Error analysis involves detecting, diagnosing, and correcting discrepancies between the text produced so far (TPSF) and the writers mental representation of what the text should be. The use of different writing modes, like keyboard-based word processing and speech recognition, causes different type of errors during text production. While many factors determine the choice of error-correction strategy, cognitive effort is a major contributor to this choice. This research shows how cognitive effort during error analysis affects strategy choice and success as measured by a series of online text production measures. Text production is shown to be influenced most by error span, that is, whether the error spans more or less than two characters. Next, it is influenced by input mode, that is, whether the error has been generated by speech recognition or keyboard, and finally by lexicality, that is, whether the error comprises an existing word. Correction of larger error spans is more successful than that of smaller errors. Writers impose a wise speed accuracy trade-off during large error spans since correction is better, but preparation times (time to first action) and production times take longer, and interference reaction times are slower. During large error spans, there is a tendency to opt for error correction first, especially when errors occurred in the condition in which the TPSF is not preceded by an auditory prompt. In general, the addition of speech frees the cognitive demands of writing. Writers also opt more often to continue text production when the TPSF is presented auditorially first.
Alamargot, D., Dansac, C., Ros, C., & Chuy, M. ( 2005). Rédiger un texte procédural à partir de sources: Relations entre l’empan de production écrite et l’activité oculaire du scripteur [Write a procedural text from source: Relations between the span of written production and activity of ocular writer]. In D. Alamargot, P. Terrier , & J. M. Cellier (Eds.), Production, compréhension et usage des écrits techniques au travail (pp. 51-68). Toulouse, France: Octarès.
2.
Baddeley, A.D. ( 1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3.
Baddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G. ( 1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47-90). New York: Academic Press.
4.
Blau, S. ( 1983). Invisible writing: Investigating cognitive processes in writing. College, Composition and Communication, 34, 297-312.
5.
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.
6.
Chenoweth, N.A., & Hayes, J.R. ( 2003). the inner voice in writing. Written Communication , 20, 99-118.
7.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P.A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 19, 450-466.
8.
Ericsson, K.A., & Kintsch, W. ( 1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211-245.
9.
Gould, J.D. ( 1978). How experts dictate. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 648-661.
10.
Gould, J.D., & Alfaro, L. ( 1984). Revising documents with text editors, handwriting recognition systems and speech-recognition systems. Human Factors, 26, 91-406.
11.
Haas, C. ( 1989a). Does the medium make the difference? Two studies of writing with pen and paper and with computers. Human-Computer Interaction, 10, 149-169.
12.
Haas, C. ( 1989b). "Seeing it on the screen isn’t really seeing it": Computer writers’ reading problems. In G. E. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Critical perspectives on computers (pp. 16-29). New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
Hacker, D.J. ( 1997). Comprehension monitoring of written discourse across early-to-middle adolescence. Reading and Writing, 9, 207-240.
14.
Hacker, D.J., Plumb, C.S., Butterfield, E.C., Quathamer, D., & Heineken, E. ( 1994). Text revision: Detection and correction of errors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 65-78.
15.
Honeycutt, L. ( 2003). Researching the use of voice recognition writing software . Computers and Composition, 20, 77-95.
16.
Johansson, R., Wengelin, A., Johansson, V., & Holmqvist, K. (in press). Looking at the keyboard or the monitor: relationship with text production processes. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal.
17.
Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review , 99, 122-149.
18.
Kellogg, R.T. ( 1988). Attentional overload and writing performance: Effects of rough draft and outline strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory and cognition, 14, 355-365.
19.
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). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
Kellogg, R.T. ( 2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes . American Journal of Psychology, 114, 175-191.
21.
Kellogg, R.T. ( 2004). Working memory components in written sentence generation . American Journal of Psychology, 117, 341-361.
22.
Kellogg, R.T., Olive, T., & Piolat, A. ( 2007). Verbal, visual, and spatial working memory in written language production. Acta Psychologica, 124, 382-397.
23.
Larigauderie, P., Gaonac’h, D., & Lacroix, N. ( 1998). Working memory and error detection in texts: What are the roles of the central executive and the phonological loop?Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 505-527.
24.
Leijten, M. ( 2007). Writing and speech recognition: Observing error correction strategies of professional writers (Vol. 160). Utrecht , Netherlands: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics /Landelijke-LOT.
25.
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. ( 2005). Writing with speech recognition: The adaptation process of professional writers with and without dictating experience. Interacting With Computers, 17, 736-772.
26.
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. ( 2006a). Inputlog: New perspectives on the logging of on-line writing processes in a Windows environment. In K. P. H. Sullivan & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Computer key-stroke logging and writing: Methods and applications (Vol. 18, pp. 73-94). Oxford, UK: Elsevier .
