantly slower than finger movements (V2: 6.167 and 8.100 foreperiod duration and, number of elements (lower-left graph), movemer size (lower-middle graph) and movement direction (lower-right graph). Th analysis of variance showed no significant first order interaction ¢ foreperiod duration with number of elements (F(1,13)=0.16; p>.10 Foreperiod duration and movement size significantly interacte (F(1,13)=6.56; p<.03), whereas the interaction between foreperiod duratio and movement direction appeared not to be significant (F(1,13)=1.4 p>.10). While the main effects on CRT of movement size and direction wer very small (5 and 7 ms, respectively) it appeared that the effect of movemer size was so consistent that its interaction with foreperiod duration reache significance whereas the interaction between direction and foreperio duration did not. No significant higher-order interactions were present.

Figure 3. Mean drawing velocity: of first element as a function of movement direction and number of elements (left graph), of first(middle graph) and second element (right graph) as a function of movement direction and movement size.

Figure 3. Mean drawing velocity: of first element as a function of movement direction and number of elements (left graph), of first(middle graph) and second element (right graph) as a function of movement direction and movement size.

Figure 1. Copying patterns used in the experiment. Pattem numbers correspond to the text.

Figure 1. Copying patterns used in the experiment. Pattem numbers correspond to the text.

Figure 2. Example of data analysis of a copying sample (upper-left-panel) with corresponding absolute velocity pattern (lower-panel; vertical lines represent stroke- boarders) and optimal scaled amplitude frequency spectra (upper-right-panel): the upper graph represents the spectrum of the whole sample, the lower graph represents the mean spectrum of upstrokes (dotted line) and the mean spectrum of downstrokes (solid line).

Figure 2. Example of data analysis of a copying sample (upper-left-panel) with corresponding absolute velocity pattern (lower-panel; vertical lines represent stroke- boarders) and optimal scaled amplitude frequency spectra (upper-right-panel): the upper graph represents the spectrum of the whole sample, the lower graph represents the mean spectrum of upstrokes (dotted line) and the mean spectrum of downstrokes (solid line).

Figure 3. Signal-to-noise amplitude ratios of the copying performance of six patterns used in task A and B for separate grades. Patten numbers correspond to the text.

Figure 3. Signal-to-noise amplitude ratios of the copying performance of six patterns used in task A and B for separate grades. Patten numbers correspond to the text.

Figure 4. Movement time (upper-left panel), movement distance (upper-right panel), mean velocity (lower left panel) and maximum velocity (lower-right panel) of upstrokes (open circles) and downstrokes (closed circles) of the copying performance of the six pattems in task A and B.

Figure 4. Movement time (upper-left panel), movement distance (upper-right panel), mean velocity (lower left panel) and maximum velocity (lower-right panel) of upstrokes (open circles) and downstrokes (closed circles) of the copying performance of the six pattems in task A and B.

‘igure 5. Energy distributions in four equal frequency bands of the copying erformance of continuous pattems (upper panels) and discontinous pattems (lowes anels) calculated from the absolute velocity data of the whole pattem (left panels), ipstrokes (middle panels) and downstroke (right panels). circles represent anti- tockwise tuming pattems (pattem numbers | and 4), squares represent clockwise uring patterns (2 and 5) and triangles represent the patterns with mixed tuning lirections (3 and 6).

‘igure 5. Energy distributions in four equal frequency bands of the copying erformance of continuous pattems (upper panels) and discontinous pattems (lowes anels) calculated from the absolute velocity data of the whole pattem (left panels), ipstrokes (middle panels) and downstroke (right panels). circles represent anti- tockwise tuming pattems (pattem numbers | and 4), squares represent clockwise uring patterns (2 and 5) and triangles represent the patterns with mixed tuning lirections (3 and 6).

Figure 6. Movement time (left panel), movement distance (middle panel) and mean velocity (right panel) of upstrokes (circles) and downstrokes (squares) in the absence or presence of a height constraint (X-axis) and under accuracy- (open markers) and speed-instructions (closed markers).

Figure 6. Movement time (left panel), movement distance (middle panel) and mean velocity (right panel) of upstrokes (circles) and downstrokes (squares) in the absence or presence of a height constraint (X-axis) and under accuracy- (open markers) and speed-instructions (closed markers).

Figure 7. Energy distributions in four equal frequency bands of the copying performance in task C under accuracy instructions (upper panels) or speed instructions (lower panels) and under the absence (circles) or presence (squares) of a height constraint calculated from the absolute velocity data of the whole pattern (left panels), upstrokes (middle panels) and downstrokes (right panels).

Figure 7. Energy distributions in four equal frequency bands of the copying performance in task C under accuracy instructions (upper panels) or speed instructions (lower panels) and under the absence (circles) or presence (squares) of a height constraint calculated from the absolute velocity data of the whole pattern (left panels), upstrokes (middle panels) and downstrokes (right panels).

Figure 8. Rearrangement of pattern order for the mean velocity data (left panel) and signal-to-noise amplitude ratios (right panel) of task A and B according to increasing pattem-complexity defined by increasing number of phase transition points per pattern.

Figure 8. Rearrangement of pattern order for the mean velocity data (left panel) and signal-to-noise amplitude ratios (right panel) of task A and B according to increasing pattem-complexity defined by increasing number of phase transition points per pattern.

Figure 1 An example of a pnnted (row 1 and 3) and cursive alphabet (row 2 and 4) as used in a Dutch reading and wnting cumculum

Figure 1 An example of a pnnted (row 1 and 3) and cursive alphabet (row 2 and 4) as used in a Dutch reading and wnting cumculum

Figure 3. Overview of analysis of one trial. The grapheme f (cut in four segments; open circles) and the corresponding absolute velocity pattem of the writing movements (lower graph). Response initiation time (rit), movement time (mt), distance (dist), mean velocity (vel) and dysfluency (vdis, i.e., number of velocity disturbances - closed circles- per unit of length) were calculated on the basis of the absolute velocity pattern. Maximum curvature (curmax) of the central downstroke of the grapheme f was calculated on the basis of the upper left graph (see data analysis).

Figure 3. Overview of analysis of one trial. The grapheme f (cut in four segments; open circles) and the corresponding absolute velocity pattem of the writing movements (lower graph). Response initiation time (rit), movement time (mt), distance (dist), mean velocity (vel) and dysfluency (vdis, i.e., number of velocity disturbances - closed circles- per unit of length) were calculated on the basis of the absolute velocity pattern. Maximum curvature (curmax) of the central downstroke of the grapheme f was calculated on the basis of the upper left graph (see data analysis).

igure 4. upper graph: mean response initiation time (rit) a grapheme in th ied (dotted line) and cursive condition (solid line). Middle graph: Response itiation-time difference (ritdif) per grapheme between printed and cursive lette yndition. A rearranged order of the alphabet on the x-axis has been chose cording to an increasing ritdif-criterion. Lower graph: Error percentage in printe lotted line) and cursive (solid line) letter condition as a function of the rearrange phabet.

igure 4. upper graph: mean response initiation time (rit) a grapheme in th ied (dotted line) and cursive condition (solid line). Middle graph: Response itiation-time difference (ritdif) per grapheme between printed and cursive lette yndition. A rearranged order of the alphabet on the x-axis has been chose cording to an increasing ritdif-criterion. Lower graph: Error percentage in printe lotted line) and cursive (solid line) letter condition as a function of the rearrange phabet.

Figure 5. Mean writing velocity (vgem - upper graph), writing dysfluency (middle graph) and maximum curvature (1/cm; lower graph) as a function of the letters of the ulphabet. The rearranged alphabet on the x-axes reflects an order of decreasing writing velocities.

Figure 5. Mean writing velocity (vgem - upper graph), writing dysfluency (middle graph) and maximum curvature (1/cm; lower graph) as a function of the letters of the ulphabet. The rearranged alphabet on the x-axes reflects an order of decreasing writing velocities.

Figure 1. The first four attempts in writing an unfamiliar grapheme by an adult subject. Writing movements were recorded with a sample frequency of 105 Hz and filtered with a low-pass filter of 12 Hz. Below each recorded writing sample the corresponding absolute (tangential) velocity function is depicted.

Figure 1. The first four attempts in writing an unfamiliar grapheme by an adult subject. Writing movements were recorded with a sample frequency of 105 Hz and filtered with a low-pass filter of 12 Hz. Below each recorded writing sample the corresponding absolute (tangential) velocity function is depicted.

Figure 2. Two repetitive writing patterns with corresponding absolute (tangential) velocity functions performed by a 7-year old child (left-hand recordings) and an adult (right-hand recordings).

