🌐 AI搜索 & 代理 主页
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in
Menu
Find a journal Publish with us Track your research
Search
Saved research
Cart
  1. Home
  2. Behavior Research Methods
  3. Article

Eye and Pen: A new device for studying reading during writing

  • Articles
  • Published: May 2006
  • Volume 38, pages 287–299, (2006)
  • Cite this article
Download PDF
Save article
View saved research
Behavior Research Methods Aims and scope Submit manuscript
Eye and Pen: A new device for studying reading during writing
Download PDF
  • Denis Alamargot1,
  • David Chesnet2,
  • Christophe Dansac3 &
  • …
  • Christine Ros1 
  • 3254 Accesses

  • 146 Citations

  • Explore all metrics

Abstract

We present a new method for studying reading during writing and the relationships between these two activities. The Eye and Pen device makes a synchronous recording of handwriting and eye movements during written composition. It complements existing online methods by providing a fine-grained description of the visual information fixated during pauses as well as during the actual writing act. This device can contribute to the exploration of several research issues, since it can be used to investigate the role of the text produced so far and the documentary sources displayed in the task environment. The study of the engagement of reading during writing should provide important information about the dynamics of writing processes based on visual information.

Article PDF

Download to read the full article text

Similar content being viewed by others

A quick briefing on the new version of Eye and Pen (version 3.01): news and update

Article 18 February 2022

Optimizing Reading Experience: An Eye Tracking Comparative Analysis of Single-Column, Two-Column, and Three-Column Formats

Chapter © 2024

Readability Analysis of Textual Content Using Eye Tracking

Chapter © 2019

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.
  • ESCRT
  • Impression taking
  • Orthography
  • Penology
  • Research Methods in Language and Linguistics
  • Writing and Reporting

References

  • Ahlsén, E., &Strömqvist, S. (1999). ScriptLog: A tool for logging the writing process and its possible diagnostic use. In F. Loncke, J. Clibbens, H. Arvidson, & L. Lloyd (Eds.),Augmentative and alternative communication: New directions in research and practice (pp. 144–149). Göteborg, Sweden: Göteborg University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alamargot, D., &Chanquoy, L. (2001).Through the models of writing. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alamargot, D., &Chanquoy, L. (2002). Les modèles de rédaction de textes. In M. Fayol (Ed.),Production du langage: Traité des sciences cognitives (pp. 45–65). Paris: Hermes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alamargot, D., Dansac, C., & Chesnet, D. (in press). Parallel processing before and after pauses: A combined analysis of graphomotor and eye movements during procedural text production. In M. Torrance, D. Galbraith, & L. van Waes (Eds.),Recent developments in writing-process Research (Vol. 2). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Alamargot, D., Dansac, C., Ros, C., &Chuy, M. (2005). Rédiger un texte procédural à partir de sources: Relations entre l’empan de mémoire de travail et l’activité oculaire du scripteur. In D. Alamargot, P. Terrier, & J. M. Cellier (Eds.),Production, compréhension et usages des écrits techniques au travail (pp. 51–68). Toulouse: Octarès.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (2002). Spanning seven orders of magnitude: A challenge for cognitive modeling.Cognitive Science,26, 85–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baccino, T., &Pynte, J. (1998). Spatial encoding and referential processing during reading.European Psychologist,3, 51–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing: Automatic and constructive processes.Learning Disability Quarterly,22, 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdin, B., &Fayol, M. (2002). Even in adults, written production is still more costly than oral production.International Journal of Psychology,37, 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breetvelt, I., van den Bergh, H., &Rijlaarsdam, G. (1996). Rereading and generating and their relation to text quality: An application of multilevel analysis on writing process data. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.),Theories, models and methodology in writing research (pp. 10–20). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burtis, P. J., Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., &Tetroe, J. (1983). The development of planning in writing. In B. M. Kroll & G. Wells (Eds.),Explorations in the development of writing (pp. 153–174). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., &Albertson, L. R. (1996). Environmental, cognitive and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence.Educational Psychology Review,8, 239–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caccamise, D. J. (1987). Idea generation in writing. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.),Writing in real time: Modeling production processes (pp. 224–253). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caporossi, G., Alamargot, D., &Chesnet, D. (2004). Using the computer to study the dynamics of handwriting processes.Lecture Notes in Computer Science,3245, 242–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chanquoy, L., &Alamargot, D. (2002). Mémoire de travail et rédaction de textes: Evolution des modèles et bilan des premiers travaux.L’Année Psychologique,102, 363–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chanquoy, L., Foulin, J.-N., &Fayol, M. (1990). Temporal management of short text writing by children and adults.Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive,10, 513–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesnet, D., &Alamargot, D. (2005). Analyses en temps réel des activités oculaires et graphomotrices du scripteur: Intérêt du dispositif “Eye and Pen.”L’Année Psychologique,105, 477–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesnet, D., Guillabert, F., &Espéret, E. (1994). G-Studio: Un logiciel pour l’étude en temps réel des paramètres temporels de la production écrite.L’Année Psychologique,94, 115–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collewijn, H., Steinman, R. M., Erkelens, C. J., Pizlo, Z., &van der Steen, J. (1992). Effect of freeing the head on eye movement characteristics during three-dimensional shifts of gaze tracking. In A. Berthoz, W. Graf, & P.-P. Vidal (Eds.),Head-neck sensory-motor System (pp. 412–418). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costermans, J., &Fayol, M. (Eds.) (1997).Processing interclausal relationships: Studies in the production and comprehension of text. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daneman, M., &Green, I. (1986). Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context.Journal of Memory & Language,25, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dansac, C., &Alamargot, D. (1999). Accessing referential information during text composition: When and why? In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.),Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 79–97). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dansac, C., & Passerault, J. M. (1996, October).Effect of re-reading suppression on the temporal parameters of text production. Paper presented at the European Writing Conference, Barcelona.

