Acta Universitatis Carolinae Kinanthropologica (AUC Kinanthropologica) is an international peer reviewed journal for the publication of research outcomes in the humanities, the social sciences and the natural sciences, as applied to kinathropology. It is a multidisciplinary journal accepting only original unpublished articles in English in the various sub-disciplines and related fields of kinanthropology, such as Anthropology, Anthropomotorics, Sports Pedagogy, Sociology of Sport, Philosophy of Sport, History of Sport, Physiology of Sport And Exercise, Physical Education, Applied Physical Education, Physiotherapy, Human Biomechanics, Psychology of Sport, Sports Training and Coaching, Sport Management, etc. The journal also welcomes interdisciplinary articles. The journal also includes reports of relevant activities and reviews of relevant publications.
The journal is abstracted and indexed by CNKI, DOAJ, EBSCO, ERIH PLUS, SPOLIT, SPORTDiscus, and Ulrichsweb.
AUC KINANTHROPOLOGICA, Vol 56 No 2 (2020), 67–78
Writing legibility of selected effectors: Evidence for a generalized motor program?
Patricia Paulsen Hughes, Madison Gilliam Beanland, Tyler Danielson, Bert H. Jacobson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23366052.2020.8
published online: 17. 12. 2020
abstract
The purpose of the study was to determine if a generalized motor program (GMP) exists for writing, as has been previously reported. Beginning with a 1942 experiment by Lashley, and continuing with a 1976 (Raibert) example, writers of some motor learning texts have asserted that one can write with different effectors (nonpreferred hand, mouth, foot, etc.) and the results are quite similar, thus demonstrating that writing is a generalized motor program. The task has not been reported in recent literature. In order to determine if the results reported were generalizable, the researchers recruited 31 individuals who volunteered to write a short sentence under five conditions: 1) preferred hand, 2) preferred hand with wrist stabilized, 3) non-preferred hand, 4) mouth, and 5) foot. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 75 and were grouped as follows: < 25 yrs, n = 15; 25–44 yrs, n = 6; > 44, n = 10. Although all of the samples were legible in Conditions 1 and 2, legibility deteriorated significantly in Conditions 4 and 5. Contrary to expectations, there were no significant differences between the samples produced by based on age groupings. The authors concluded that most adults cannot write legibly with their mouths or feet, contrary to what has been previously reported.
keywords: Marc Raibert; handwriting; preferred hand; non-preferred hand; motor program
references (44)
1. Accardo, A., Genna, M., & Borean, M. (2013). Development, maturation and learning influence on handwriting kinematics. Human Movement Science, 32(1), 136-146. CrossRef PubMed
2. Bara, F., & Morin, M. F. (2013). Does the handwriting style learned in first grade determine the style used in the fourth and fifth grades and influence handwriting speed and quality? A comparison between French and Quebec children. Psychology in the Schools, 50(6), 601-617. CrossRef
3. Berninger, V. (2012). Strengthening the Mind's Eye: The Case for Continued Handwriting Instruction. The 21st Century. Principal, 28-31.
4. Berninger, V., Mizokawa, D., & Bragg, R. (1991). Theory-based diagnosis and remediation of writing disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 29(1), 57-79. CrossRef
5. Bernstein, N. (1967). The co-ordination and regulation of movements. Oxford Univ. Press.
6. Carter, M. C., & Shapiro, D. C. (1984). Control of sequential movements: Evidence for generalized motor programs. Journal of Neurophysiology, 52(5), 787-796. CrossRef PubMed
7. Castiello, U., & Stelmach, G. E. (1993). Generalized representation of handwriting: Evidence of effector independence. Acta Psychologica, 82(1-3), 53-68. CrossRef
8. Connelly, V., Gee, D., & Walsh, E. (2007). A comparison of keyboarded and handwritten compositions and the relationship with transcription speed. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 479-492. CrossRef PubMed
9. Feder, K. P., & Majnemer, A. (2007, March 19). Handwriting development, competency, and intervention. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 49(4), 312-317. CrossRef PubMed
10. Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22(2), 78-98. CrossRef
11. Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., & Whitaker, D. (1997). The role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 170-182. CrossRef
12. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Mason, L., Fink-Shorzempa, B., Moran, S., & Saddler, B. (2008). How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? A national survey. Reading and Writing, 21(1-2), 49-69. CrossRef
13. Graham, S., Struck, M., Santoro, J., & Berninger, V. W. (2006). Dimensions of good and poor handwriting legibility in first and second graders: Motor programs, visual-spatial arrangement, and letter formation parameter setting. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 43-60. CrossRef PubMed
14. Graham, S., Weintraub, N., & Berninger, V. W. (May/June 1998). The relationship between handwriting style and speed and legibility. Journal of Educational Research, 91(5), 290-296. CrossRef
15. IBM (2018). SPSS v. 24.
16. Jones, D., & Christensen, C. A. (1999). Relationship between automaticity in handwriting and students' ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 44-49. CrossRef
17. Keetch, K., Schmidt, R. A., Lee, T., & Young, D. (2005). Especial skills: Their emergence with massive amounts of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception & Performance, 31(5), 970-978. CrossRef PubMed
18. King, D. H. (2015). Congnitive benefits of handwriting. Dyslexia Tutor: News Release. Retrieved from https://dyslexia.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/cognitive-benefits-of-handwriting/.