Figure 2. Two repetitive writing patterns with corresponding absolute (tangential) velocity functions performed by a 7-year old child (left-hand recordings) and an adult (right-hand recordings).

igure 3. Example of the data analysis of one record. The grapheme e (cut in thr gments; open circles) and the corresponding absolute velocity function of tl riting movements (middle graph). Movement time, distance, velocity and writiz ySfluency (i.e. number of velocity inversions - closed circles- per unit length) we culated on the basis of the absolute velocity pattem. Curvature measurements | e central segment of the grapheme e were determined from the curvature functic ower graph) which was derived by dividing the angular and absolute veloci nctions.

igure 3. Example of the data analysis of one record. The grapheme e (cut in thr gments; open circles) and the corresponding absolute velocity function of tl riting movements (middle graph). Movement time, distance, velocity and writiz ySfluency (i.e. number of velocity inversions - closed circles- per unit length) we culated on the basis of the absolute velocity pattem. Curvature measurements | e central segment of the grapheme e were determined from the curvature functic ower graph) which was derived by dividing the angular and absolute veloci nctions.

Figure 4. Changes in the analyzed kinematic variables of grapheme segments as a function of grades. MT = movement time (s); VEL = Mean Wniting Velocity (cm/s); DYSFLUENCY = Number of Velocity Inversions per cm; CURMAX = Maximum Curvature (1/em) and CURMIN = Minimum Curvature (1/cm).

Figure 4. Changes in the analyzed kinematic variables of grapheme segments as a function of grades. MT = movement time (s); VEL = Mean Wniting Velocity (cm/s); DYSFLUENCY = Number of Velocity Inversions per cm; CURMAX = Maximum Curvature (1/em) and CURMIN = Minimum Curvature (1/cm).

‘igure 2. An example of the analysis of one stroke. The filtered XY trajectory of t en is depicted in panel a. The corresponding Y displacement function is depicted anel b; closed circles indicate the beginning and end of the connecting stroke. TI troke is displayed in panel c and the corresponding absolute velocity function anel d. The open circles represent the inversion points in the absolute veloc: attern. The same procedure was used for selecting and analyzing the first upstro f the corpus of the first letter.

‘igure 2. An example of the analysis of one stroke. The filtered XY trajectory of t en is depicted in panel a. The corresponding Y displacement function is depicted anel b; closed circles indicate the beginning and end of the connecting stroke. TI troke is displayed in panel c and the corresponding absolute velocity function anel d. The open circles represent the inversion points in the absolute veloc: attern. The same procedure was used for selecting and analyzing the first upstro f the corpus of the first letter.

Figure 3. An example of the procedure used to determine the between-subject spati: variance of strokes. Columns represent age groups. In the first row (a) the filtere XY trajectories of connecting strokes between a bigram (me) are depicted, in th second row (b) these strokes are rotated to a standard orientation of 45 degrees and i he third row (c) a normalization of time and size has taken place. From thes 1ormalized strokes an average stroke was calculated after which of cach stroke th listance towards this average stroke was calculated.

Figure 3. An example of the procedure used to determine the between-subject spati: variance of strokes. Columns represent age groups. In the first row (a) the filtere XY trajectories of connecting strokes between a bigram (me) are depicted, in th second row (b) these strokes are rotated to a standard orientation of 45 degrees and i he third row (c) a normalization of time and size has taken place. From thes 1ormalized strokes an average stroke was calculated after which of cach stroke th listance towards this average stroke was calculated.

Figure 4. Mean movement time (MT), movement distance (DIST), number of inversion points in the absolute velocity pattem (#VINV), number of inversion points per second (#VINV/S) and per centimeter (#VINV/CM) of between-letter strokes (B-L) and within-letter strokes (W-L) per age group.

Figure 4. Mean movement time (MT), movement distance (DIST), number of inversion points in the absolute velocity pattem (#VINV), number of inversion points per second (#VINV/S) and per centimeter (#VINV/CM) of between-letter strokes (B-L) and within-letter strokes (W-L) per age group.

Figure 5. Semi three-dimensional plot of the average amplitude frequency spectra of the absolute velocity patterns of the written bigrams for children 8 through {2 years of age. For comparison an average spectrum of 50 bigramis written by an adult is also included.

Figure 5. Semi three-dimensional plot of the average amplitude frequency spectra of the absolute velocity patterns of the written bigrams for children 8 through {2 years of age. For comparison an average spectrum of 50 bigramis written by an adult is also included.

Figure 6. Semi three-dimensional plot of the average amplitude frequency spectra of the absolute velocity patterns of between-letter strokes (solid lines) and within-letter strokes (dotted lines) for children 8 through 12 years of age and an adult.

Figure 6. Semi three-dimensional plot of the average amplitude frequency spectra of the absolute velocity patterns of between-letter strokes (solid lines) and within-letter strokes (dotted lines) for children 8 through 12 years of age and an adult.

Figure 7. Left graph: the between-subject spatial variance of between-letter (B-L) and within-letter (W-L) strokes per age group. Right graph: the within-subject spatial variability of between-letter (B-L) and within-letter (W-L) strokes in the visual (fb+) and non-visual (fb-) condition of the control experiment.

Figure 7. Left graph: the between-subject spatial variance of between-letter (B-L) and within-letter (W-L) strokes per age group. Right graph: the within-subject spatial variability of between-letter (B-L) and within-letter (W-L) strokes in the visual (fb+) and non-visual (fb-) condition of the control experiment.

Figure 2. Mean movement time (MT), distance (D), velocity (V), maximun velocity (VMAX), penpoint pressure (P) and dysfluency (DYS) of cursive handwriting strokes as a function of writing hand and hand posture (RN: right handed, normal hand posture; LI: left-handed, inverted hand posture and LN: left handed and normal hand posture) and gender (female: white bars; male: black bars).

Figure 2. Mean movement time (MT), distance (D), velocity (V), maximun velocity (VMAX), penpoint pressure (P) and dysfluency (DYS) of cursive handwriting strokes as a function of writing hand and hand posture (RN: right handed, normal hand posture; LI: left-handed, inverted hand posture and LN: left handed and normal hand posture) and gender (female: white bars; male: black bars).

Figure 3. Polar distributions of realized stroke directions, relative to the writing paper (upper graphs) and relative to the digitizer (lower graphs), for the three experimental groups (RN: 7,923 strokes produced by righthanders with a nomial posture; LI: 7,716 strokes produced by lefthanders with an inverted hand posture and LN: 5,344 strokes produced by lefthanders with a normal hand posture).

Figure 3. Polar distributions of realized stroke directions, relative to the writing paper (upper graphs) and relative to the digitizer (lower graphs), for the three experimental groups (RN: 7,923 strokes produced by righthanders with a nomial posture; LI: 7,716 strokes produced by lefthanders with an inverted hand posture and LN: 5,344 strokes produced by lefthanders with a normal hand posture).

Figure 4. Mean velocity (V) and maximum velocity (VMAX) of u upsirokes (white bars) and downstrokes (black bars) produced in the zigzag pattern of task 4 by RN, LI and LN subjects.

Figure 4. Mean velocity (V) and maximum velocity (VMAX) of u upsirokes (white bars) and downstrokes (black bars) produced in the zigzag pattern of task 4 by RN, LI and LN subjects.

Figure 5. Left-most panel: number of words containing pen-ups indicated as a percentage of the total number of short words (task 7 and 10), medium words (task 8 and 11) and long words (task 9 and 12) for RN, LI and LN subjects. Central panel: mean writing distance of pen-lift movements during the production of short, medium long and long words by RN, LI and LN subjects. Mean writing width of /elf and maa in short, medium and long words for RN, LI and LN subjects.

Figure 5. Left-most panel: number of words containing pen-ups indicated as a percentage of the total number of short words (task 7 and 10), medium words (task 8 and 11) and long words (task 9 and 12) for RN, LI and LN subjects. Central panel: mean writing distance of pen-lift movements during the production of short, medium long and long words by RN, LI and LN subjects. Mean writing width of /elf and maa in short, medium and long words for RN, LI and LN subjects.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (299)

