Abstract
Writing a text requires the coordination of multiple high-level composition processes in working memory, including planning, language generation, and reviewing, in addition to low-level motor transcription. Here, interference in reaction time (RT) for detecting auditory probes was used to measure the attentional demands of (1) copying in longhand a prepared text (transcription), (2) composing a text and pausing handwriting for longer than 250 msec (composition), and (3) composing and currently handwriting (transcription + composition). Greater interference in the transcription + composition condition than in the transcription condition implies that high-level processes are activated concurrently with motor execution, resulting in higher attentional demands. This difference was observed for adults who wrote in standard cursive, but not for children and not for adults who used an unpracticed uppercase script. Greater interference in the composition condition than in the transcription condition implies that high-level processes demand more attention than do motor processes. This difference was observed only when adults wrote with a practiced script. With motor execution being relatively automatic, adults were able to attend fully to the high-level processes required in mature, effective composition. One reason that children fail to engage in such high-level processes is that motor processes deplete available attention.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bereiter, C., &Scardamalia, M. (1987).The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berninger, V. W., &Swanson, H. L. (1994). Modifying Hayes and Flower's model of skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing. In J. S. Carlson (series ed.) & E. C. Butterfield (vol. ed.),Advances in cognition and educational practice: Vol. 2. Children's writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (pp. 57–81). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bock, K., &Levelt, W. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.),Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). New York: Academic Press.
Bourdin, B., &Fayol, M. (1994). Is written language production more difficult than oral language production? A working memory approach.International Journal of Psychology,29, 591–620.
Brown, J. S., McDonald, J. L., Brown, T. L., &Carr, T. H. (1988). Adapting to processing demands in discourse production: The case of handwriting.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,14, 45–59.
Chanquoy, L., Foulin, J.-N., &Fayol, M. (1990). Temporal management of short texts writing by children and adults.CPC/European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology,10, 513–538.
Daneman, M., &Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 450–466.
Desmette, D., Hupet, M., Schelstraete, M. A., &Van Der Linden, M. (1995). Adaptation en langue française du “reading span test” de Daneman et Carpenter [French adaptation of Daneman and Carpenter's “Reading Span” test].L'Année Psychologique,95, 459–482.
Fayol, M. (1999). Writing: From on-line management problems to strategies. In M. Torrance & G. Jeffery (Eds.),Cognitive demands of writing (pp. 13–23). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Flower, L., &Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Foulin, J.-N. (1995). Pauses et débits: Les indicateurs temporels de la production écrite [Pauses and writing rate: Temporal indexes of written composition].L'Année Psychologique,95, 483–504.
Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., &Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach.Journal of Educational Psychology,89, 170–182.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jonides, J., &Smith, E. E. (1997). The architecture of working memory. In M. D. Rugg (Ed.),Cognitive neuroscience (pp. 243–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kahneman, D. (1973).Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kellogg, R. T. (1988). Attentional overload and writing performance: Effects of rough draft and outline strategies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 355–365.
Kellogg, R. T. (1994).The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes.American Journal of Psychology,114, 175–192.
Levy, C. M., &Ransdell, S. E. (1995). Is writing as difficult as it seems?Memory & Cognition,23, 767–779.
McCutchen, D. (1988). Functional automaticity in children's writing: A problem of metacognitive control.Written Communication,5, 306–324.
McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition.Educational Psychology Review,8, 299–325.
Olive, T., Kellogg, R. T., &Piolat, A. (2001). The triple task technique for studying the process of writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam (series ed.), T. Olive, & C. M. Levy (vol. eds.),Studies in writing: Vol. 10. Contemporary tools and techniques (pp. 31–58). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Passerault, J.-M. (1991). L'analyse en temps réel de l'activité de résumé: Une étude des temps de pause [On-line analysis of summarizing: A study of pausing times]. In M. Charolles & A. Petitjean (Eds.),Le résumé de texte: Aspects linguistiques, sémiotiques, psycholinguistiques et automatiques (pp. 207–219). Paris: Klincksieck.
Piolat, A., Olive, T., Roussey, J.-Y., Thunin, O., &Ziegler, J. C. (1999). SCRIPTKELL: A tool for measuring cognitive effort and time processing in writing and other complex cognitive activities.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,31, 113–121.
Piolat, A., Roussey, J.-Y., Olive, T., &Farioli, F. (1996). Charge mentale et mobilisation des processus rédactionnels: Examen de la procédure de Kellogg [Mental load and activation of writing processes: Examination of Kellogg's procedure].Psychologie Française,41, 339–354.
Ransdell, S. E., &Levy, C. M. (1996). Working memory constraints on writing quality and fluency. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 93–106). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schilperoord, J. (2001). On the cognitive status of pauses in discourse production. In G. Rijlaarsdam (series ed.), T. Olive, & C. M. Levy (vol. eds.),Studies in writing: Vol. 10. Contemporary tools and techniques (pp. 61–88). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Torrance, M., &Jeffery, G. (Eds.) (1999).The cognitive demands of writing: Processing capacity and working memory effects in text production. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The work was supported by a NATO Collaborative Research Grant (LST.CLG 974939) and by a Doctoral Fellowship of the French Ministère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche awarded to the first author.
—Accepted by previous editorial team
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Olive, T., Kellogg, R.T. Concurrent activation of high- and low-level production processes in written composition. Memory & Cognition 30, 594–600 (2002). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194960
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194960