Vol. 6, No.
1, April 2003
FORENSIC DO CUME NT EXAMINATION/Handwriting and ADHD : 39-4-030206/0304
ATTENTIONAL CONTROL OF HANDWRITING MOVEMENTS
The effects of conscious control on handwriting fluency.
by Oliver Tucha1, Geraldine M. Paul1, Klaus W. Lange1
REFERENCES:, Tucha, O., Paul, G. M., and Lange, K. W., "Attentional
Control of Handwriting Movements," The International Journal of
Forensic Document Examiners, Vol. 6, No. 1, April 2003, pp. 1-4.
ABSTRACT: In the present study, the effect of conscious control on
handwriting fluency of 16 healthy adults and 8 healthy children was
assessed. Participants were asked to write a short sentence under different
conditions. Conditions were: normal writing, writing with eyes closed,
neat handwriting, writing while visually tracking the pen tip and writing
with closed eyes while mentally tracking the highest position in each letter.
While no differences were found between normal handwriting and writing
with closed eyes, marked differences were observed between normal
writing and the other writing conditions. The present results indicate that
automated handwriting movements are independent of visual feedback.
Furthermore, conscious control of graphomotor output hampers the
production of fluent handwriting movements in both adults and children.
KEYWORDS: Handwriting fluency, conscious, graphomotor.
INTRODUCTIONS
In a number of experimental studies, the role of vision and visual
feedback in the spatial and temporal control of handwriting was assessed.
These studies were concerned with handwriting performance of healthy
adults [1-6] and patients with neurological disorders [7].
After deprivation of vision, Smyth and Silvers [1] found no alterations
of movement time in healthy adults, but a considerable increase in the
number of errors in strokes and letters (omissions, repetitions,
transpositions of letters and strokes). In contrast to these findings, a
significant increase of movement time and trajectory size has been
observed in handwriting without vision [2-4]. Furthermore, a higher
spatial variability was found in a no-vision handwriting condition than in
a normal handwriting condition with vision [3]. However, in a more recent
examination Marquardt and colleagues [6] found (in accordance with the
results of Smyth and Silvers [1]), no differences between normal
handwriting and handwriting with closed eyes with regard to peak velocity
and overall speed of movement. In addition, the analysis of single strokes
under both conditions of handwriting revealed velocity profiles with a
smooth course which had only one peak and a bell shaped course [6].
These kinematic properties of handwriting movements denote fluent or
automated movements [8-11].
Marquardt and colleagues [6] discuss their latter finding in terms of
attentional control. As well as the two instructions mentioned above
(writing with eyes opened and writing with eyes closed), the participants
were also requested to write a short sentence while visually tracking the
pen tip and while mentally tracking the pen tip. Under the latter two
experimental conditions of handwriting, numerous inversions of velocity
profiles, indicating gross disturbances of handwriting fluency, were
observed. The authors conclude that visual feedback is not essential to the
11
Institute of Experimental Psychology, University of Regensburg, 93040
Regensburg, Germany.
Address for correspondence: Professor K.W. Lange, Institute of
Experimental Psychology, University of Regensburg, 93040 Regensburg,
Germany, E-mail: oliver.tucha@psychologie.uni-regensburg.de,
klaus.lange@psychologie.uni-regensburg.de Fax:++49 - 941 - 943 4496.
Copyright © 2003 Shunderson Communication, Inc. All Rights of Reproduction Reserved
production of fluent handwriting movements. Furthermore, conscious
attention to visual feedback and also to mental control of graphomotor
output hampers the production of fluent handwriting movements.
However, that visual feedback is effectively used in automated
handwriting for the monitoring of stroke size was demonstrated in a
second experiment.
The experience of Mai and Marquardt in the treatment of patients
with writer's cramp [12,13], has led them to emphasize the potential of
their findings for the treatment of handwriting disturbances. They
suggest, that the treatment of patients with writing disturbances, should
focus on smoothness and fluency of movements. The aim of training
procedures should be to direct attention (conscious control) away from
the writing process, in particular from accuracy, uniformity and size of
handwriting.
The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of conscious
control on handwriting fluency of healthy adults and healthy children.
The effect of attentional control on handwriting in children is of
interest, since disturbances of handwriting movements and in
particular of handwriting fluency are common in children with
conditions, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia
[14, 15].
2. METHODS
2.1 Participants and Procedure
Sixteen right-handed students (eight female, eight male; mean age
= 22.5 years; S.E. = 0.4 years) participated in the experiment. The
participants were asked to write the sentence "Ein helles grelles Licht"
("A bright and glaring light") in cursive script under five different
conditions. The conditions consisted of (A) normal writing, (B)
writing with eyes closed, (C) neat handwriting, (D) writing while
visually tracking the pen tip and (E) writing with closed eyes while
mentally tracking the highest position in each letter. The sequence of
conditions was randomly assigned to participants. Furthermore, eight
right-handed children (four female, four male; mean age = 12.6 years;
S.E. = 0.3 years) underwent the same procedure. Handedness was
assessed on the basis of participants' responses on a short version of
the handedness questionnaire of Raczkowski, Kalat and Nebes [16,
17].
2.2 Apparatus and Analysis
A digitizing tablet (WACOM IV, Wacom, Neuss, Germany) was
used for registration of handwriting movements. The position of the
pen on the surface of the tablet can be localised with an accuracy of
0.2 mm in both directions. Data processing was performed using a
computer programme which was designed for the analysis of
handwriting movements [18]. Kinematic data were calculated and
smoothed using nonparametric regression methods (kernel estimators)
devised by Marquardt and Mai [19]. For analysis, the mean number of
inversions of the direction of the velocity profiles of the letter
combination "ll" was calculated. Data analysis focused on the vertical
component of the strokes. The letter combination "ll" was chosen since
these letters represent a simple letter combination which is usually
executed in script type. Moreover, the pen is not usually lifted from the
pad while these letters are written. The number of inversions of the
1
The International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners
Figure 1: NIV of 16 healthy adult participants writing under five different conditions.
velocity profiles (NIV) were chosen, since automated and non-automated
handwriting movements can be distinguished from one another by profiles
of velocity [18]. Single strokes of automated movements lead to a smooth
course and have only one peak (NIV = 1) and a bell shaped course in their
velocity profiles. Therefore, a greater dysfluency of handwriting is
reflected in a higher NIV [8, 9, 11]. Statistical analysis was performed
using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Post hoc analysis was
performed using t-tests for paired samples. An alpha level of .05 was
applied for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
Adult Participants
Multivariate analysis of variance revealed a significant difference
between writing conditions (F = 29.5; p < .001). While no differences
were found between the NIV per stroke between normal handwriting and
writing with closed eyes (t-test for paired samples: t = 1.86; p = .083),
marked differences were observed between normal writing and the other
writing conditions (Figure 1). In comparison with movements during
normal handwriting, the NIV was significantly increased when participants
were requested to write neatly (t = 7.74; p < .001), to write while visually
tracking the pen tip (t = 6.82; p < .001) and when they were asked to write
with closed eyes while mentally tracking the highest position in each letter
(t = 9.69; p < .001).
Children
The multivariate analysis of variance of the NIV in children revealed
a significant difference (Figure 2) between writing conditions (F = 33.5;
p < .001). Subsequent post hoc analysis using t-tests for paired samples
indicated no differences in the NIV per stroke between normal
handwriting and writing with closed eyes (t-test for paired samples: t =
2 Copyright © 2003 Shunderson Communications, Inc. All Rights of Reproduction Reserved
1.87; p = .104). However, in comparison with movements during normal
handwriting, the NIV was significantly increased when children were
asked to write neatly (t = 7.21; p < .001), to write while visually tracking
the pen tip (t = 8.43; p < .001) and when writing with closed eyes while
mentally tracking the highest position in each letter (t = 12.43; p < .001).
4. DISCUSSION
The present results indicate that automated handwriting movements
are independent from visual feedback. With regard to healthy adult
participants, these findings correspond with observations of a former study
of Marquardt and colleagues [6] who used similar experimental
procedures. These authors also demonstrated that automated handwriting
movements could be performed without vision. Furthermore, the present
findings suggest that conscious attention given to accuracy of handwriting
(neatness), to visual feedback and also to mental control of graphomotor
output results in less fluent handwriting movements. The participants'
attention to handwriting hampered the generation of automated
movements. Automated processes are therefore not just independent of
conscious control as suggested by Näätänen [20], they are indeed
disturbed by conscious attention.
The examination of writing fluency of healthy children who had been
requested to write under different experimental conditions revealed similar
results. Conscious attention to visual feedback also resulted in marked
deterioration of handwriting fluency, as indicated by an increased NIV.
These findings may explain the results of a previous study in which
improvements of qualitative aspects of handwriting, such as legibility and
accuracy, were observed in boys with ADHD following treatment with
stimulant medication [15]. However, kinematic analysis of handwriting
movements revealed that these boys with ADHD on stimulant drug
treatment performed less fluent writing movements than following the
withdrawal of the drug or than control participants. The less fluent
handwriting processes of children with ADHD on medication may