  1. Adams, J.Α. (1971). A closed loop theory of motor learning. Psychological Bulletin, 70,468-504.
  2. Adams, J.A. (1976). Issues for a closed loop theory of motor learning. In: G.E. Slelmach (Ed.), Motor control: Issues and trends, (pp. 87-107). New York: Academic Press.
  3. Adams, J.A. (1984). Learning of movement sequences. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 3-28.
  4. Armitage, D., & Ratzlaff, H. (1985). The noncorrelation of printing and writing skills. Journal of Educational Research, 78,174-177.
  5. Askov, E., Otto, W., & Askov, W. (1970). A decade of research in handwriting: Progress and prospect. Journal of Educational Research, 64, 100-111.
  6. Ball, W.E. (1986). Writing English script: An overlooked skill. ELT Journal, 40, 291-298.
  7. Beek, P.J. (1988). Exploring the dynamics of juggling. In: A.M. Colley & J.R. Beech (Eds.), Cognition and action in skilled behaviour (pp. 229-246). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  8. Blandford, B.J., & Lloyd, J.W. (1987). Effects of selfinstmctional procedure on handwriting. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 342-346.
  9. Blöte, A.W. (1988). The development of writing behavior. PhD. Thesis, University of Leiden.
  10. Brooks, СР., & Newell, A.F. (1985). Computer transcription of handwritten shorthand as an aid for the deaf -a feasibility study. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 23,45-60.
  11. Buikhalter, B.B., & Wright, J.P. (1984). Handwriting performance with and without transparant overlays. Journal of Educational Research, 52(3), 132-135.
  12. Caramazza, Α., Miceli, G., & Villa, G. (1986). The role of the (output) phonological buffer in reading, writing, and repetition. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 3, 37-76.
  13. Dooijes, E.H. (1984). Analysis of handwriting movements. PhD. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.
  14. Ellis, A.W. (1984). Reading, writing, and dyslexia: A cognitive analysis. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  15. Fcder, J.J., & Weber, CK. (1986). Remedies for reversals. Academic Therapy, 22, 87-90.
  16. Graham, S. (1986). The reliability, validity and utility of three handwriting measurement procedures. Journal of Educational Research, 79(6), 373-380.
  17. Hay, L. (1979). Spatial-temporal analysis of movements in children: Motor programs versus feedback in the development of reaching. Journal of Motor Behavior, II, 189-200.
  18. Hay, L. (1984). A discontinuity in the development of motor control in children. In: W. Prinz & A.F. Sanders (Eds.), Cognition and motor processes. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  19. Hayes, D. (1982). Handwriting practice: The effects of perceptual prompts. Journal of Educational Research, 75(3), 169-171.
  20. van het toekomstig gebruik van computers in schrijfonderwijs. In: J. Klep & P. Kommers (Eds.), Studies in leerplanontwikkeling 14: Courseware en leerplanontwikkeling: Didactische systeemanalysen. Enschede: S.L.O.
  21. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1986). Movement analysis of repetitive writing behaviour of first, second and third grade primary school children. In: H.S.R. Kao, G.P. Van Galen & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporaty research in handwriting (pp. 71-92). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  22. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1988). The acquisition of skilled handwriting: Discontinuous trends in kinematic variables. In: A.M. Colley & J.R. Beech (Eds.), Cognition and action in skilled behaviour (pp. 273-281). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  23. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1988). Vormen van leren: psychomotorische aspecten -schrijven. In: H.P.F. Creemers (Ed.), Onderwijskundig Lexicon II, (pp. A 2300;1-A 2300; 19). Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom.
  24. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1988). Foreperiod duration and the analysis of motor stages in a line drawing task. Acta Pyschologica, 69(1), 19-33.
  25. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (in press). The production of connecting strokes in cursive writing: Developing co-arliculation in 8 to 12 year-old children. In: R. Plamondon, C.Y. Suen & M.L. Simner (Eds.), Computer recognition and human production of handwriting.
  26. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (in press). Variations in cursive handwriting performance as a function of handedness, hand posture and gender. Journal of Human Movement Studies.
  27. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (submitted). Perceptual-motor complexity of printed and cursive letters.
  28. Miller, J. (1988). Discrete and continuous models of human information processing: Theoretical distinctions and empirical results. Acta Psychologica, 67, 191-257.
  29. Peck, M., Askov, E.N., & Fairchild, S.H. (1980). Another decade of research in handwriting. Progress and prospect in the 1970s. Journal of Educational Research, 74,284-298.
  30. Phelps, J., Stempel, L., & Speck, G. (1985). The children's handwriting scale: A new diagnostic tool. Journal of Educational Research, 79(1), 46-50.
  31. Ratzlaff, H., & Armitage, D. (1986). Factors related to cursive writing skills. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 32, 195-200.
  32. Rumelhart, D.E., & McClelland, J.L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 89, 60-94.
  33. Rumelhart, D.E., & Norman, D.A. (1982). Simulating skilled typists: A study of skilled cognitive-motor performance. Cognitive Science, 6,1-36.
  34. Sanders, A.F. (1980). Stage analysis of reaction processes. In: G.E. Slelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor beliavior (pp. 331-354). Amsterdam: North Holland.
  35. Sassoon, R., Nimmo-Smith, I., & Wing, A.M. (1986). An analysis of children's penholds. In: H.S.R. Kao, G.P. Van Galen & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: References
  36. Bruma, C.H.M. (1980). Motor preparation recorded on the cortical and spinal level. In: G.E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 399-419). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  37. Denier Van Der Gon, J.J., & L.Ph. Thuring (1965). The guiding of human writing movements. Kybernetik, 2, 145-148.
  38. Frowein, H.W. (1981). Selective drag effects on information processing. PhD- thesis, University of Tilburg, Holland.
  39. Gaillard, A.W.K., & Perdok, J. (1980). Slow brain potentials in the CNV-paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 44, 147-163.
  40. Haagh, S.A., & Brunia, C.H. (1984). Cardiac-somatic coupling during the foreperiod in a simple reaction-time task. Psychological Research, 46, 3-13.
  41. Henry, P.M., & Rogers, D.E. (1960). Increased response latency for complicated movements and a 'memory drum' theory of neuromotor reaction. Research Quarterly, 31,448-458.
  42. Keele, S.W. (1981). Behavioral analysis of movement In: V. Brooks (Ed.), Handbook of Physiology. Section 1: The nervous system. Vol. II, Part 2, Motor control. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
  43. Kelso, J.A. Scott (1981). Contrasting perspectives on order and regulation in movement. In: J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and Performance IX (pp. 437-457). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum
  44. Kerr, B. (1978). Task factors that influence selection and preparation for voluntary movements. In: G.E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning (pp. 55-69). New York: Academic Press.
  45. Klapp, S.T. (1977). Reaction time analysis of programmed control. Exercise and Sport Science Reviews, 5,231-253.
  46. Loveless, N.E., & A.L. Sandford (1974). Slow potential correlates of preparatory set. Biological Psychology, 1, 303-314.
  47. Maarse, F.J., Schomaker, L.R.B., & Thomassen, A.J.W.M. (1986). The influence of changes in the effector coordinate system on handwriting movements. In: H.S.R. Kao, G.P. Van Galen & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporary research in handwriting (pp. 33-46). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  48. Naätitnen, R., & Merisalo, A. (1977). Expectancy and preparation in simple reaction time. In: S. Domic (Ed.), Attention and Performance VI, Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
  49. Requin, J. (1980). Toward a psychobiology of preparation for action. In: G.E. Stelmach <& J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor beltavior (pp. 373-398). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  50. Rohrbauch, J.W., Syndulko, K., & Lindsley, D.B. (1976). Brain wave components of the contingent negative variation in humans. Science, 191, 1055-1057.
  51. Rosenbaum, D.A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 444-474.
  52. Sanders, A.F. (1977). Structural and functional aspects of the reaction process. In: S. Domic (Ed.), Attention and Performance VI (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum. Chapter 2
  53. Sanders, A.F. (1980a). Some effects of instructed muscle tension on choice reaction time and movement time. In: R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and Performance VIII (pp. 59-74). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
  54. Sanders, A.F. (1980b). Stage analysis of reaction processes. In: G.E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 331-354). Amsterdam: North Holland.
  55. Sanders, A.F. (1983). Towards a model of stress and performance. Acta Psychological 53, 61-97.
