Gentner (1987) has called into question the role of timing information in a number of motor behaviours. The status of an invariant relative timing model for handwriting, however, is still unclear, due to lack of previous studies that have applied appropriate tests to a suitable database.
This study employs a direct application of the tests proposed by Gentner (1987) to handwriting samples collected from adult subjects, to ascertain whether an invariant temporal pattern was retained across changes in size and speed of writing.
In line with Gentner's (1987) study of typing, the findings are strongly against the invariant relative timing model and bring into question motor program models that posit timing as an independent parameter.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CarterM. C.ShapiroD. C. (1984). Control of sequential movements: Evidence for generalized motor programs. Journal of Neurophysiology52, 787–796.
2.
GentnerD. R. (1982). Evidence against a central control model of timing in typing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance8, 793–810.
3.
GentnerD. R. (1987). Timing of skilled motor performance: Tests of the proportional duration model. Psychological Review94, 255–276.
4.
HeuerH. (1988). Testing the invariance of relative timing: Comment on Gentner (1987). Psychological Review95, 552–557.
5.
LanczosC. (1957). Applied AnalysisLondon: Pitman.
6.
LangleyD. J.ZelaznikH. N. (1984). The acquisition of time properties associated with a sequential motor skill. Journal of Motor Behaviour16, 273–301.
7.
MertonP. A. (1972). How we control the contraction of our muscles. Scientific American226, 30–37.
8.
MeyerD. E.SmithJ. E. K.WrightC. E. (1982). Models for the speed and accuracy of aimed movements. Psychological Review89, 449–482.
9.
MorassoP. (1986). Trajectory formation. Human movement understanding.MorassoP.TagliascoV.Amsterdam: North Holland.
10.
MustardB. E.LeeR. G. (1987). Relationship between EMG patterns and kinematic properties for flexion movements at the human wrist. Experimental Brain Research66, 247–256.
11.
PickH.TeulingsH. L. (1983). Geometric transformations of handwriting as a function of instruction and feedback. Acta Psychologica54, 327–340.
12.
SaltzmannE.KelsoJ. A. S. (1987). Skilled actions: A task dynamic approach. Psychological Review94, 84–106.
13.
SchmidtR. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review82, 225–260.
14.
ShapiroD. C.WalterC. B. (1986). An examination of rapid positioning movements with spatiotemporal constraints. Journal of Motor Behavior18, 373–395.
15.
StelmachG. E.MullinsP. A.TeulingsH. L. (1984). Motor programming and temporal patterns in handwriting. Timing and time perception.GibbonJ.AllanL.New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
16.
TeulingsH. L.MaarseF. J. (1984). Digital recording and processing of handwriting movements. Human Movement Science3, 193–217.
17.
TeulingsH. L.ThomassenA. J. W. M.van GalenG. P. (1986). Invariants in handwriting: The information contained in a motor program. Graphonomics: Contemporary research in handwriting.KaoH. S. R.van GalenG. P.HoosainR.Amsterdam: North Holland.
18.
ThomassenA. J. W. M.TeulingsH. L. (1985). Time, size and shape in handwriting: Exploring spatio-temporal relationships at different levels. Time, mind & behaviour.MichonJ. A.JacksonJ. L.Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
19.
VivianiP.TerzuoloC. (1980). Space–time invariance in learned motor skills. Tutorials in motor behaviour.StelmachG. E.RequinJ.Amsterdam: North Holland.
20.
WallaceS. A.WrightL. (1982). Distance and movement effects on the timing of agonist and antagonist muscles: A test of the impulse-timing theory. Journal of Motor Behavior14, 341–352.
21.
WingA. M. (1978). Response timing in handwriting. Information processing in motor control and learning.StelmachG. E.New York: Academic.
