流利的字母对真的流利吗?意大利学生群体客观和主观运动流畅性的最新情况。

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Mara Stockner, Giuliana Mazzoni, Francesco Ianì
{"title":"流利的字母对真的流利吗?意大利学生群体客观和主观运动流畅性的最新情况。","authors":"Mara Stockner, Giuliana Mazzoni, Francesco Ianì","doi":"10.1186/s41235-025-00651-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>\"Motor fluency\" refers to the ease with which an action can be performed and several studies have shown how it can modulate various cognitive processes, such as memory and decision making. To investigate these implications of motor fluency, typing-based paradigms have been proven to be useful. In this literature, based on pioneering works that analysed inter-keystroke intervals (IKIs, the time that elapses between two keystrokes), several studies have assumed that letter dyads typed with different hands are more fluent than dyads typed with the same hand. However, to date, there is no literature analysing subjectively perceived typing fluency, i.e. the feeling of fluency experienced by typists. Moreover, this classical conceptualization has not been updated in the last decade. This raises the question of whether this distinction is also reflected in the subjective feeling of fluency, and whether it is still valid in today's generation of everyday typists. Thus, we investigated the validity of dyad fluency classification by measuring both objective and subjective typing fluency in two samples of university students. The objective measure included both the response times required to type the entire dyads (Experiment 1) as well as reaction times from stimulus presentation to first keypress alongside IKIs (Experiment 2). Overall, we found consistent results that both objective and subjective measures follow the opposite trend compared to classical assumptions: same-hand dyads are (perceived) more fluent than different-hands dyads. Our results have important methodological implications for future research on typing-related motor fluency.</p>","PeriodicalId":46827,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","volume":"10 1","pages":"42"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12259504/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are fluent letter dyads really fluent? An update on objective and subjective motor fluency in an Italian student population.\",\"authors\":\"Mara Stockner, Giuliana Mazzoni, Francesco Ianì\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41235-025-00651-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>\\\"Motor fluency\\\" refers to the ease with which an action can be performed and several studies have shown how it can modulate various cognitive processes, such as memory and decision making. To investigate these implications of motor fluency, typing-based paradigms have been proven to be useful. In this literature, based on pioneering works that analysed inter-keystroke intervals (IKIs, the time that elapses between two keystrokes), several studies have assumed that letter dyads typed with different hands are more fluent than dyads typed with the same hand. However, to date, there is no literature analysing subjectively perceived typing fluency, i.e. the feeling of fluency experienced by typists. Moreover, this classical conceptualization has not been updated in the last decade. This raises the question of whether this distinction is also reflected in the subjective feeling of fluency, and whether it is still valid in today's generation of everyday typists. Thus, we investigated the validity of dyad fluency classification by measuring both objective and subjective typing fluency in two samples of university students. The objective measure included both the response times required to type the entire dyads (Experiment 1) as well as reaction times from stimulus presentation to first keypress alongside IKIs (Experiment 2). Overall, we found consistent results that both objective and subjective measures follow the opposite trend compared to classical assumptions: same-hand dyads are (perceived) more fluent than different-hands dyads. Our results have important methodological implications for future research on typing-related motor fluency.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46827,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"42\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12259504/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-025-00651-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-025-00651-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

“运动流畅性”指的是可以轻松地执行一个动作,一些研究表明它可以调节各种认知过程,如记忆和决策。为了研究运动流畅性的这些含义,基于类型的范式已被证明是有用的。在这些文献中,基于开创性的工作,分析了按键间隔(IKIs,两次按键之间的时间间隔),一些研究假设用不同的手打字的字母组合比用同一只手打字的字母组合更流畅。然而,到目前为止,还没有文献分析主观感知的打字流畅性,即打字员所经历的流畅感。此外,这种经典的概念在过去十年中没有更新。这就提出了一个问题,即这种区别是否也反映在流利的主观感觉上,以及它是否仍然适用于今天这一代的日常打字员。因此,我们通过测量两个样本的大学生的客观和主观类型流利度来研究二元流利度分类的有效性。客观测量包括输入整个对偶所需的反应时间(实验1)以及从刺激呈现到第一次按键和IKIs的反应时间(实验2)。总的来说,我们发现了一致的结果,与经典假设相比,客观和主观的测量都遵循相反的趋势:同手二人组(被认为)比不同手二人组更流利。我们的研究结果对未来与打字相关的运动流畅性的研究具有重要的方法论意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Are fluent letter dyads really fluent? An update on objective and subjective motor fluency in an Italian student population.

"Motor fluency" refers to the ease with which an action can be performed and several studies have shown how it can modulate various cognitive processes, such as memory and decision making. To investigate these implications of motor fluency, typing-based paradigms have been proven to be useful. In this literature, based on pioneering works that analysed inter-keystroke intervals (IKIs, the time that elapses between two keystrokes), several studies have assumed that letter dyads typed with different hands are more fluent than dyads typed with the same hand. However, to date, there is no literature analysing subjectively perceived typing fluency, i.e. the feeling of fluency experienced by typists. Moreover, this classical conceptualization has not been updated in the last decade. This raises the question of whether this distinction is also reflected in the subjective feeling of fluency, and whether it is still valid in today's generation of everyday typists. Thus, we investigated the validity of dyad fluency classification by measuring both objective and subjective typing fluency in two samples of university students. The objective measure included both the response times required to type the entire dyads (Experiment 1) as well as reaction times from stimulus presentation to first keypress alongside IKIs (Experiment 2). Overall, we found consistent results that both objective and subjective measures follow the opposite trend compared to classical assumptions: same-hand dyads are (perceived) more fluent than different-hands dyads. Our results have important methodological implications for future research on typing-related motor fluency.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
7.30%
发文量
96
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信