  56. Schmidt, R.A. (1982). The motor program. In: J.A. Scott Kelso (Ed.), Human motor behavior: An introduction (pp. 187-218). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
  57. Semjen, Α., Requin R., & Fiori, Ν. (1978). The interactive effect of foreperiod duration and response-movement characteristics upon choice-reaction time in a pointing task. Journal of Human Movement Science, 4, 108-118.
  58. Spijkers, W.A.C. (1987). Programming of direction and velocity of an aiming movement: The effect of probability and response-speciflcity. Acta Psychologica, 58,285-304.
  59. Spijkers, W.A.C., & Steyvers, F. (1984). Specification of direction and duration during programming of discrete sliding movements. Psychological Research, 46, 59-71.
  60. Spijkers, W.A.C., & A. Walter (1985). Response processing stages in choice reaction times. Acta Psychologica, 58, 191-204.
  61. Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method. In: W.G. Koster (Ed.), Attention and Performance II (pp. 276-315). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  62. Sternberg, S., Monsell, S., Knoll, R.L., & Wright, CE. (1978). The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: Comparison of speech and typewriting. In: G.E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning. New York: Academic Press.
  63. Sternberg, S., Wright, CE., Knoll R.L., & Monsell, S. (1980). Motor Programming and rapid speech: Additional evidence. In: R.A. Cole (Ed.), The perception and production of fluent speech. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
  64. Van Galen, G.P. (1980). Handwriting and drawing: A two-stage model of complex motor behavior. In: G.E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in Motor Behavior (pp. 567-578). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  65. Van Galen, G.P., & H.L. Teulings (1982, July). Task complexity in line drawings: A three stage model of complex motor behavior. Paper read to the 10th symposium on Attention and Performance, Venlo.
  66. Van Galen, G.P., & Teulings, H.L. (1983). The independent monitoring of form and scale factors in handwriting. Acta Psychologica, 54, 9-22.
  67. Van Galen, G.P., & Van der Plaats, R.E. (1984). The concurrent retrieval and execution of handwritten letters during continuous handwriting tasks. Proceedings of the Motor Skills Research Exchange, July 1984. Amsterdam.
  68. Van Galen, G.P., & Wing, A.M. (1984). The sequencing of movements. In: A.M. Wing & M.M. Smyth (Eds.), The psychology of human movement. London: Academic Press.
  69. Bruner, J.S. (1970). The growth and stracture of skill. In: K. Connolly (Ed.), Mechanisms of motor skill development. London: Academic Press.
  70. De Jong, A.M.L. (1979). De schrijfbeweging: Experimenteel-psychologisch onderzoek en enige klinische ervaringen m.b.t. ontwikkelingsaspecten van het schrijfgedrag opgevat als motorische vaardigheid. Master's thesis, University of Nijmegen.
  71. Denier Van Der Gon, J.J., & L.Ph. Thuring (1965). The guiding of human writing movements. Kybernetik, 2,145-148.
  72. Gesell, A. (Ed.). (1940). The first five years of life. New York: Harper.
  73. Hay, L. (1979). Spatial-temporal analysis of movements in children: Motor programs versus feedback in the development of reaching. Journal of Motor Behavior, 11, 189-200.
  74. Hay, L. (1984). A discontinuity in the development of motor control in children. In: W. Prinz & A.F. Sanders (Eds.), Cognition and Motor Processes. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  75. Hollerbach, J.M. (1981). An oscillatory theory of handwriting. Biological Cybernetics, 39,139-156.
  76. Hulstijn, W., & Van Galen, G.P. (1983). Programming in handwriting: Reaction lime and movement time as a function of sequence length. Acta Psychologica, 54, 23-49.
  77. Katz, D. (1951). Gestalt Psychology: Its nature and significance. London: Methuen.
  78. Kay, H. (1970). Analysing motor skill performance. In: E.A. Bilodeau (Ed.), Principles of skill acquisition. New York: Academic Press.
  79. Keele, S.W. (1981). Behavioral analysis of movement In: V. Brooks (Ed.), Handbook of Physiology. Section 1 : the nervous system. Vol. II, Part 2, Motor control. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
  80. Юарр, S.T., & Wyatt, E.P. (1976). Motor programming within a sequence of responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 8, 19-26.
  81. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., Van der Plaats, R.E., Van Galen, G.P., & Hulstijn, W. (1985). Over de ontwikkeling van de hand-en vingermotoriek: Een onderzoek met tekentaken. In: A.J.W.M. Thomassen, G.P. Van Galen & L.F. De Klerk (Red.), Studies over schrijfmotoriek: Theorie en toepassing in het onderwijs (pp. 111-125). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
  82. Michel, F. (1971). Elude expérimentale de la vitesse du geste graphique. Neuropsychologia,9,1-13.
  83. Mounoud, P., Viviani, P., Hauert, CA., & Guyon, J. (1985). Development of visuomanual tracking in 5-to 9-year-old boys. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 40,115-132.
  84. Fantina, N.S. (1957). De wijze van oriëntering in de taak bij het aanvangsschrijfonderwijs. Voprosy Psikhologii, 4. In CF. Van Parreren & J.A.M. Carpay (Red.), Sovietpsychologen aan het woord (pp. 179-199). Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
  85. Sternberg, S., Monsell, S., Knoll, R.L., & Wright, CE. (1978). The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: Comparison of speech and typewriting. In: G.E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning. New York: Academic Press.
  86. Teulings, H.L., & Maarse, F.J. (1984). Digital recording and processing of handwriting movements. Human Movement Science, 3, 193-217.
  87. Teulings, H.L., Thomassen, A.J.W.M., & Van Galen, G.P. (1980). Schrijfsnelheid als Junctie van schrijfgrootte en leeftijd. Technical report, Psychology Laboratory, University of Nijmegen.
  88. Thomassen, A.J.W.M., & Teulings, H.L. (1979). The development of directional preference in writing movements. Visible Language, 13,299-313.
  89. Thomassen, A.J.W.M., & Teulings, H.L. (1983). The development of handwriting. In: M. Martlew (Ed.), The psychology of written language: Developmental and educational perspectives (pp.179-213). New York: Wiley.
  90. Van Galen, G.P., & H.L. Teulings (1982, July). Task complexity in line drawings: A three stage model of complex motor behavior. Paper read to the 10th symposium on Attention and Performance, Venlo.
  91. Van Galen, G.P., & Teulings, H.L. (1983). The independent monitoring of form and scale factors in handwriting. Acta Psychologica, 54, 9-22.
  92. Van Galen, G.P., & Van der Plaats, R.E. (1984). The concurrent retrieval and execution of handwritten letters during continuous handwriting tasks. Proceedings of the Motor Skills Research Exchange, July 1984. Amsterdam.
  93. Vim Galen, G.P., Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Hylkema, H. (1986). On the simultaneous processing of words, letters and strokes in handwriting: Evidence for a mixed linear and parallel model. In: H.S.R. Kao, G.P. Van Galen & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporary research in handwriting (pp. 5-20). Amsterdam: North Holland.
  94. Von Hofsten, С (1979). Development of visually directed reaching: The approach phase. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 5, 160-178.
  95. Von Hofsten, С (1980). Predictive reaching for moving objects by human infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 369-382.
  96. Wann, J.P. (1986). Handwriting disturbances: Developmental trends. In: H.T.A. Whiting & M.G. Wade (Eds.), Themes in motor development. Dordrecht: Nijhoff.
  97. Wann, J.P., & Jones, J.G. (1986). Space-time invariance in handwriting: Contrasts between primary school children displaying advanced or retarded handwriting acquisition. Human Movement Science, 5, 275-296.
  98. Barbe, W.B., Lucas V.H., & Wasylyk T.M. (Eds.). (1984). Handwriting: Basic skills for effective communication. Columbus Ohio: Zaner-Bloser.
  99. Chapman, L.J., & Wedell, K. (1972). Perceptual-motor abilities and reversal errors in children's handwriting. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5, 312-326.
  100. Ellis, A.W. (1982). Spelling and writing (and reading and speaking). In: A.W. Ellis (Ed.), Normality and pathology in cognitive functions (pp. 113-146). London: Academic Press.
  101. Flanders, M. (1976). Development of the left-right sense. In: M.C. Corballis & I.L. Beale (Eds.), The psychology of left and right. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
  102. Gesell, A. (Ed.). (1940). The first five years of life. New York: Harper.
  103. Hollerbach, J.M. (1981). An oscillatory theory of handwriting. Biological Cybernetics, 39,139-156.
  104. Keele, S.W. (1981). Behavioral analysis of movement In: V. Brooks (Ed.), Handbook of Physiology. Section 1 : the nervous system. Vol. II, Part 2, Motor control. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
  105. Margolin, D.I. (1984). The neuropsychology of writing and spelling: Semantic, phonological, motor and perceptual processes. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36a, 459-489.
  106. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1986). Movement analysis of repetitive writing behaviour of first, second and third grade primary school cliildren. In: H.S.R. Kao, G.P. Van Galen & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporary research in handwriting (pp. 71-92). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  107. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1988). The acquisition of skilled handwriting: Discontinuous trends in kinematic variables. In: A.M. Colley & J.R. Beech (Eds.), Cognition and action in skilled behaviour (pp. 273-281). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  108. Plamondon, R., Suen, C.Y., & Simner M.L. (Eds.), (in press). Computer recognition and human production of handwriting.
