Suppression of visual feedback--论文代写范文精选

文本监控需要批判阅读的文本，以及检测错误或问题。低级处理指的是单词字符的执行，例如允许作家监控文本和重读的控制他们的笔迹。下面的essay代写范文进行详述。

Abstract
Since the works of Hayes and Flower (1980), writing has been considered as an activity engaging high-level cognitive operations concerned with the retrieval and organization of information and with the formulation of ideas in language. Most of the studies that followed this concept have focused on the structure of the writing processes or studied the relationship between writing processes and long-term working memory. In parallel, low-level processes of handwriting were investigated from a psychomotor perspective and detailed models of handwriting have been proposed (i.e., Ellis, 1988; Van Galen, 1991). Because research on the impact of working memory on writing processes has recently increased (Kellogg, 1996), it is now possible to investigate processing demands of highlevel writing processes and of execution processes and their impact on the on-line management of the writing processes. Following Kellogg (1994) and Levy and Ransdell (1995), high-level writing processes are concerned with formulation of language. The process of planning concerns retrieval of information in long-term memory, organization of the content of the discourse, and goal settings. 

The process of translating concerns transformation of the products of planning into sentences. Text monitoring requires a critical reading of the text and a detection of errors or problems. Low-level processes refer to the execution of word characters (programming and executing sequences of movements). Both low- and high-level processes exploit the text already written. For example, the written trace allows writers to monitor their text by rereading and to control their handwriting by adjusting their movements. Furthermore, both low- and high-level writing processes demand resources from working memory. Formulation and monitoring are effortful processes (Grabowski, 1999; Kellogg, 1999) and execution, which is automatized in adults, demands resources in children (Kellogg, 1999; McCutchen, 1996). In text composition studies, the analysis of processing demands of the highlevel writing processes generally involves two kinds of variables: fluency (Levy & Ransdell, 1996; McCutchen, 1996) and reaction times to secondary probes (Olive, Kellogg, & Piolat, 2001; Piolat & Olive, 2000). In this context, the aim of the present research is to investigate the role of visual feedback on processing demands of low- and high-level writing processes. For this purpose, a secondary probe task was used to analyse processing demands of the low- and high-level writing processes when visual feedback was or was not suppressed.

The relationship between working memory resources and processing visual feedback during handwriting has been investigated mainly by comparing writers composing under normal visual feedback conditions with writers composing in the absence of visual feedback (for example, by asking participants to use a pen without ink). Studies conducted in this context have shown that the suppression of visual feedback generally increases the processing demands of writing (Grabowski, 1999; Graham & Weintraub, 1996; Van Doorn & Keuss, 1992, 1993; Van Galen, Smyth, Meulenbroek, & Hylkema, 1989; Zesiger, 1995). 

However, two accounts of how visual feedback affects the processing demands of writing can be distinguished in the literature according to the kind of process that is presumed to be affected. According to the first account, visual feedback is used to erase motor programmes already executed from working memory and thus it decreases the processing demands of motor transcription (Graham & Weintraub, 1996; Zesiger, 1995). Empirical arguments supporting this assumption come from studies that primarily focused on the motor processes of handwriting. For example, Zesiger observed, in children learning to write, that the quality of handwriting decreased progressively with increasingly degraded visual feedback. The same phenomenon was observed in adult writers using an inkless pen. This resulted in less accurate letter formation (omitting or adding features) and incorrect text alignment (Smyth & Silvers, 1987; Van Galen et al., 1989; Van Doorn & Keuss, 1992, 1993). Ellis, Young, and Flude (1987) observed that dysgraphic patients showed the same symptoms (in terms of handwriting errors) as "normal" writers who were prevented from using visual and tactile-kinaesthetic feedback. According to the second account, visual feedback of the writing trace facilitates operations of the high-level writing processes. 

This account has been supported by researchers who primarily investigated text composition or who were interested in comparing the speaking and writing modalities of language production. In contrast to writing with an inkless pen or to speaking, the text produced in normal handwriting acts as an "external store" that does not need to be memorized entirely by the writer. Thus, writers in standard writing conditions can exploit the text already written, handle larger units of discourse, and better revise their production for the better. Hull and Smith (1983) claimed that re-reading could be considered as a behavioural characteristic of "good" writers because they reflect on their text more often than novice writers do. Grabowski (1999) assumed that the permanence of the written trace might also explain the superiority of writing as compared to speaking, in terms of the syntactical and semantic quality of the written text (see also Chafe, 1982). Therefore, visual feedback can also reduce the processing demands of the high-level writing processes. 

Studies that analyzed effects of the suppression of visual feedback on text quality provided convergent data with this interpretation. Usually, when writers are prevented from using visual feedback, the quality of their text is lower than when writers compose with visual feedback For instance, suppression of visual feedback influenced syntactic structure (Piolat, 1982), coherence (Atwell, 1981; Hull & Smith, 1983), number of separate ideas expressed in the text (Galbraith & Sumpner, 1996), writers' productivity and fluency (Dansac & Passerault, 1996), and general quality of texts in adults (Hull & Smith, 1983) as well as in children (Flamen & Piolat, 1999). However, such findings have not been systematically observed. For instance, the suppression of visual feedback did not affect the written recall of short fables (Teleman, 1981) or the composition of a business letter (Gould, 1980). One reason these two authors may have failed to find any effect of the suppression of visual feedback may be linked to the tasks used in their experiments. As Brown, McDonald, Brown, and Carr (1988) noted, a written recall task does not rely on operations of formulation but only on generating output of formulation. 

Moreover, as noted by Hull and Smith (1983), in Gould's experiment, it is likely that writing a business letter induced the use of a well-practised script that did not interact with any execution process. In sum, there is general agreement in the literature concerning the beneficial effect of visual feedback in handwriting. The written trace allows writers to control their production and to erase already-executed motor programmes from working memory. Furthermore, it might facilitate the operation of high-level writing processes by providing the writer with permanent access to what has already been written. Accordingly, the first goal in conducting the present experiment was to confront the two accounts mentioned earlier. We sought to determine whether suppression of visual feedback affects processing demands of low-level processes (execution) or of highlevel processes (formulation and monitoring).（essay代写)

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。（essay代写)
更多essay代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有essay代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X（essay代写)