27.
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. ( 2006b). Repair strategies in writing with speech recognition: The effect of experience with classical dictating. In L. Van Waes, M. Leijten, & C. Neuwirth (Eds.), Writing and digital media (Vol. 17, pp. 31-46). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
28.
Levy, C.M., & Marek, P. ( 1999). Testing components of Kellogg’s multicomponent models of working memory in writing: The role of the phonological loop. In M. Torrance & G. Jeffery (Eds.), The cognitive demands of writing. Processing capacity and working memory effects in text production (Vol. 3, pp. 25-41). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
29.
Levy, C.M., & Ransdell, S.E. (2001). Writing with concurrent memory loads. In T. Olive & C. M. Levy (Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 9-29). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
30.
Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K.P.H. (2006). Analyzing on-line revision . In K. P. H. Sullivan & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Computer key-stroke logging: Methods and applications (Vol. 18, pp. 157-188). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
31.
MacArthur, C.A. ( 2006). Assistive technology for writing: Tools for struggling writers. In L. Van Waes, M. Leijten, & C. Neuwirth (Eds.), Writing and digital media (Vol. 17, pp. 11-20). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
32.
McCutchen, D. ( 1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition . Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299-325.
33.
Olive, T. ( 2004). Memory in writing: Empirical evidences from the dual-task technique working. European Psychologist, 9(1), 32-42.
34.
Olive, T., & Kellogg, R.T. ( 2002). Concurrent activation of high- and low-level production processes in written composition. Memory and Cognition, 30, 594-600.
35.
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.
36.
Piolat, A., Roussey, J.Y., Olive, T., & Amada, M. ( 2004). Processing time and cognitive effort in revision: Effects of error type and of working memory capacity. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, P. Largy, & Y. Rouiller (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 21-38). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
37.
Quinlan, T. ( 2004). Speech recognition technology and students with writing difficulties: Improving fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology , 96, 337-346.
38.
Quinlan, T. ( 2006). Young writers and digital scribes. In L. Van Waes, M. Leijten , & C. Neuwirth (Eds.), Writing and digital media (Vol. 17, pp. 21-29). Oxford , UK: Elsevier.
39.
Quinlan, T., Loncke, M., Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. ( 2009). Writers’ shift between error correction and sentence composing: Competing and the executive function (Research Paper). Antwerp, , Belgium: University of Antwerp.
40.
Rabbitt, P. ( 1978). Detection of errors by skilled typists. Ergonomics, 21, 945-958.
41.
Rabbitt, P., Cummings, P., & Vyas, S. ( 1978). Some errors of perceptual analysis in visual search can be detected and corrected. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 417-427.
42.
Ransdell, S.E., & Levy, C.M. ( 1999). Writing reading and speaking memory spans and the importance of resource flexibility. In M. Torrance & G. Jeffery (Eds.), The cognitive demands of writing: Processing capacity and working memory effects in text production . Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
43.
Ransdell, S.E., Levy, C.M., & Kellogg, R.T. ( 2002). The structure of writing processes as revealed by secondary task demands. L-1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 2, 141-163.
44.
Sadowski, M., Kealy, W.A., Goetz, E.T., & Paivio, A. ( 1997). Concreteness and imagery effects in the written composition of definitions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 518-526.
45.
Schilperoord, J. ( 1996). It’s about time: Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Amsterdam/ Atlanta: Rodopi.
46.
Severinson Eklundh, K.S. ( 1994). Linear and non-linear strategies in computer-based writing . Computers and Composition, 11, 203-216.
47.
Shah, P., & Miyake, A. ( 1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 4-27.
48.
Sternberg, S. ( 1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276-235.
49.
Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. ( 2006). The processing demands of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham , & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 468). New York: Guilford.
50.
Towse, J., Hitch, G., & Hutton, U. ( 1998). A reevaluation of working memory capacity in children . Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 195-217.
51.
Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1996). The dynamics of composing: Modelling writing process data. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 207-232). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52.
Van Waes, L., & Leijten, M. ( 2006). Logging writing processes with Inputlog. In L. Van Waes, M. Leijten , & C. Neuwirth (Eds.), Writing and digital media (Vol. 17, pp. 158-166). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
53.
Van Waes, L., Leijten, M., & Quinlan, T. (in press). Reading during sentence composing and error correction: A multilevel analysis of the influences of task complexity. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal.
54.
Van Waes, L., & Schellens, P.J. (2003). Writing profiles: The effect of the writing mode on pausing and revision patterns of experienced writers . Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 829-853.