  109. Sharfman-Koenigsberg, R. (1973). An evaluation of visual versus sensorimotor methods for improving orientation discrimination of letter reversals by preschool children. Child Development, 44, 764-769.
  110. Thomassen, A.J.W.M., & Teulings, H.L. (1985). Enkele notities over lettervormen op basis van inzichten in de psychomotoriek. In: A.J.W.M. Thomassen, G.P. Van Galen, & L.F.W, de Klerk (Red.), Studies over de schrijfmotoriek: Theorie en toepassing in het onderwijs (pp. 141-164). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
  111. Teulings, HL., Thomassen, A.J.W.M., & Van Galen, G.P. (1986). Invariants in handwriting: The information contained in a motor program. In: H.S.R. Kao, G.P. Van Galen, & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporary research in handwriting (pp.305-315). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  112. Van Galen, G.P. (1980). Handwriting and drawing: A two-stage model of complex motor behavior. In: G.E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in Motor Behavior (pp. 567-578). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  113. Van Galen, G.P., & Van der Plaats, R.E. (1984). The concurrent retrieval and Chapter 4 execution of handwritten letters during continuous handwriting tasks. Proceedings of the Motor Skills Research Exchange, July 1984. Amsterdam.
  114. Wing, A.M., Nimmo-Smith M.I., & Eldridge, M.A. (1983). The consistency of cursive letter formation as a function of position in the word. Acta Psychologica, 54,197-204.
  115. Hay, L. (1979). Spatial-temporal analysis of movements in children: Motor programs versus feedback in the development of reaching. Journal of Motor Behavior, 11, 189-200.
  116. Hay, L. (1984). A discontinuity in the development of motor control in children. In: W. Prinz & A.F. Sanders (Eds.), Cognition and Motor Processes. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  117. Maarse, F.J., Schomaker, L.R.B., & Thomassen, A.J.W.M. (1986). The influence of changes in the effector coordinate system on handwriting movements. In: H.S.R. Kao, G.P. Van Galen & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporary research in handwriting, (pp. 163-171). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  118. Maarse, F.J., Teulings, H.L., & Bouwhuisen, C.F. (1985). Signaalverwerking toegepast in schrijfonderzoek. In: F.J. Maarse, W.E.J. Van Den Bosch, P. Wittenburg & E.A. Zuiderveen (Red.), Computers in de psychologie. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
  119. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1986). Movement analysis of repetitive writing behaviour of first, second and third grade primary school children. In: H.S.R. Kao, G.P. Van Galen & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics'. Contemporary research in handwriting (pp. 71-92). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  120. Schmidt, R.A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225-260.
  121. Schmidt, R.A. (1976). The schema as a solution to some persistent problems in motor learning theory. In: G.E. Stelmach (Ed.), Motor control: Issues and trends. New York: Academic Press. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  122. Von Hofsten, С (1979). Development of visually directed reaching: The approach phase. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 5, 160-178.
  123. Von Hofsten, С (1980). Predictive reaching for moving objects by human infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 369-382.
  124. Wann, J.P. (1986). Handwriting disturbances: Developmental trends. In: H.T.A. Whiting & M.G. Wade (Eds.), Themes in Motor Development. Dordrecht: Nijhoff.
  125. Ellis, A.W. (1982). Spelling and writing (and reading and speaking). In: A.W. Ellis (Ed.), Normality and pathology in cognitive functions (pp. 113-146). London: Academic Press.
  126. Hollerbach, J. (1979). A competence model for handwriting. Visible Language, 13, 252-264.
  127. Keele, S.W. (1981). Behavioral analysis of movement In: V. Brooks (Ed.), Handbook of Physiology. Section 1 : the nervous system. Vol. II, Part 2, Motor control. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
  128. Maarse, F.J. (1987). The study of handwriting movement: Peripheral models and signal processing techniques. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swels & Zeillinger (ISBN 90-265-0812-3).
  129. Maarse, F.J, Thomassen, A.J.W.M. (1983). Produced and perceived slant: Difference between up and down strokes. Acta Psychologica, 54, 131-147.
  130. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1986). Movement analysis of repetitive writing behaviour of first, second and third grade primary school children. In: H.S.R. Kao, G.P. Van Galen & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporary research in handwriting (pp. 71-92). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  131. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1988). The acquisition of skilled handwriting: Discontinuous trends in kinematic variables. In: A.M. Colley & J.R. Beech (Eds.), Cognition and action in skilled behaviour (pp. 273-281). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  132. Morasso, P., & Mussa Ivaldi, F.A.M. (1982). Trajectory formation and handwriting: A computational model. Biological Cybernetics, 45, 131-142.
  133. Nelson, W.L. (1983). Physical principles for economics of skilled movements. Biological Cybernetics, 46,135-137.
  134. Teulings, H.L., & Maarse, F.J. (1984). Digital recording and processing of handwriting movements. Human Movement Science, 3, 193-217.
  135. Teulings, H.L., Thomassen, A.J.W.M., & Van Galen, G.P. (1986). Invariants in handwriting: The information contained in a motor program. In: H.S.R. Kao, G.P. Van Galen, & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics'. Contemporary research in handwriting (pp.305-315). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  136. Van Galen, G.P., Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Hylkema, H. (1986). On the simultaneous processing of words, letters and strokes in handwriting: Evidence for a mixed linear and parallel model. In: H.S.R. Kao, G.P. Van Galen & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporary research in handwriting (pp. 5-20). Amsterdam: North Holland.
  137. Wann, J.P., & Jones, J.G. (1986). Space-time invariance in handwriting: Contrasts between primary school children displaying advanced or retarded handwriting acquisition. Human Movement Science, 5,275-296.
  138. Annett, M. (1967). The binominal distribution of right, mixed, and left-handedness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 327-333.
  139. Ayres, L. (1912). A scale for measuring the quality of handwriting of school children. New York: Rüssel Sage Foundation.
  140. Enstr0m, E. A. (1962). The relative efficiency of the various approaches to writing with the left hand. Journal of Educational Research, 55, 283-298.
  141. Enstr0m, E. A. (1966). The little tum that makes the big difference. Elementary English, 43, 865-868.
  142. Geschwind, N & Galaburda, Α. M. (1985). Cerebral lateralization: Biological mechanisms, associations, and pathology: A hypothesis and a program for research. Archives of Neurology, 42,428-459, 521-553, 635-655.
  143. Groff, P.J. (1964). Who are the better writers -llie left handed or the right handed? Elementary School Journal, 65, 92-96.
  144. Herron, J. (1980). Two hands, two brains, two sexes. In: J. Herrón (Ed.), Neuropsychology of left-handedness (pp. 233-260). New York: Academic Press.
  145. Levy, J. (1982). Handwriting posture and cerebral organization: How are they related? Psychological Bulletin, 91,589-608.
  146. Levy, J., & Reid, M. (1978). Variations in cerebral organization as a function of handedness, hand posture in writing, and sex. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107, 1719-1744.
  147. Maarse, F.J., & Thomassen, A.J.W.M. (1983). Produced and perceived slant: Difference between up and down strokes. Acta Psychologica, 54,131-147.
  148. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1986). Movement analysis of repetitive writing behaviour of first, second and third grade primary school children. In: H.S.R. Kao, G.P. Van Galen & R. Hoosain (Eds), Graphonomics: Contemporary research in liandwriting (pp. 71-92). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  149. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1988). The acquisition of skilled handwriting: Discontinuous trends in kinematic variables. In: A.M. Colley & J.R. Beech (Eds.), Cognition and action in skilled behaviour (pp. 273-281). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  150. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (in press). The production of connecting strokes in cursive script: Developing co-articulation in 8 to 12 year-old children. In: R. Plamondon, C.Y. Suen, & M.L. Simner (Eds.), Computer recognition and human production of handwriting.
  151. Reed, G.F., & Smith, A.C. (1962). A further experimental investigation of the reltive speeds of left and right banded writers. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 100,275-288.
  152. Teulings, H.L., Thomassen, A.J.W.M. & Maarse, F.J., (in press). A description of handwriting in terms of main axes. In R. Plamondon, C.Y. Suen, & M.L. Simner (Eds.), Computer recognition and human production of handwriting.
