{"content":[{"text":"2 \n reported, which are, from a linguistic point of view, the basic functional units in the structure of \n written language. It is suggested that they are also processing units in the cognitive system. The \n sixth section summarizes the studies reported and suggests a model of word writing that in major \n respects differs from models proposed by other authors. In the final section questions still open and \n ideas for future research are presented.","bbox":{"left":0.142198,"top":0.082677,"width":0.7411910000000002,"height":0.09714700000000001}},{"text":"2.","bbox":{"left":0.142198,"top":0.208438,"width":0.014629000000000003,"height":0.018504999999999994}},{"text":"Investigating the time course of typing","bbox":{"left":0.172399,"top":0.208438,"width":0.30222499999999997,"height":0.018504999999999994}},{"text":"2.1.","bbox":{"left":0.142198,"top":0.269779,"width":0.026898000000000005,"height":0.017824000000000007}},{"text":"Linguistic processes and the time course of typing","bbox":{"left":0.17995,"top":0.269779,"width":0.37145900000000004,"height":0.017824000000000007}},{"text":"The early 1980s saw a surge of studies on typing as skilled motor behavior that have essentially \n informed our present understanding of the organization of motor processes involved. However, \n relatively little has emerged from these studies to enhance our understanding of central cognitive \n processes underlying language production, and there appear to be two main reasons for this. On the \n one hand there it is widely held that written language production is entirely, or for a large part, de- \n pendent on spoken language – a view apparently supported by studies on normal language perform- \n ance as well as by clinical-neurological studies (e.g. Frith, 1979, Geschwind 1974, Luria, 1966, \n Wernicke, 1886. For a review see Ellis, 1982). On the other hand, studies concerning writing as a \n skilled motor behavior, especially typewriting, have promoted the view that the motor system in- \n volved is to a large extent, if not completely, independent of higher cognitive language processes. \n As a consequence, timing and time structures in writing were thought to contain little, if any, in- \n formation allowing for an analysis of processes involved in written language production. Research \n approaches in this domain are marked by the fundamental assumption that input into the motor \n system is constituted by a completely specified set of lexical-orthographic information. Hence, time \n structures in typewriting have been studied almost exclusively with respect to organization of motor \n processes, control structures in highly skilled performances, and representations of skilled motor \n acts, all of which appear to be reflected in both the latency of initiating typing movements and the \n timing of the actual responses (e.g. Cooper, 1983; Ostry, 1980, 1983; Shaffer, 1978; Sternberg et al. \n 1978). \n Although several writers have hinted at the influence of syllables on writing and the time course \n of writing (Ellis, 1982; Marcel, 1980; Ostry, 1983; Shaffer, 1978; Wing, 1980; Terzuolo and Vivi- \n ani, 1980; Gentner, Larochelle and Grudin, 1988), none of these studies have promoted the view of \n syllables as processing units in typing. Van Galen (1990) claims to have identified a syllabic influ- \n ence in handwriting: syllable repetition seems to shorten initial latency and lengthen writing time of \n words. However, his results are also explainable as effects of polygrapheme repetitions and may \n have nothing to do with syllables as central processing units. Such an interpretation is supported by \n the study of Zesiger et al. (1994) who were unable to demonstrate an influence of syllable structure \n on either reaction time or production time in handwriting. However, the authors found increased \n interkey intervals for within-word syllable boundaries in typewriting. In addition, a semantic word \n effect – words are written faster than pseudo-words – , a word frequency effect – high frequency \n words are typed faster than low frequency words – , and an influence of word units (Gentner, 1983; \n Zesiger et al. 1993; Terzuolo and Viviani, 1980) have been reported by previous studies. Terzuolo \n and Viviani (1980) postulate permanently available motor engrams for words because they found \n words were written with constant timing patterns and there were different timing profiles for differ- \n ent words. However, the studies mentioned did not control for all factors affecting keystroke tim- \n ing, and the question of what constitutes processing units in writing/typing still is a matter of de- \n bate.","bbox":{"left":0.142198,"top":0.300955,"width":0.741185,"height":0.573643}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}