Graphemes as motor units in the acquisition of writing skills

Reading and Writing

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 313-337

  Kandel, Sonia ^a,b,d   Soler, Olga ^c   Valdois, Sylviane ^a   Gros, Céline ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PIERRE MENDÈS FRANCE   (France)

^b EL COLEGIO DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

^c UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

^d UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES   (France)

Author keywords

Children; Duration; Dysfluency; French; Graphemes

Indexed keywords

EID: 33644903759     PISSN: 09224777     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11145-005-4321-5     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Berndt, R. S., Lynne D'Autrechy, C., & Reggia, J. A. (1994). Functional pronunciation units in English words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 977-991.
2. Berndt, R. S., Reggia, J. A., & Mitchum, C. C. (1987). Empirically derived probabilities for grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 19, 1-9.
3. Bogaerts, H., Meulenbroek, R. G. J., & Thomassen, A. J. W. M. (1996). The possible role of the syllable as a processing unit in handwriting. In M. L. Simner, C. G. Leedham & A. J. W. M. Thomassen (Eds.), Handwriting and drawing reasearch: Basic and applied issues (pp. 115-126). IOS Press: Amsterdam.
4. Caramazza, A., & Miceli, G. (1990). The structure of graphemic representations. Cognition, 37, 243-297.
5. Caramazza, A., Miceli, G., Villa, G., & Romani, C. (1987). The role of the graphemic buffer in spelling: Evidence from a case of acquired dysgraphia. Cognition, 26, 59-85.
6. Catach, N. (1980). L'orthographe du français: Traité théorique et pratique Paris: Nathan.
7. Catach, N. (1995). L'orthographe française. Paris: Nathan.
8. Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Strategies of information processing (pp. 151-216). London: Academic Press.
9. Content, A., & Radeau, M. (1988). Données statistiques sur la structure orthographique du Français. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognititve (special issue).
10. Dickerson, J. (1999). Format distorsion and word reading: The role of multiletter units. Neurocase, 5, 31-36.
11. Houghton, G., Glasspool, D. W., & Shallice, T. (1994). Spelling and serial recall: Insights from a competitive queuing model. In G. D. A. Brown & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of spelling: Theory, process and intervention New York: John Wiley and Sons.
12. Houghton, G., & Zorzi, M. (2003). Normal and impaired spelling in a connectionist dual-route architecture. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 115-162.
13. Joubert, S. A., & Lecours, A. R. (2000). The role of sublexical graphemic processing in reading. Brain and Language, 72, 1-13.
14. Kandel, S., Alvarez, C. J., & Vallée, N. (in press). Syllables as processing units in handwriting production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
15. Kandel, S., & Valdois, S. (in press a). Syllables as functional units in a copying task: A visuo-othographic and graphomotor approach. Language and Cognitive Processes.
16. Kandel, S., & Valdois, S. (in press b). French and Spanish-speaking children use different visual and motor units during spelling acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes.
17. Kandel, S., & Valdois, S. (2005). The effect of orthographic regularity on children's handwriting production. Current Psychology Letters: Brain, Behaviour and Cognition, 17(3).
18. Lefavrais, P., (1967). Test de l'Alouette. Paris: Editions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.
19. Martensen, H., Maris, E., & Dijkstra, T. (2003). Phonological ambiguity and context sensitivity: On sublexical clustering in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 375-395.
20. McCloskey, M., Badecker, W., Goodman-Schulman, R. A., & Aliminosa, D. (1994). The structure of graphemic representations in spelling: Evidence from a case of acquired dysgraphia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11, 341-392.
21. Meulenbroek, R. G. J., & Van Galen, G. P. (1986). Movement analysis of repetitive behavior of first, second and third grade primary school children. In H. S. R. Kao, G. P. Van Galen & R. Hoosein (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporary research in handwriting (pp. 71-92). Amsterdam: North Holland.
22. Meulenbroek, R. G. J., & Van Galen, G. P. (1988). The acquisition of skilled handwriting: Discontinuous trends in kinematic variables. In A. M. Cooley & J. R. Beech (Eds.), Cognition and action in skilled behavior (pp. 273-281). Amsterdam: North Holland.
23. Meulenbroek, R. G. J., & 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 Singapore: World Scientific.
24. Meulenbroek, R. G. J., & Galen, G. P. (1990). Perceptual-motor complexity of printed and cursive letters. Journal of Experimental Education, 58, 95-110.