  153. Thomassen, A.J.W.M., & Teulings, H.L. (1979). The development of directional preference in writing movements. Visible Language, 13,299-313.
  154. Wahl, С. R. (1955). Left-handed writers. Instructor, 64, 85. References
  155. Askov, E., Otto, W., & Askov, W. (1970). A decade of research in handwriting: Progress and prospect. Journal of Educational Research, 64,100-111.
  156. Askov, E., & Greff, K. (1975). Handwriting: Copying versus tracing as the most effective type of practice. Journal of Educational Research, 69, 96-98.
  157. Barbe, W.B., & Johnson, W.R. (1984). A re-examination of the role of manuscript writing. In: Barbe, W.B., Lucas, V.H. &, Wasylyk T.M. (Eds.). Handwriting: Basic skills for effective communication, (pp. 105-110). Columbus Ohio: Zaner- Bloser.
  158. Barbe, W.B., Lucas, V.H. &, Wasylyk T.M. (Eds.). (1984). Handwriting: Basic skills for effective communication. Columbus Ohio: Zaner-Bloser.
  159. Birch, H.G., & Lefford, A. (1967). Visual differentiation, intersensory integration, and voluntary motor control. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 32.
  160. Brooks, C.P., & Newell, A.F. (1985). Computer transcription of handwritten shorthand as an aid for the deaf -a feasibility study. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 23, 45-60.
  161. Bruner, J.S. (1970). The growth and structure of skill. In: K. Connolly (Ed.), Mechanisms of motor skill development. London: Academic.
  162. Denier Van Der Gon, J.J., & L.Ph. Thuring (1965). The guiding of human writing movements. Kybernetik, 2, 145-148.
  163. Enstr0m, E. A. (1962). The relative efficiency of the various approaches to writing with the left hand. Journal of Educational Research, 55,283-298.
  164. Heuer, H. (1985). Wie wirkt mental Lbung? Psychologische Rundschau, 36(3), 191-200.
  165. Hirsch, E., & Niedermeyer, F.C. (1973). The effects of tracing prompts and discrimination training on kindergarten handwriting performance. Journal of Educational Research, 67, 81-86.
  166. Hylkema, H., Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1988). Concept schrijfmethode -Een psychomotorische benadering. Nijmeegs Instituut voor Cognitie-onderzoek en Infomiatie-lechnologie, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen: Intern Rapport 88 NICI11.
  167. Kay, H. (1970). Analysing motor skill performance. In: E.A. Bilodeau (Ed.), Principles of skill acquisition. New York: Academic.
  168. Maarse, F.J., Thomassen, A.J.W.M., & Teulings, H.L. (1985). Computertechnieken in het schrijfonderzoek en in het schrijfonderwijs. In: A.J.W.M. Thomassen, G.P. Van Galen, & L.F. De Klerk (Red.), Studies over schrijfmotoriek: Theorie en toepassing in het onderwijs (pp. 271-286). Lisse: Swels & Zeitlinger.
  169. Macleod, I.D.G. (1980). Computer-based development of handwriting skills with blind students. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 3 (J), 379-382.
  170. Meulenbroek, R.G.J. (1989). Aanzet tot een didactische systeemanalyse ten behoeve van het toekomstig gebruik van computers in schrijfonderwijs. In: J. Klep & P. Kommers (Eds.), Studies in leerplanontwikkeling 14: Courseware en leerplanonhi'ikkeling: Didactische systeemanalysen. Enschede: S.L.O. Chapter 7
  171. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & De Klerk, L.F.W. (1985). Een evaluatie van enkele schrijfinethoden aan de hand van psychomotorische criteria. In: A.J.W.M. Thomassen, G.P. Van Galen, & L.F. De Klerk (Red.), Studies over schrijfinotoriek: Theorie en toepassing in het onderwijs (pp. 181-198). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
  172. Meulenbroek, R.G.J. & Van Galen, G.P. (1988). Vormen van leren: psychomotorische aspecten -schrijven. In: H.P.F. Creemers (Ed.), OnderM'ijslamdig Lexicon H, (pp. A 2300; 1-A 2300; 19). Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom.
  173. Fantina, N.S. (1957). De wijze van oriëntering in de taak bij het aanvangsschrijfonderwijs. Voprosy Psikhologii, 4. In: CF. Van Paneren, & J.A.M. Carpay (Red.), Sovietpsychologen aan het woord (pp. 179-199). Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
  174. Shea, J.B., & Zimny, S.T. (1988). Knowledge incorporation in motor representation. In: O.G. Meyer & K. Roth (Eds.), Complex motor behaviour: 'The' motor-action controversy (pp. 289-314). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  175. S0vik, N. (1976), The effects of different principles of instruction in children's copying performance. Journal of Educational Research, 45, 38-45.
  176. Teulings, H.L. (1988). Handwriting movement control. PhD. Thesis, University of Nijmegen.
  177. Teulings, H.L., & Thomassen, A.J.W.M. (1985). Suggesties voor schrijfleermethoden op basis van psychomotorisch onderzoek. In: A.J.W.M. Thomassen, G.P. Van Galen, & L.F. De Klerk (Red.), Studies over schrijfmotoriek: Theorie en toepassing in het onderwijs (pp. 165-179). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
  178. Van Galen, G.P., Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Hylkema, H. (1986). On the simultaneous processing of words, letters and strokes in handwriting: Evidence for a mixed linear and parallel model. In: H.S.R. Kao. G.P. Van Galen & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporary research in handwriting (pp. 5-20). Amsterdam: North Holland.
  179. Van Galen, G.P., Smyth, M.M., Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Hylkema, H. (in press). The monitoring of repetitive stroking patterns under visual and non-visual guidance of handwriting. In: R. Plamondon, CY. Suen & M.L. Simner (Eds.), Computer recognition and human production of handwriting.
  180. Wright, CD., & Wright, J.P. (1980), Handwriting: The effectiveness of copying from moving versus still models. Journal of Educational Research, 74(2), 95-98. Collected references (Numbers between square brackets refer to the pages in the present dissertation where the publication is mentioned).
  181. Adams, J.A. (1971). A closed loop theory of motor learning. Psychological Bulletin, 70,468-504. [16]
  182. Adams, J.A. (1976). Issues for a closed loop theory of motor learning. In: G.E. Stelmach (Ed.), Motor control: Issues and trends, (pp. 87-107). New York: Academic Press.
  183. Adams, J.A. (1984). Learning of movement sequences. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 3-28.
  184. Annett, M. (1967). The binominal distribution of right, mixed, and left-handedness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19,327-333. [124]
  185. Armitage, D., & Ratzlaff, H. (1985). The noncorrelation of printing and writing skills. Journal of'Educational Research, 78,174-177. [13]
  186. Askov, E., Otto, W., & Askov, W. (1970). A decade of research in handwriting: Progress and prospect. Journal of Educational Research, 64, 100-111. [11,121,144]
  187. Askov, E., & Greff, K. (1975). Handwriting: Copying versus tracing as the most effective type of practice. Journal of Educational Research, 69, 96-98. [144]
  188. Ayres, L. (1912). A scale for measuring the quality of handwriting of school children. New York: Rüssel Sage Foundation. [122]
  189. Ball, W.E. (1986). Writing English script: An overlooked skill. ELT Journal, 40, 291-298.
  190. Barbe, W.B., & Johnson, W.R. (1984). A re-examination of the role of manuscript writing. In: Barbe, W.B., Lucas, V.H. &, Wasylyk T.M. (Eds.). Handwriting'. Basic skills for effective communication, (pp. 105-110). Columbus Ohio: Zaner- Bloser.
  191. Barbe, W.B., Lucas, V.H. &, Wasylyk T.M. (Eds.). (1984). Handwriting: Basic skills for effective communication. Columbus Ohio: Zaner-Bloser. [78,144]
  192. Beek, P.J. (1988). Exploring the dynamics of juggling. In: A.M. Colley & J.R. Beech (Eds.), Cognition and action in skilled behaviour (pp. 229-246). Amsterdam: North-Holland. [15]
  193. Birch, H.G., & Lefford, A. (1967). Visual differentiation, intersensory integration, and voluntary motor control. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 32. [144]
  194. Blandford, B.J., & Lloyd, J.W. (1987). Effects of selfinstructional procedure on handwriting. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 342-346. [13]
  195. Blöte, A.W. (1988). The development of writing behavior. PhD. Thesis, University of Leiden. [13]
  196. Brooks, СР., & Newell, A.F. (1985). Computer transcription of handwritten shorthand as an aid for the deaf -a feasibility study. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 23,45-60. [22,155]
  197. Bruner, J.S. (1970). The growth and structure of skill. In: K. Connolly (Ed.), foreperiod in a simple reaction-time task. Psychological Research, 46, 3-13. [33]
  198. Hay, L. (1979). Spatial-temporal analysis of movements in children: Motor programs versus feedback in the development of reaching. Journal of Motor Behavior, 11, 189-200. [20,52,68,93,96,100, 101,173, 179]
  199. Hay, L. (1984). A discontinuity in the development of motor control in children. In: W. Prinz & A.F. Sanders (Eds.), Cognition and motor processes. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. [20,52,68,93Jk96,100,173,179]
  200. Hayes, D. (1982). Handwriting practice: The effects of perceptual prompts. Journal of Educational Research, 75(3), 169-171. [13]
  201. Henry, P.M., & Rogers, D.E. (1960). Increased response latency for complicated movements and a 'memory drum' theory of neuromotor reaction. Research Quarterly, 31, 448-458. [32]
  202. Herrick, V.E., & Okada, N. (1963). The present scene: Practices in the teaching of handwriting in the United States. In: V.E. Herrick (Ed.), New horizons for research in handwriting (pp. 17-32). Madison: University. [11,12]