Figure 2: NIV of 18 healthy children writing under five different conditions.
therefore follow from the intention to write more neatly.
Mai and Marquardt demonstrated that training procedures directing
attention away from the writing process improved the handwriting of adult
patients with writer's cramp [19, 13]. According to these findings, we
suggest that the present findings may have implications for the treatment
of handwriting disturbances of children, with conditions such as attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia [14, 15].
REFERENCES
[1]. Smyth, M.M., & Silvers, G. (12987). Functions of vision in the
control of Handwriting, Acta Psychologica, 65, 47-64.
[2]. Van Galen, G.P., Smyth, M.M., Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Hylkema,
H. (1989). The role of the short-term memory and the motor buffer
in handwriting under visual and non-visual guidance. In R.
Plamondon, C. Y. Suen, & M. L. Simner (Eds.), Computer
recognition and human production of handwriting. (pp. 253-271).
World Scientific Publ. Co.
[3]. Van Doorn, R.R., & Keuss, P.J. (1992). The role of vision in the
temporal and spatial control of handwriting. Acta Psychol Amst,
81, 269-286.
[4]. Van Doorn, R.R., & Keuss, P.J. (1993). Does the production of
letter strokes in handwriting benefit from vision? Acta Psychol
Amst, 82, 275-290.
Copyright © 2003 Shunderson Communication, Inc. All Rights of Reproduction Reserved
Vol. 6, No.1, April 2003
[5]. Van Galen, G.P., Teulings, H.-L., & Sanders, J. (1994). On the
interdependence of motor programming and feedback processing in
handwriting. In C. Faure, P. Keuss, G. Lorette, & A. Vinter (Eds.),
Advances in handwriting and drawing. A multidisciplinary
approach. (pp. 403-419). Paris: Télécom.
[6]. Marquardt, C., Gentz, W., & Mai, N. (1996). On the role of vision
in skilled handwriting. M.L. Simner, C.G. Leedham, & A.J.W.M.
Thomassen (Eds.), Handwriting and drawing research: Basic and
applied issues. (pp. 87-97). IOS Press.
[7]. Smith, M.C., & Fucetola, R. (1995). Human Movement Science, 14,
109-123.
[8]. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1988). The acquisition
of skilled handwriting: Discontinuous trends in kinematic variables.
In A. Colley & J. Beech (Eds.), Cognition and action in skilled
behaviour. (pp. 273-281). North-Holland: Elsevier Science
Publishers.
[9]. Meulenbroek, R.G.J., & Van Galen, G.P. (1989). 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. (pp. 273-286). Singapore: World Scientific
Publishing.
[10]. Eichhorn, T.E., Gasser, T., Mai, N., Marquardt, C., Arnold, G.,
3
The International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners

Schwarz, J., & Oertel, W.H. (1996). Computational analysis of open

loop handwriting movements in Parkinson's disease: a rapid method
to detect dopamimetic effects. Movment Disorders, 11, 289-297.

[11]. Tucha, O., Aschenbrenner, S., & Lange, K.W. (2000). Mirror
writing and handedness. Brain Lang, 73, 432-441.

[12]. Mai, N., & Marquardt, C. (1994). Treatment of writer's cramp.

Kinematic measures as an assessment tool for planning and
evaluating training procedures. In C. Faure, P. Keuss, G. Lorette, &
A. Vinter (Eds.), Advances in handwriting and drawing. A
multidisciplinary approach. Paris: Télécom.

[13]. Mai, N., & Marquardt, C. (1995). Analyse und Therapie

motorischer Schrteibstörungen. Psychologische Beiträge, 37, 538-
582.

[14]. Sovik, N., Arntzen, O., & Thygesen, R. (1987). Writing

characteristics of "normal", dyslexic and dysgraphic children.
Journal of Human Movement Science, 13, 171-187.

[15]. Tucha, O., & Lange, K.W. (1999). Methylphenidate-induced

impairment of handwriting movements in hyperactive boys. In C.
G. Leedham, M. Leung, V. Sagar, & X. Xuhong (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 9th Biennial Conference of the International
Graphonomics Society. (Pp. 241-244). Singapore: Nanyang
University.

[16]. Chapman, L.J., & Chapman, J.P. (1987). The measurement of

handedness. Brain Cogn., 6, 175-183.

[17]. Raczkowski, D., Kalat, J.W., & Nebes, R. (1974). Reliability and
validity of some handedness questio nnai re ite ms.
Neuropsychologia, 12, 43-47.

[18]. Mai, N., & Marquardt, C. (1992). CS - Computer-assisted

movement analysis in handwriting. Operational manual. Munich:
MedCom Verlag.

[19]. Marquardt, C., & Mai, N. (1994). A computational procedure for

movement analysis in handwriting. Journal of Neuroscience
Methods, 52, 39-45.

[20]. Näätänen, R. (1992). Attention and brain function. Hillsdale:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

4 Copyright © 2003 Shunderson Communications, Inc. All Rights of Reproduction Reserved