Correcting Text Production Errors: Isolating the Effects of Writing Mode From Error Span, Input Mode, and Lexicality

Author:

Leijten Mariëlle1,Van Waes Luuk1,Ransdell Sarah2

Affiliation:

1. University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium,

2. Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL,

Abstract

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.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Literature and Literary Theory,Communication

Reference54 articles.

1. 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. Working Memory

3. Invisible Writing: Investigating Cognitive Processes in Composition

4. Is Written Language Production more Difficult than Oral Language Production? A Working Memory Approach

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3