25. Mojet, W. (1991). Characteristics of developing handwriting skills in elementary education. In J. Wann, A. M. Wing, & N. Søvik (Eds.), Development of graphic skills (pp. 53-75). London: Academic Press.
26. New, B., Pallier, C., Ferrand, L., & Matos, R. (2001). Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: Lexique. L'Année Psychologique, 101, 447-462.
27. Orliaguet, J. P., & Boë, L. J. (1993). The role of linguistics in the speed of handwriting movements. Acta Psychologica, 82, 103-113.
28. Orliaguet, J. P., Zesiger, P., Boë, L. J., & Mounoud, P. (1993). Effects of phonetics on handwriting production: Analysis of reaction time and movement velocity. Paper presented at the sixth international conference on handwriting and drawing, Paris.
29. Peereman, R., & Content, A. (1997). Orthographic and phonological neighborhood in naming: Not all neighbors are equally influential in orthographic space. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 382-410.
30. Peereman, R., & Content, A. (1999). LEXOP: A lexical data base providing orthography-phonology statistics for French monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 376-379.
31. Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145-174). Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. Rabiner, L.R., & Gold, B. (1975). Theory and application of digital signal processing. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
33. Rapp, B., & Kong, D. (2002). Revealing the component functions of the graphemic buffer. Brain and Language, 83, 112-113.
34. Rastle, K., & Coltheart, M. (1998). Whammy and double whammy: Length effects in nonword naming. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 5, 277-282.
35. Rey, A., & Schiller, N. O. (in press). Graphemic complexity and multiple print-to-sound associations in visual word recognition. Memory & Cognition.
36. Rey, A., Ziegler, J. C., & Jacobs, A. M. (2000). Graphemes are perceptual reading units. Cognition, 75(1), B1-B12.
37. Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation of literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94(2), 143-174.
38. Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151-218.
39. Share, D. L. (1999). Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: A direct test of the self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 95-129.
40. Søvik, N., Arntzen, O., Samuelstuen, M., & Heggberget, M. (1994). Relations between linguistic wordgroups and writing. In C. Faure, G. Lorette & A. Vinter (Eds.), Advances in handwriting and drawing: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 231-246). Paris: Europia.
41. Sprenger-Charolles, L., Siegel, L., Béchennec, D., & Serniclaes, W. (2003). Development of phonological and orthographic processing in reading aloud, in silent reading, and in spelling: A four-year longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 84, 194-217.
42. Tainturier, M. J., & Rapp, B. (2004). Complex graphemes as funtional spelling units: Evidence from acquired dysgraphia. Neurocase, 10(2), 122-131.
43. Teulings, H. L., Thomassen, A. J. W. M., & Van Galen, G. P. (1983). Preparation of partly precued handwriting movements: The size of movement units in handwriting. Acta Psychologica, 54, 165-177.
44. Van Galen, G. P. (1991). Handwriting: Issues for a psychomotor theory. Human Movement Science, 10, 165-191.
45. Van Galen, G. P., Meulenbroek, R. G., & Hylkema, H. (1986). On the simultaneous processing of words, letters and strokes in handwriting: Evidence for a mixed linear and parallel model. In H. S. R. Kao, G. P. GalenVan & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporary research in handwriting (pp. 5-20). Amsterdam: North Holland.
46. 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 non-visual guidance. In R. Plamondon, C. Y. Suen & M. L. Simner (Eds.), Computer recognition and human production of handwriting (pp. 253-271). Singapore: World Scientific.
47. Venezky, R. (2004). In search of the perfect orthography. Written Language & Literacy, 17(2), 139-163.
48. Wing, A. (1980). The height of handwriting. Acta Psychologica, 82, 353-365.
49. Zesiger, P., Mounoud, P., & Mauert, C. A. (1993). Effects of lexicality and trigram frequency on handwriting production in children and adults. Acta Psychologica, 82, 353-365.
50. Zesiger, P., Orliaguet, J. P., Boë, L. J., & Mounoud, P. (1994). The influence of syllabic structure in handwriting and typing production. In C. Faure, G. Lorette & A. Vinter (Eds.), Advances in handwriting and drawing: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 389-401). Paris: Europia.
51. Ziegler, J. C., Jacobs, A. M., & Stone, G. O. (1996). Statistical analysis of the bidirectional inconsistency of spelling and sound in French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(4), 504-515.