LCLD, CRCN, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Belgium.
LCLD, CRCN, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Belgium.
Cognition. 2020 Dec;205:104443. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104443. Epub 2020 Aug 31.
Recent research suggests that graphic motor programs acquired through writing are part of letter representations and contribute to their recognition. Indeed, learning new letter-like shapes through handwriting gave rise to better recognition than learning through typing on a keyboard. However, handwriting and typing do not differ solely by the nature of the motor activity. Handwriting requires a detailed visual analysis in order to reproduce all elements of the target shape. In contrast, typing relies on visual discrimination between graphic forms and does not require such detailed processing. The aim of the present study was to disentangle the respective contribution of visual analysis and graphomotor knowledge. We compared handwriting and typing to learning by composition, a new method which requires a detailed visual analysis of the target without the specific graphomotor activity. Participants composed the target symbols by selecting elementary features from the set displayed on the screen and dragging them in the appropriate position. In four experiments, adult participants learned sets of symbols through handwriting, typing or composition. Recognition tests were administered immediately after the learning phase and again two to three weeks later. Taken together, the results of the four experiments confirm the importance of the detailed visual analysis and provide no evidence for an influence of motor knowledge.
最近的研究表明,通过书写获得的图形运动程序是字母表示的一部分,并有助于它们的识别。事实上,通过手写学习新的类似字母的形状比通过键盘打字学习产生了更好的识别效果。然而,手写和打字的区别不仅仅在于运动活动的性质。手写需要详细的视觉分析才能再现目标形状的所有元素。相比之下,打字依赖于图形形式之间的视觉辨别,并不需要如此详细的处理。本研究的目的是厘清视觉分析和书写运动知识各自的贡献。我们将手写和打字与作曲进行了比较,作曲是一种新的方法,它需要对目标进行详细的视觉分析,而不需要特定的书写运动活动。参与者通过从屏幕上显示的集合中选择基本特征并将其拖到适当的位置来创作目标符号。在四个实验中,成年参与者通过手写、打字或作曲学习了一系列符号。在学习阶段之后立即进行识别测试,并在两到三周后再次进行测试。四项实验的结果证实了详细视觉分析的重要性,并且没有证据表明运动知识有影响。