  • Duin, A. H., &Graves, M. F. (1987). Intensive vocabulary instruction as a prewriting technique.Reading Research Quarterly,22, 311–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlichman, H., &Weinberger, A. (1978). Lateral eye movements and hemispheric asymmetry: A critical review.Psychological Bulletin,85, 1080–1101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fayol, M., Hupet, M., &Largy, P. (1999). The acquisition of subject-verb agreement in written French: From novices’ to experts’ errors.Reading & Writing,11, 153–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fayol, M., Largy, P., &Lemaire, P. (1994). When cognitive overload enhances subject-verb agreement errors.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 437–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., &Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamic 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foulin, J.-N. (1995). Pauses et débits: Les indicateurs temporels de la production écrite.L’Année Psychologique,95, 483–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., Schroeder, J. L., &Robertson, D. A. (1998). Averting the gaze disengages the environment and facilitates remembering.Memory & Cognition,26, 651–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., &Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994.Educational Psychology Review,8, 7–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, Z. M., &Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking.Psychological Science,11, 274–279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gufoni, V., Fayol, M., &Gombert, J. E. (1994). Aided subsequent reports as a technique of studying written production: The effects of viewing and the length of text. In G. Eigler & T. Jechle (Eds.),Writing: Current trends in European research (pp. 45–53). Freiburg, Germany: Hochschul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. J. (1994). Comprehension monitoring as a writing process. In E. C. Butterfield & J. S. Carlson (Eds.).Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (Advances in Cognition and Educational Practice, Vol. 6, pp. 143–172). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., &Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., &Flower, L. S. (1983). Uncovering cognitive processes in writing: An introduction of protocol analysis. In P. Mosenthal, S. Walmsley, & L. Tamor (Eds.),Research on writing: Principles and Methods (pp. 206–219). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., Flower, L. [S.], Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J. F., &Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.),Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Reading, writing and language learning (Vol. 2, pp. 176–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., &Nash, J. G. (1996). On the nature of planning in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 29–55). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herst, A. N., Epelboim, J., &Steinman, R. M. (2001). Temporal coordination of the human head and eye during a natural sequential tapping task.Vision Research,41, 3307–3319.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, G. A., &Smith, W. L. (1983). Interrupting visual feedback in writing.Perceptual & Motor Skills,57, 963–978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inhoff, A. W., &Gordon, A. M. (1998). Eye movements and eye-hand coordination during typing.Current Directions in Psychological Science,6, 153–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, D., van Waes, L., &van den Bergh, H. (1996). Effects of thinking aloud on writing processes. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 233–250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufer, D. S., Hayes, J. R., &Flower, L. (1986). Composing written sentences.Research in the Teaching of English,20, 121–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T. (1987). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes.Memory & Cognition,15, 256–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, A., Radach, R., Heller, D., &Pynte, J. (Eds.) (2000).Reading as a perceptual process. Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, M. L. (1985). The composing process of students writing from sources.Written Communication,2, 434–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowler, E., Pizlo, Z., Guo-Liang, Z., Erkelens, C. J., Steinman, R. M., &Collewijn, H. (1992). Coordination of head and eyes during the performance of natural (and unnatural) visual tasks. In A. Berthoz, W. Graf, & P.-P. Vidal (Eds.),Head-neck sensory-motor system (pp. 419–426). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Largy, P., &Dedeyan, A. (2002). Automatisme en détection d’erreurs d’accord sujet-verbe: Étude chez l’enfant et l’adulte.L’Année Psychologique,102, 201–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. (1999). Eye and head coordination in reading: Roles of head movement and cognitive control.Vision Research,39, 3761–3768.