Evidence against the Relative Invariance of Timing in Handwriting
Open Access
- 1 February 1990
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A
- Vol. 42 (1) , 105-119
- https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749008401210
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Testing the invariance of relative timing: Comment on Gentner (1987).Psychological Review, 1988
- Timing of skilled motor performance: Tests of the proportional duration model.Psychological Review, 1987
- Relationship between EMG patterns and kinematic properties for flexion movements at the human wristExperimental Brain Research, 1987
- Skilled actions: A task-dynamic approach.Psychological Review, 1987
- The Acquisition of Time Properties Associated with a Sequential Motor SkillJournal of Motor Behavior, 1984
- Geometric transformations of handwriting as a function of instruction and feedbackActa Psychologica, 1983
- Evidence against a central control model of timing in typing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1982
- Models for the speed and accuracy of aimed movements.Psychological Review, 1982
- A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning.Psychological Review, 1975
- How we control the contraction of our musclesScientific American, 1972