  203. Herron, J. (1980). Two hands, two brains, two sexes. In: J. Herrón (Ed.), Neuropsychology of left-handedness (pp. 233-260). New York: Academic Press. [122,133,134,135]
  204. Heuer, H. (1985). Wie wirkt mental Übung? Psychologische Rundscliau, 36(3), 191-200.
  205. Hill, D.S., Gladden, Μ.Α., Porter, J.T., & Cooper, J.O. (1982). Variables affecting transition from wide-spaced to normal spaced paper for manuscript handwriting. Journal of Educational Research, 76(1), 50-53. [13]
  206. Hirsch, E., & Niedermeyer, F.C. (1973). The effects of tracing prompts and discrimination training on kindergarten handwriting performance. Journal of Educational Research, 67, 81-86. [144]
  207. Hollerbach, J. (1979). A competence model for handwriting. Visible Language, 13, 252-264. [70,106]
  208. Hollerbach, J.M. (1981). An oscillatory theory of handwriting. Biological Cybernetics, 39,139-156. [70,80]
  209. Hulslijn, W., & Van Galen, G.P. (1983). Programming in handwriting: Reaction time and movement time as a function of sequence length. Acta Psvchologica, 54,23-49. [53,69]
  210. Hylkema, H., Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1988). Concept schrijfmethode: Een psychomotorische benadering. Nijmeegs Instituut voor Cognitie-onderzoek en Informatietechnologie, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen: Intern Rapport 88 NICI11. [22,141]
  211. Jackson, K.A., Jolly, V., & Hamilton, В. (1980). Comparison of remedial treatments for cursive handwriting of fourth-grade students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 1215-1221.
  212. Kao, H.S.R., Van Galen, G.P., & Hoosain, R. (Eds.). (1985). Graphonomics: Contemporary research in handwriting. Amsterdam: North Holland. [152]
  213. Katz, D. (1951). Gestalt Psychology: Its nature and significance. London: Methuen.
  214. Kay, H. (1970). Analysing motor skill performance. In: E.A. Bilodeau (Ed.), 163-171). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. [99.154,155]
  215. Maarse, F.J., Thomassen, A.J.W.M., & Teulings, H.L. (1985). Computertechnieken in het schrijfonderzoek en in het schrijfonderwijs. In: A.J.W.M. Thomassen, G.P. Van Galen, & L.F. De Klerk (Red.), Studies over schrijfmotoriek: Theorie en toepassing in het onderwijs (pp. 271-286). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. [152]
  216. Maarse, F.J., Schomaker, L.R.B., & Thomassen, A.J.W.M. (1986). The influence of changes in the effector coordinate system on handwriting movements. In: H.S.R. Kao, G.P. Van Galen & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporary research in handwriting (pp. 33-46). Amsterdam: North-Holland. [34,101]
  217. Macleod, I.D.G. (1980). Computer-based development of handwriting skiUs with blind students. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 3 (3), 379-382. [22,156]
  218. Margolin, D.I. (1984). The neuropsychology of writing and spelling: Semantic, phonological, motor and perceptual processes. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36a, 459-489. [ 11,77]
  219. McClelland, J.L. (1979). On the time relations of mental processes: A frameworic for analyzing processes in cascade. Psychological Review, 86, 287-330. [17]
  220. McClelland, J.L., & Rumelhart, D.E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Reviw, 88, 375-407.
  221. McKay, M.F., & Neale, M.D. (1985). Predicting early school achievement in reading and handwriting using major error categories from the Bender-Gestalt test for young children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 647-654. [13]
  222. Meulenbroek, R.G.J. (1989). Aanzet tot een didactische systeemanalyse ten behoeve van het toekomstig gebruik van computers in schrijfonderwijs. In: J. Klep & P. Kommers (Eds.), Studies in leerplanontwikkeling 14: Courseware en leerplanontH'ikkeling: Didactische systeemanalysen. Enschede: S.L.O. [22,141,154]
  223. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & De Klerk, L.F.W. (1985). Een evaluatie van enkele schrijfmethoden aan de hand van psychomotorische criteria. In: A.J.W.M. Thomassen, G.P. Van Galen, & L.F. De Klerk (Red.), Studies over schrijfmotoriek: Theorie en toepassing in het onderwijs (pp. 181-198). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. [141,150]
  224. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1986). Movement analysis of repetitive writing behaviour of first, second and third grade primary school children. In: H.S.R. Kao, G.P. Van Galen & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporaiy research in handwriting (pp. 71-92). Amsterdam: North-Holland. [22,84, 87,94, 95,99, 100,101, 107,116,123, 125,131, 132]
  225. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1988). Foreperiod duration and the analysis of motor stages in a line drawing task. Acta Pyschologica, 69(1), 19-33.
  226. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1988). The acquisition of skilled handwriting: Discontinuous trends in kinematic variables. In: A.M. Colley & J.R. Beech (Eds.), Cognition and action in skilled behaviour (pp. 273-281). Amsterdam: North-Holland. [22,84,88,107,116,124,152]
  227. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1988). Vormen van leren: psychomotorische aspecten -schnjven. In: H.P.F. Creemers (Ed.), Onderwijshindig Lexicon II, (pp. A 2300;1-A 230O;19). Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom. [22,141]
  228. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (in press). Variations in cursive handwriting performance as a function of handedness, hand posture and gender. Journal of Human Movement Studies. [22]
  229. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (in press). The production of connecting strokes in cursive writing: Developing co-articulation in 8 to 12 year-old children. In: R. Plamondon, C.Y. Suen & M.L. Simner (Eds.), Computer recognition and human production of handwriting. [22]
  230. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (submitted). Perceptual-motor complexity of printed and cursive letters. [22]
  231. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., Van der Plaats, R.E., Van Galen, G.P., & Hulstijn, W. (1985). Over de ontwikkeling van de hand-en vingermotoriek: Een onderzoek met tekentaken. In: A.J.W.M. Thomassen, G.P. Van Galen, & L.F. De Klerk (Red.), Studies over schrijfmotoriek: Theorie en toepassing in het onderwijs (pp. 111-125). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. [54.55,69]
  232. Michel, F. (1971). Etude expérimentale de la vitesse du geste graphique. Neuropsychologia,9, 1-13. [55]
  233. Miller, J. (1988). Discrete and continuous models of human information processing: Theoretical distinctions and empirical results. Acta Psychologica, 67, 191-257.
  234. Morasso, P., & Mussa Ivaldi, F.A.M. (1982). Trajectory formation and handwriting: A computational model. Biological Cybernetics, 45,131-142. [106]
  235. Mounoud, P., Viviani, P., Haueit, CA., & Guyon, J. (1985). Development of visuom anual tracking in 5-to 9-year-old boys. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 40,115-132. [52]
  236. Nelson, W.L. (1983). Physical principles for economics of skilled movements. Biological Cybernetics, 46,135-147. [116]
  237. Naätänen. R., & Merisalo, A. (1977). Expectancy and preparation in simple reaction time. In: S. Domic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI, Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum. [31,42]
  238. Fantina, N.S. (1957). De wijze van oriëntering in de taak bij het aanvangsschrijfonderwijs. Voprosy Psikhologii, 4. In: C.F. Van Parreren, & J.A.M. Carpay (Red.), Sovietpsvchologen aan het woord (pp. 179-199). Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. [55,71,146,153]
  239. Peck, M., Askov, E.N., & Fairchild, S.H. (1980). Another decade of research in handwriting: Progress and prospect in the 1970s. Journal of Educational Research, 74,284-298. [11,121]
  240. Phelps, J., Stempel, L., & Speck, G. (1985), The children's handwriting scale: A new diagnostic tool. Journal of Educational Research, 79(7), 46-50. [13]
  241. Plamondon, R., Suen, C.Y. & Simner M.L. (Eds.), (in press). Computer recognition and human production of handwriting. [89,152]
  242. Ratzlaff, H., & Armitage, D. (1986). Factors related to cursive writing skills. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 32, 195-200. [13]
  243. Reed, G.F., & Smith, A.C. (1962). A further experimental investigation of the reltive speeds of left and right handed writers. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 700,275-288. [1211
  244. Requin, J. (1980). Toward a psychobiology of preparation for action. In: G.E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 373-398). Amsterdam: North-Holland. [33]
  245. Rohrbauch, J.W., Syndulko, K., & Lindsley, D.B. (1976). Brain wave components of the contingent negative variation in humans. Science, 191, 1055-1057. [31]
  246. Rosenbaum, D.A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 444-474. [41,42]
  247. Rumelhart, D.E., & McClelland, J.L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement elfect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 88, 60-94.
  248. Rumelhart, D.E., & Nonnan, D.A. (1982). Simulating skilled typists: A study of skilled cognitive-motor performance. Cognitive Science, 6,1-36. [15]
  249. Sanders, A.F. (1977). Stnictural and functional aspects of the reaction process. In: S. Domic (Ed.), Attention andpeiformance VI (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum. [31,32]
  250. Sanders, A.F. (1980a). Some effects of instracted muscle tension on choice reaction time and movement time. In: R. Nickcrson (Ed.), Attention andperfonnance VIII {pp. 59-74). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum. [31]
  251. Sanders, A.F. (1980b). Stage analysis of reaction processes. In: G.E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 331-354). Amsterdam: North Holland. [16,31,33]
  252. Sanders, A.F. (1983). Towards a model of stress and performance. Acta Psychologica, 53, 61-97. [31,42]
  253. Sassoon, R., Nimmo-Smilh, I., & Wing, A.M. (1986). An analysis of children's penholds. In: H.S.R. Kao, G.P. Van Galen & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporary research in hamlwiiting (pp. 93-106). Amsterdam: North Holland.
  254. Schmidt, R.A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225-260. [16,93]
  255. Schmidt, R.A. (1976). The schema as a solution to some persistent problems in motor learning theory. In: G.E. Stelmach (Ed.), Motor control: Issues and trends. New York: Academic Press. [16,93]
  256. Schmidt, R.A. (1982). The motor program. In: J.A. Scott Kelso (Ed.), Human motor behavior: An introduction (pp. 187-218). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum. [16,41]
  257. Schmidt, R.A. (1987). Motor and action perspectives on motor behaviour. In: O.G. Meyer & K. Roth (Eds.), Complex motor behaviour: 'The' motor-action controversy (pp. 3-44). Amsterdam: North-Holland. [15]
  258. Seinjen, Α., Requin R., & Fiori, Ν. (1978). The interactive effect of foreperiod duration and response-movement characteristics upon choice-reaction time in a pointing task. Journal of Human Movement Science, 4,108-118. [42,43]
  259. Shaffer, L.H. (1978). Timing in the motor programming of typing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 333-345. [15]
  260. Shaffer, L.H. (1980). Analysing piano performance: A study of concert pianists. In: G.E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in Motor Behavior (pp. 443-455). Amsterdam: North-Holland. [15]
  261. Sharftnan-Koenigsberg, R. (1973). An evaluation of visual versus sensorimotor methods for improving orientation discrimination of letter reversals by preschool children. Child Development, 44, 764-769. [80]
  262. Shea, J.B., & Zimny, S.T. (1988). Knowledge incoiporation in motor representation. In: O.G. Meyer & K. Roth (Eds.), Complex motor beltaviour: 'The' motor-action controversy (pp. 289-314). Amsterdam: North-Holland. [146]
  263. Sheridan, MR. (1988). Movement metaphors. In: A.M. Colley & J.R. Beech (Eds.), Cognition and action in skilled behaviour (pp. 157-171). Amsterdam: North- Holland.
  264. Sims, E.V., & Weisberg, P. (1984). Effects of page prompts on beginning handwriting legibility. Journal of Educational Research, 77(6), 360-365. [13]
  265. S0vik, N. (1976). The effects of different principles of instruction in children's copying perfoimance. Journal of Educational Research, 45, 38-45. [144,154]
  266. S0vik, N. (1981). An experimental study of individualized learning/instructions in copying, tracking and handwriting based on feedback principles. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53, 195-215. [13]
  267. S0vik, N. (1984). The effects of a remedial tracking program on writing performance of dysgraphic children. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 28{3), 129-147. [13]
  268. S0vik, N., & Teulings, H.L. (1983). Real-time feedback of handwriting in a teaching program. Acta Psychologica, 54, 258-291. [13]
  269. Spijkers, W.A.C. (1987). Programming of direction and velocity of an aiming movement: The effect of probability and response-specificity. Acta Psychologica, 58,285-304. [41]
  270. Spijkers, W.A.C., & Steyvers, F. (1984). Specification of direction and duration during programming of discrete sliding movements. Psychological Research, 46, 59-71.
  271. Spijkers, W.A.C., & Walter, A. (1985). Response processing stages in choice reaction times. Acta Psychologica, 58, 191-204. [31,42]
  272. Stelmach, G.E., & Diggles, V.A. (1982). Control theories in motor behavior. Acta psychologica, 50, 83-105. [16]
  273. Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method. In: W.G. Koster (Ed.), Attention and performance II (pp. 276-315). Amsterdam: North-Holland. [16,19,32,172,178]
  274. Sternberg, S., Monsell, S., Knoll, R.L., & Wright, CE. (1978). The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: Comparison of speech and typewriting. In: G.E. Stelmach (Ed.), Infoimation processing in motor control and learning. New York: Academic Press. [15,16,43,53,69]
  275. Sternberg, S., Wright, CE., Knoll R.L., & Monsell, S. (1980). Motor Programming and rapid speech: Additional evidence. In: R.A. Cole (Ed.), The perception and production of fluent speech. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum. [31,32,43]
  276. Stolt, D.H., Henderson, S.E., & Moves, F.A. (1987). Diagnosis and remediation of handwriting problems. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 4, 137-147. [13]
  277. Summers, J.J. (1980). Motor programs. In: D. Holding (Ed.), Human skills. London: Wiley. [16]
  278. Teulings, H.L. (1988). Handwriting movement control. PhD. Thesis, University of Nijmegen. [15,16,126,143]
  279. Teulings, H.L., & Maarse, F.J. (1984). Digital recording and processing of handwriting movements. Human Movement Science, 3, 193-217. [12,58,114] Teulings, H.L., & Thomassen, A.J.W.M. (1985). Suggesties voor schrijfleemiethoden op basis van psychomotorisch onderzoek. In: A.J.W.M. Thomassen, G.P. Van Galen, & L.F. De Klerk (Red.), Studies over schrijfmotoriek: Theorie en toepassing in het onderwijs (pp. 165-179). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
  280. Teulings, H.L., Thomassen, A.J.W.M., & Van Galen (1980). Schrijfsnelheid als functie van schrijfgrootte en leeftijd. Technical report, Psychology Laboratory, University of Nijmegen. [55]
  281. Teulings, H.L, Thomassen, A.J.W.M., &. Van Galen, G.P. (1986). Invariants in handwriting: The information contained in a motor program. In: H.S.R. Kao, G.P. Van Galen & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporary research in handwriting (pp.305-315). Amsterdam: North-Holland. [79,107]
  282. Teulings, H.L, Thomassen, A.J.W.M., & Maaise, F.J., (in press). A description of handwriting in terms of main axes. In: R. Plamondon, C.Y. Suen & M.L. Simner (Eds.), Computer recognition and human production of handwriting. [123]
  283. Thomassen, A.J.W.M., & Teulings, H.L. (1979). The development of directional preference in writing movements. Visible Language, 13, 299-313. [54,58,124,125]
  284. Thomassen, A.J.W.M., & Teulings, H.L. (1983). The development of handwriting. In: M. Martlew (Ed.), The psychology of written language: Developmental and educational perspectiv es (pp.179-213). New York: Wiley. [51,52,64,69]
  285. Thomassen, A.J.W.M., & Teulings, H.L. (1985). Enkele notities over lettervormen op basis van inzichten in de psychomotoriek. In: A.J.W.M. Thomassen, G.P. Van Galen, & L.F.W, de Klerk (Red.), Studies over de schrijfmotoriek: Theorie en toepassing in het onderwijs, (pp. 141-164). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. [81]
  286. Thomassen, A.J.W.M., Keuss, P.J.G., & Van Galen, G.P. (1983). Motor aspects of handwriting. Amsterdam: North-Holland. [152]
  287. Trap-porter, J., Gladden, M.A., Hill, D.S., & Cooper, J.O. (1983). Space size and accuracy of second and third grade students' handwriting, Journal of Educational Research, 76(4), 231-233. [13]
  288. Turvey, M.T. (1973). On peripheral and central processes in vision: inferences from an information-processing analysis of masking with patterned stimuli. Psychological Review, 80, 1-52.
  289. Turvey, M.T. (1977). Preliminaries to a theory of action with reference to vision. In: R. Shaw & L. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing: Toward an
  290. Wann, J.P. (1987). Trends in the refinement and optimization of fine motor trajectories: Observations from an analysis of the handwriting of primary school children. Journal of Motor Behavior, 79(7), 13-37. [15]
  291. Wann, J.P., & Jones, J.G. (1986). Space-time invariance in handwriting: Contrasts between primary school children displaying advanced or retarded handwriting acquisition. Human Movement Science, 5, 275-296. [15,54,58,116]
  292. Weber, A.M., & Bradshaw, J.L. (1981). Levy and Reid's neurological model on relation to writing hand/posture: An evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 74-88.
  293. Wing, A.M. (1978). Response timing in handwriting. In: G.E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning. New York: Academic Press. [123,123,132,133]
  294. Wing, A.M., Nimmo-Smith M.I., & Eldridge, M.A. (1983). The consistency of cursive letter formation as a function of position in the word. Acta Psvchologica, 54,197-204.
  295. Wood, R.W., Webster, L., & Gullickson, A. (1987). Comparing handwriting legibility with three teaching methods for sex and grade differences. Reading Improvement, 24, 24-30. [13]
  296. Wright, CD., & Wright, J.P. (1980). Handwriting: The effectiveness of copying from moving versus still models. Journal of Educational Research, 74(2), 95-98. [13,154]
  297. Zelaznik, H.N., Shapiro, D.C., & Carter, M.C. (1982). The specification of digit and duration during motor programming: A new method of precuing. Journal of Motor Behavior, 14,57-68. [41]
  298. Ziviani, J. (1984). Some elaborations on handwriting speed in 7-to 14-year olds. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58,535-539. [13]
  299. Ziviani, J., & Elkins, J. (1986). Effect of pencil grip on handwriting speed and legibility. Educational Review, 38, 247-157. [13]