Abstract

Revisiting an original idea by Hollerbach (1981), previous work has established that the production of graphic shapes, assumed to be the blueprint for handwriting, is governed by the dynamics of orthogonal non-linear coupled oscillators. Such dynamics determines few stable coordination patterns, giving rise to a limited set of preferred graphic shapes, namely, four lines and four ellipsoids independent of orientation. The present study investigates the rules of switching among such graphic coordination patterns. Seven participants were required to voluntarily switch within twelve pairs of shapes presented on a graphic tablet. In line with previous theoretical and experimental work on bimanual coordination, results corroborated our hypothesis that the relative stability of the produced coordination patterns determines the time needed for switching: the transition to a more stable pattern was shorter, and inversely. Moreover, switching between patterns with the same orientation but different eccentricities was faster than with a change in orientation. Nonetheless, the switching time covaried strictly with the change in relative phase effected by the transition between two shapes, whether this implied a change in eccentricity or in orientation. These findings suggest a new operational definition of what the (motor) units or strokes of handwriting are and shed a novel light on how coarticulation and recruitment of degrees of freedom may occur in graphic skills. They also yield some leads for understanding the acquisition and the neural underpinnings of handwriting.

Highlights

  • A persistent and puzzling issue in motor control is how different motor elemental pieces may be put together into a single unit of behavior

  • COMPONENT STABILITY In order to assess the stability of oscillation, we used the Standard Deviation (SD) of the period of each component, the mean value being close to the inverse of the required frequency 3.75 Hz

  • In line with a dynamic approach to coordination, the present study confirms that stability is a theoretical concept and an empirical property of coordinated behavior

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A persistent and puzzling issue in motor control is how different motor elemental pieces may be put together into a single unit of behavior. Creating new forms of behavior by combining already existing units is a critical and amazing adaptive ability of living beings on various time scales. Many studies have been devoted to the issue (e.g., Arbib, 1984 or Jeannerod, 1984, on the coordination of the transport and grasping phases in prehension). As regretfully noted by Schmidt (1988) in the wake of the Schema Theory of learning, the mechanisms and principles through which motor units may be integrated are quite elusive. The converse process of breaking down a whole unit of motor behavior into several separate subunits remains mysterious. It might be necessary to be able to somehow decompose a complex skill into parts in order to isolate the one that is responsible for interference or negative transfer in learning, due to synkinesis or “bad habits,” for instance

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.