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, C. M., &Ransdell, S. (1994). Computer-aided protocol analysis of writing processes.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,26, 219–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition.Educational Psychology Review,8, 299–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D., Francis, M., &Kerr, S. (1997). Revising for meaning: Effects of knowledge and strategy.Journal of Educational Psychology,89, 667–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinley, W. (1992). The role of reading and writing while composing from sources.Reading Research Quarterly,27, 226–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A. S., Sleiderink, A. M., &Levelt, W. J. M. (1998). Viewing and naming objects: Eye movements during noun phrase production.Cognition,66, B25-B33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miall, R. C., &Tchalenko, J. (2001). The painter’s eye movements.Leonardo,34, 35–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J. G., Schumacher, G. M., &Carlson, B. W. (1993). Writing from sources: A structure mapping model.Journal of Educational Psychology,85, 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hara, K., Taylor, A., Newman, W., &Sellen, A. J. (2002). Understanding the materiality of writing from multiple sources.International Journal of Human Computer Studies,56, 269–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olive, T., &Kellogg, R. T. (2002). Concurrent activation of highand low-level production processes in written production.Memory & Cognition,30, 594–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olive, T., &Piolat, A. (2002). Suppressing visual feedback in written composition: Effects on processing demands and coordination of the writing processes.International Journal of Psychology,37, 209–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piolat, A., &Olive, T. (2000). Comment étudier le coût et le déroulement de la rédaction de textes? La méthode de triple tâche: Un bilan méthodologique.L’Année Psychologique,465, 465–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piolat, A., &P��lissier, A. (1998). Étude de la rédaction de textes: Contraintes théoriques et méthodes de recherche. In A. Piolat & A. Pélissier (Eds.),La rédaction de textes: Approche cognitive (pp. 225–269). Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ransdell, S. E. (1990). Using a real-time replay of students’ word processing to understand and promote better writing.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,22, 142–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ransdell, S. [E.], Arecco, M. R., &Levy, C. M. (2001). Bilingual long-term working memory: The effects of working memory loads on writing quality and fluency.Applied Psycholinguistics,22, 113–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ransdell, S. [E.], &Levy, C. M. (1996). Working memory constraints on writing quality and fluency. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and Applications (pp. 93–105). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.Psychological Bulletin,124, 372–422.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., &Pollatsek, A. (2003). The performance of natural (and unnatural) visual tasks. The E-Z reader model of eyemovement control in reading: Comparisons to other models.Behavior & Brain Sciences,26, 445–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D. C., &Spivey, M. J. (2004a). Eye-tracking: Characteristics and methods. In G. Wnek & G. Bowlin (Eds.),Encyclopedia of biomaterials and biomedical engineering (pp. 568–572). New York: Dekker. Abstract available at dekker.com/sdek/96019590-9133495/abstract~db5enc~content5a713554053?words5%7cspivey&hash52398117647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D. C., &Spivey, M. J. (2004b). Eye-tracking: Research areas and applications. In G. Wnek & G. Bowlin (Eds.),Encyclopedia of biomaterials and biomedical engineering (pp. 573–582). New York: Dekker. Abstract available at dekker.com/sdek/209608953-62770257/abstract~db5enc~content.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvucci, D. D., &Anderson, J. R. (2001). Automated eye-movement protocol analysis.Human-Computer Interaction,16, 39–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., &Bereiter, C. (1983). The development of evaluative, diagnostic and remedial capabilities in children’s composing. In M. Martlew (Ed.),The psychology of written language: Developmental and educational perspectives (pp. 67–95). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilperoord, J. (1996).It’s about time: Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, G. M., Klare, G. R.,Cronin, F. C., &Moses, J. D. (1984). Cognitive activities of beginning and advanced college writers: A pausal analysis.Research in the Teaching of English,18, 169–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Severinson, E. K., & Kollberg, P. (1994, October).Computer tools for tracing the writing process: From keystroke records to S-notation. Paper presented at the EARLI/ECWC SIG Conference, Utrecht.