19. Lashley, K. S. (1942). The problem of cerebral organization in vision. In: J. Cattell (Ed.), Biological symposia, Vol. VII. Visual mechanisms (pp. 301-322). Lancaster, PA: Jaques Cattell Press.
20. Li, X., He, W., Li, C., Wang, Y., Slavens, B. A., & Zhou, P. (2015). Motor unit number index examination in dominant and non-dominant hand muscles. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body. Brain and Cognition, 20(6), 699-710. CrossRef PubMed PubMed Central
21. Marshall, J., & Powers, J. (1969). Writing neatness, composition errors, and essay grades. Journal of Educational Measurement, 6(2), 97-101. CrossRef PubMed Central
22. McCutchen, D. (1995). Cognitive processes in children's writing: Developmental and individual differences. Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 1, 123-160. PubMed Central
23. Merton, P. A. (1972). How we control the contraction of our muscles. Scientific American, 226(5), 30-37. CrossRef PubMed PubMed Central
24. Nonaka, T. (2013). Motor variability but functional specificity: The case of a C4 tetraplegic mouth calligrapher, Ecological Psychology, 25(2), 131-154. CrossRef PubMed Central
25. Osiurak, F., Lesourd, M., Delporte, L., & Rossetti, Y. (2018). Tool use and generalized motor programs: We all are natural born poly-dexters. Scientific Reports, 8(1), Article 10429. CrossRef PubMed PubMed Central
26. Overvelde, A., & Hulstijn, W. (2011). Handwriting development in grade 2 and grade 3 primary school children with normal, at risk, or dysgraphic characteristics. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(2), 540-548. CrossRef PubMed PubMed Central
27. Pearson, N. (Producer) & Sheridan, J. (Director). (1989). My Left Foot [Motion Picture]. United Kingdom: Ferndale Studio. PubMed Central
28. Phillips, J., & Ogeil, R. (2010). Curved motions in horizontal and vertical orientations. Human Movement Science, 29(5), 737-750. CrossRef PubMed PubMed Central
29. Raibert, M. (1976). A state space model for sensory motor control and learning. MIT Artificial Intelligence Memo No. 351, January. PubMed Central
30. Raibert, M. (1977). Motor control and learning by the state space model. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. PubMed Central
31. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Goleman, H. (1982). The role of production factors in writing ability. In: M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse (pp. 173-210). New York: Academic Press. PubMed Central
32. Schmidt, R. A. (1991). Motor learning & performance: From principles to practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. PubMed Central
33. Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (1988). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. PubMed Central
34. Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2014). Motor control and learning (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. PubMed Central
35. Schmidt, R. A., & Wrisberg, C. (2000). Motor learning and performance: From principle to application (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. PubMed Central
36. Schmidt, R. A., & Wrisberg, C. (2004). Motor learning and performance: From principle to application (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. PubMed Central
37. Schmidt, R. A., & Wrisberg, C. (2008). Motor learning and performance: From principle to application (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. PubMed Central
38. Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2014). Motor learning and performance: From principle to application (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. PubMed Central
39. Shusterman, R. (2011) Muscle memory and the somaesthetic pathologies of everyday life. Human Movement, 12(1), 4-15. CrossRef PubMed Central
40. Suddath, C. (2009). Mourning the death of handwriting. Time, August 3. PubMed Central
41. Sülzenbrück, S., Hegele, M., Rinkenauer, G., & Heuer, H. (2011). The death of handwriting: Secondary effects of frequent computer use on basic motor skills. Journal of Motor Behavior, 43(3), 247-251. CrossRef PubMed PubMed Central
42. Whitacre, C. A., & Shea, C. H. The role of parameter variability on retention, parameter transfer, and effector transfer. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73(1), 47-57. CrossRef PubMed PubMed Central
43. Wright, C. E. (1990). Generalized motor programs: Reexamining claims of effector independence in writing. In: M. Jeanerod (Ed.), Attention and Performance XIII, Motor Representation and Control (pp. 294-320). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. CrossRef PubMed Central
44. Zubrzyecki, J. (2012). Strengthening the Mind's Eye: The case for continued handwriting instruction: The 21st century. Principal, 31, 28-31. PubMed Central
Writing legibility of selected effectors: Evidence for a generalized motor program? is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
157 x 230 mm
periodicity: 2 x per year
print price: 190 czk
ISSN: 1212-1428
E-ISSN: 2336-6052
