This site has been permanently archived. This is a static copy provided by the University of Southampton.
--- abstract: | The goal of this experiment was to investigate the role of visual feedback during written composition. Effects of suppression of visual feedback were analyzed both on processing demands and on on-line coordination of low-level execution processes and of high-level conceptual and linguistic processes. Writers composed a text and copied it either with or without visual feedback. Processing demands of the writing processes were evaluated with reaction times to secondary auditory probes, which were analyzed according to whether participants were handwriting (in a composing and a copying task) or engaged in high-level processes (when pausing in a composing task). Suppression of visual feedback increased reaction time interference (secondary reaction time minus baseline reaction time) during handwriting in the copying task and not during pauses in the composing task. This suggests that suppression of visual feedback only affected processing demands of execution processes and not those of high-level conceptual and linguistic processes. This is confirmed by analysis of the quality of the texts produced by participants, which were little, if at all, affected by the suppression of visual feedback. Results also indicate that the increase in processing demands of execution related to suppression of visual feedback affected on-line coordination of the writing processes. Indeed, when visual feedback was suppressed, reaction time interferences associated with handwriting were not reliably different in the copying task or the composing task but were significantly different when visual feedback was not suppressed: They were lower in the copying task than in the composition task. When visual feedback was suppressed, writers activated step-by-step execution processes and high-level writing processes, whereas they concurrently activated these writing processes when composing with visual feedback. altloc: - http://www.up.univ-mrs.fr/wpsycle/documentpdf/documentpiolat/OlivePiolatIJP2002.pdf chapter: ~ commentary: ~ commref: ~ confdates: ~ conference: ~ confloc: ~ contact_email: ~ creators_id: [] creators_name: - family: Thierry given: Olive honourific: '' lineage: '' - family: Annie given: Piolat honourific: '' lineage: '' date: 2002 date_type: published datestamp: 2003-09-26 department: ~ dir: disk0/00/00/31/77 edit_lock_since: ~ edit_lock_until: ~ edit_lock_user: ~ editors_id: [] editors_name: [] eprint_status: archive eprintid: 3177 fileinfo: /style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png;/3177/1/OlivePiolatIJP2002.pdf full_text_status: public importid: ~ institution: ~ isbn: ~ ispublished: pub issn: ~ item_issues_comment: [] item_issues_count: 0 item_issues_description: [] item_issues_id: [] item_issues_reported_by: [] item_issues_resolved_by: [] item_issues_status: [] item_issues_timestamp: [] item_issues_type: [] keywords: 'handwriting, processus r�dactionnels' lastmod: 2011-03-11 08:55:21 latitude: ~ longitude: ~ metadata_visibility: show note: ~ number: 4 pagerange: 209-218 pubdom: FALSE publication: International Journal of Psychology publisher: ~ refereed: TRUE referencetext: | Atwell, M. (1981). The evolution of text: The interrelation of read-ing and writing in the composing process. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Indiana. Bourdin, B., & Fayol, M. (1994). Is written language production more difficult than oral language production? A working memory approach. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 591-620. Brown, J. S., McDonald, J. L., Brown, IL., & Carr, TH. (1988). Adapting to processing demands in discourse production: The case of handwriting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 45-59. Chafe, W L. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writ-ing and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, Vol. 9, Advances in dis-course comprehension (pp. 35-53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Coirier, P., & Andriessen, J. (Eds.) (2000). Foundations of argu-mentative text processing. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Dansac, C., & Passerault, J.-M. (1996). Effects of re-reading suppression on the temporal parameters in text production. Graphic presentation at the 1996 European Writing Conference, Barcelona, Spain, October. Ellis, A. W (1988). Normal writing processes and peripheral acquired dysgraphias. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 99-127. Ellis, A. W, Young, A. W, & Flude, B. M. (1987). "Afferent" dys-graphia in a patient and in normal subjects. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 99-127. Fayol, M. (1999). Writing: From on-line management problems to strategies. In M. Torrance & G. Jeffery (Eds.), Cognitive demands ofwriting. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Flamen, J.-E, & Piolat, A. (1999). On visual feedback in writing by 10-12-year-olds: An on-line approach. In M.-F. Cr�t� & E. Esp�ret (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1998 Writing Conference (pp. 383-384). Poitiers, France: MSHS, University of Poitiers. Galbraith, D., & Sumpner, C. (1996). Effects of reduced visual feedback on writing. Graphic presentation at the 1996 European Writing Conference, Barcelona, Spain, October. Gould, J. D. (1980). Experiments on composing letters: Some facts, some myths, and some observations. In L. W Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 98-127). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grabowski, J. (1999). Verbal modes of knowledge diagnosis: The writing superiority effect. In M.-F. Cr�t� & E. Esp�ret (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1998 Writing Conference (pp. 11-16). Poitiers, France: MSHS, University of Poitiers. Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 7-87. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of the writing processes. In L. W Gregg & E. S. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Hull, G. A., & Smith, W L. (1983). Interrupting visual feedback in writing. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 963-978 Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kellogg, R. T. (1987). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes. Memory and Cognition, 15, 256-266. Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press. Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57-71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kellogg, R. T. (1999). Components of working memory in writ-ing. In M. Torrance & G. C. Jeffery (Eds.), The cognitive 9 9 Page 10 21 8 OLIVE AND PIOLAT demands of writing (pp. 25-42). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes. American Journal of Psychology, 114, 175-192. Kerr, B. (1973). Processing demands during mental operations. Memory and Cognition, 1, 401-412. Levy, C. M. & Ransdell, S. E. (1995). Is writing as difficult as it seems? Memory and Cognition, 23, 767-779. Levy, C. M. & Ransdell, S. E. (1996). Writing signatures. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 149-161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McCutchen, D. (1988). Functional automaticity in children's writing: A problem of metacognitive control. Written Communication, 5, 306-324. McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299-325. Olive, T. (1999). Economic de la production de textes : Gestion des ressources attentionnelles et mode d'activation des processus r�dactionnels [Economy of text composition: Management of cognitive resources and activation of the writing processes]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Provence. Olive, T, & Kellogg, R. T. (in press). Concurrent activation of high-and low-level production processes in written composi-tion. Memory and Cognition. Olive, T, Kellogg, R. T., & Piolat, A. (2001). The triple-task tech-nique for studying the process of writing. In T. Olive & C. M. Levy (Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 31-58). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Olive, T., Piolat, A., & Roussey, J.-Y. (1997). Effort cognitif et mobilisation des processus en production de textes : Effet de l'habilet� r�dactionnelle et du niveau de connaissances [Cognitive effort and time processing of the writing processes: Writing skill and level of knowledge]. In D. Mellier & A. vam Hoffe (Eds.), Attention et contr�le cognitif. M�canismes, d�veloppement des habilet�s, pathologies (pp. 71-85). Rouen, France: Publications de l'Universit� de Rouen. Piolat, A. (1982). L'�crit et l'oral comme syst�mes de production verbale [Writing and speaking as systems ofverbal production]. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Provence, France. Piolat, A., & Olive, T. (2000). Comment �tudier le co�t et le d�roulement de la r�daction de textes? La m�thode de triple-t�che: Un bilan m�thodologique [ How to study the cost and unfolding of text composition? The triple task method]. L'Ann�e Psychologique, 100, 465-502. Piolat, A., Olive, T., Roussey, J.-Y, Thunin, O., & Ziegler, J. C. (1999). Scriptkell: A computer assisted tool for measuring the relative distribution of time and cognitive effort in writing and other tasks. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31, 113-121. Piolat, A., Roussey, J.-Y, Olive, T., & Farioli, R (1996). Charge mentale et mobilisation des processus r�dactionnels : Examen de la proc�dure de Kellogg [Cognitive load and activation of the writing processes: Assessing Kellogg's method]. Psychologie Fran�aise, 41, 339-354. Smyth, M. M., & Silvers, G. (1987). Functions of vision in the control of handwriting. Acta Psychologica, 65, 47-64. Teleman, U. (198 1). On visual feedback in writing. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Applied Linguistics (pp. 424-425). Lund, Sweden: Lund University. Van Doorn, R. R. A., & Keuss, PIG. (1992). The role of vision in the temporal and spatial control of handwriting. Acta Psychologica, 81, 269-286. Van Doorn, R. R. A., & Keuss, P. J. G. (1993). Does the production of letter strokes in handwriting benefits from vision? Acta Psychologica, 82, 275-290. Van Galen, G. P. (1991). Handwriting: Issues for a psychomotor theory. Human Movement Science, 10, 165-191. Van Galen, G. P, Smyth, M. M., Meulenbroek, R. G. J., & Hylkema, H. (1989). The role of short-term memory and the motor buffer in handwriting under visual and nonvisual guidance. In R. Plamondon, C. Y Suen, & M. L. Simner (Eds.), Computer recognition and human production of handwriting (pp. 253-271). Singapore: World Scientific. Zesiger, P (1995). Ecrire. Approches cognitive, neuropsychologique et d�veloppementale [Writing: Cognitive, neuropsychological and developmental approaches]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. relation_type: [] relation_uri: [] reportno: ~ rev_number: 12 series: ~ source: ~ status_changed: 2007-09-12 16:48:53 subjects: - cog-psy succeeds: ~ suggestions: ~ sword_depositor: ~ sword_slug: ~ thesistype: ~ title: 'Suppressing Visual Feedback in written composition: Effects on Processing Demands and Coordination of the Writing' type: journalp userid: 4333 volume: 37