  • Sirc, G., &Bridwell-Bowles, L. (1988). A computer tool for analysing the composing process.Collegiate Microcomputer,6, 155–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, M. M., &Silvers, G. (1987). Functions of vision in the control of handwriting.Acta Psychologica,65, 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tchalenko, J. (2001).Eye-hand coordination in portrait drawing: A case study. London: Camberwell College of Arts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V., &Robinson, E. J. (1996). Finding something to write about: Strategic and automatic processes in idea generation. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing: Theory, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 199–05). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Bergh, H., &Rijlaarsdam, G. (1999). The dynamics of idea generation during writing: An on-line study. In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.),Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 99–120). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gelderen, A., &Oostdam, R. H. (2002). Improving linguistic fluency for writing: Effects of explicitness and focus of instruction.L1-Educational Studies in Language & Literature,2, 239–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J. F., Vesonder, G. T., &Spilich, G. J. (1980). Text generation and recall by high-knowledge and low-knowledge individuals.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,17, 651–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire Langage et Cognition, CNRS and Université de Poitiers, 99 avenue du Recteur Pineau, 86000, Poitiers, France

    Denis Alamargot & Christine Ros

  2. Maison des Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société, CNRS and Université de Poitiers, Poitiers, France

    David Chesnet

  3. Laboratoire Travail et Cognition, CNRS and Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France

    Christophe Dansac

Authors
  1. Denis Alamargot
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Chesnet
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christophe Dansac
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christine Ros
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Alamargot.

Additional information

This research was funded by a grant from the ACI-MSHS Program of the French Ministry of Research. The Eye and Pen software is the intellectual property of D.C. and D.A., for the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) and the University of Poitiers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alamargot, D., Chesnet, D., Dansac, C. et al. Eye and Pen: A new device for studying reading during writing. Behavior Research Methods 38, 287–299 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192780

Download citation

  • Received: 21 July 2004

  • Accepted: 19 April 2005

  • Issue date: May 2006

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192780

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Secondary Task
  • Task Environment
  • Writing Process
  • Online Method
  • Documentary Source

Advertisement

Search

Navigation

  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Books A-Z

Publish with us

  • Journal finder
  • Publish your research
  • Language editing
  • Open access publishing

Products and services

  • Our products
  • Librarians
  • Societies
  • Partners and advertisers

Our brands

  • Springer
  • Nature Portfolio
  • BMC
  • Palgrave Macmillan
  • Apress
  • Discover
  • Your US state privacy rights
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms and conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Help and support
  • Legal notice
  • Cancel contracts here

35.236.159.232

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature