What happens with aging in handwriting?

Hind Boumlak
Laboratoire de Psychologie, Psychopathologie et Neurosciences Cognitives
Université de Paris 8

Thierry Olive
Laboratoire Langage et cognition,
CNRS & Universite de Poitiers

Farid El Massioui
Laboratoire de Psychologie, Psychopathologie et Neurosciences Cognitives
Université de Paris 8
farid.elmassioui@wanadoo.fr

Key words: handwriting, aging, copy, word production

Abstract

The present study investigated how ageing affects handwriting. In young adults, frequency and length of words have
been shown to impact written production of language (Bonin, 2003; Zesiger, 1995). In this perspective, we were
interested in knowing whether these effects are still present in older adults and whether they are amplified.
Furthermore, we were interested in examining how different handwriting tasks whose complexity increases (for
instance, letter production, word copying, word production, and word production in dual-task) are affected by age. One-
hundred and thirty-four participants from 20 to 80 years old carried out four tasks that differently engaged psychomotor
and cognitive processes. Production time (by letter or by word) was analyzed. Results first revealed that production
time increases with age in the different tasks. Moreover in tasks 2, 3, and 4, the word length effect was also observed.
Then, in the copying task, we observed a frequency effect (low-frequency words took more time to produce than high-
frequency words). We finally also observed a word length x age and a task x age interaction.

We confirmed classical findings regarding the word length and frequency effects (Zesiger, 1995). The interaction
between words length and age indicates that handwriting time production is stressed by age, (as age increase,
production time of long words increases more than that of short words). However, by contrast with findings from Dixon
et al. (1997) that showed reduced handwriting speed only with unfamiliar material, the findings of this experiment on
handwriting evidences a psychomotor slowing associated with increased age with common and familiar material
(words and alphabetic numbers). Results will be discussed in terms of decisive turns at 60 years old.

Introduction

Effects of aging on various cognitive activities have been widely studied. Cognitive aging is characterized by a decline
of performance in several cognitive areas. This decline may be explained by aging-related decrements in cognitive
functioning, such as speed of information processing, working memory capacity (Salthouse, 1996; Park et al., 1996;
Verhaeghen & Salthouse, 1997), attentional resources (Craik, 2000) or inhibitory control (Rabbitt, 1965; Plude &
Doussart-Rousevelt, 1989; MacLeod, 1991; Zacks & Hasher, 1997).

Regarding language production, normal aging is not systematically associated with a decline. Some aspects of
language production are affected while others are preserved (Hupet, Nef & Maroy, 1992). For example, in healthy older
adults, reductions in language complexity or in fluency are often reported (e.g., Kemper, Herman & Lian, in press)
while discourse cohesion does not seem to be systematically impaired.

In parallel, aging also affects psychomtor aspects of behaviour. For instance, slowing of motor execution seems to be
related to impaired selection and programmation of motor response (Thon, 1999; Amrheime et al., 1991; Seidler &
Stelmach, 1996; Aubert & Albaret, 2001; Stelmach & Nahom, 1992).

Aim of the study

Effects of normal aging on handwriting has not been extensively investigated. Accordingly, the goal of this study was to
examine the changes in handwriting that results from aging. We focused on handwriting speed that we measured in
several handwriting task of different complexity (engaging more or less central cognitive operations) :

• Task 1: Letter Production (‘llll’, ‘eeee’, ‘lele’),

• Task 2: Word Copy (80 words: short and long ; low and high frequency),

• Task 3: Word Production (high familiar words and alphabetic numbers),

• Task 4: Word Production embedded in a Working Memory Task: Participants read lists of numbers, one at a
time, and when a target item (between brackets) appeared, they had to retrieve the last number of the same parity.
List length was manipulated to affect demands on WM. For example:
Long list: 15, 53, 48, 63, 45, 13, 73, [78].
Short list: 2, 49, 38, 22, [15 ].

We hypothesized (i) that handwriting time should increase with age; (ii) that handwriting time should increase gradually
according to cognitive load (ot to task complexity) and (iii) that age should amplify the effects of task complexity.

Method

Participants

134 participants (between 20 and 80 years old) who obtained a score of at least 20/34 at the Mill-Hill vocabulary sub-
test test were included in the study. This criterion was selected according to the results of the young graduates adults
(between 20-29 years).

AGE 20 To 29 30 To 39 40 To 49 50 To 59 60 To 69 70 To 80
number of subjects 21 24 21 22 24 22
Age : mean ( Std. Dev.) 26 (3) 34 (3) 45 (3) 54 (3) 65 (3) 74 (3)
Number of Female * Male 10 * 11 10 * 14 10 * 11 12 * 10 14 * 10 12 * 10
Mill-Hill : mean ( Std. Dev.) 26 (3) 28 (3) 28 (3) 29 (3) 30 (3) 29 (3)

Material

All the handwriting tasks were performed on a digitizing tablet. Specific softwares were programmed for monitoring the
tasks (i.e., displaying the stimuli, and recording handwriting time, pauses and latency).

Results and discussion

In all tasks

The preliminary four tasks analyses were conducted with the handwriting time by letter. We observed a global effect of
age (F(5,129) = 18,02 ; p < .01.), which implies that whatever the task, production time increases with aging. A slowing
of handwriting begins from 60 years.

Data also showed that production time increases across the four tasks, F(3,387) = 75,13 ; p < .01. No age * tasks
interaction was revealed.

Analyses with words production time as depedndant variables also showed an effect of age (F(5,129) = 10,86 ; p <
.01) and of the kind of task, F(2,251) = 557 ; p < .01.

In sum, aging decrease speed of handwriting. Morover, that the units to write are letters or words, a slowing of
handwriting appears from 60 years and continues after 70 years. The absence of interaction indicates that this slowing
is related to handwriting processes per se rather than to the complexity of the units to write.
In task 1

Letters handwriring is affected by aging with a significant slowing from sixty years old, F(5,129) = 8,57 ; p < .01.

700

650

600

550

500

450

400
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-80

Figure 1. Mean handwriting time (in msec) in task 1 of letter production

In task 2

With both words or letters production times, we observed significant effects of length of words (F(5,774) = 170; p < .01)
and of age, F(5,774) = 60 ; p < .01. The age x length interaction was not significant, F(25,774) = 0,318 ; p < .99.
This result indicates that a simple task such as copying words is affected by aging, with, as already observed in the
letter production task a significant slowing from 60 years old.

4500
4
4000 5
6
7
3500
8
9
3000

2500

2000

1500

1000
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-80
4500

3
4000
4
5
3500
6
7
3000 8
9
2500

2000

1500

1000
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-80

Figure 2. Mean handwriting time by word (in msec) in task 2 of word copying (upper panel) and ) in task 3 of word
production(lower panel) according to age and length of words.
In tasks 3 & 4

In task 3 (word production), age significantly affected the time it takes to produce a word (F(5,1890) = 73 ; p < .01),
with, as already observed in the two previsous tasks, a significant slowing from sixty years old. An significant effect of
word length was also observed (F(5,1890) = 612 ; p < .01) at any age.

No significant word length x Age interaction was observed, revealing that the processing load associated with lengh of
words is not amplified by the aging.

In task 4, as in the previous tasks, we also observed and significant main effect of word length (F(14,1787) = 386 ; p <
.01) at any age, and an effect of age, F(5,1787) = 73 ; p < .01. Word Length x Age did not interacted.

In sum, in both tasks, long words are longer to write and this time is not affected by age: The slowing of handwriting is
not related to word length (i.e., complexity of the unit to write).

6000
Task 2
5500 Task 3
5000 Task 4

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-80

Figure 4. Inter task comparison of mean handwriting time by word (in ms) according to age

Inter-task comparison

Finally we carried out an inter-task analyses to asses whether task complexity interacted with age. A main eefct of age
was observed, F(5,258) = 11 ; p < .01). Acroos the foru tasks, a significant slowing appears from sixty years old.
FIndings showed that time production increases from task 1 to task 4 (F(2,258) = 558 ; p < .01), indicating that task
complexity increases production time. No significant Age x Tasks interaction was found, however.

Conclusion

Handwriting time increases when the task involves more central operations. The increasing complexity between tasks
1 to 4 implies a progressive cognitive control. The absence of Age x Task interaction indicates that handwriting slowing
is not amplified when more central cognitive operations are involved in the task.

Slowing of handwriting appears to be related to slowing in programming or in execution of handwriting movement and
did not interact with central operations. Our study confirmed classical effects of word length and frequency (Zesiger,
1995). Handwriting principal characteristics are preserved even if we observed a age related execution slowing.

References

Amrheime, P. C., Stelmach, G. E., & Goggin, N. L. (1991). Age differences in maintenance and restructuring of
movement preparation. Psychology and Aging, 6( 3), 451-466.

Aubert, E., & Albaret, J-M. (2001). Vieillissement et psychomotricité. Marseille: Solal.
Bonin, P. (2003). Production verbale de mots. Bruxelles: DeBoeck Université.

Craik, F. I. M., & Salthouse, T. A. (2000). The Handbook of aging and cognition (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Hupet, M., Nef, F., & Maroy M. (1992). Comparative study of young and older adults spontaneous speech. L’Année
Psychologique, 44, 544-526.

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect : An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin,
109, 163-203.

Park, D. C., Smith, A. D., Lautenschlager, G., Earles, J., Frieske, D., Zwahr, M., & Gaines, C. (1996). Mediators of
long-term memory performance across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 11(4), 624-637.

Plude, D. J., & Doussart-Rousevelt, J. A. (1989). Aging, selective attention and features integration. Psychology and
Aging, 4, 98-115.

Rabbitt, P. (1965). An age decreament in the ability to ignore irrelevant information. Journal of Gerontology, 20, 233-
237.

Salthouse, T. A. (1996). The processing-speed of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological Review, 103, 403-
428 .

Seidler, R., & Stelmach, G. (1996). Motor Control. In J. E. Birren (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Gerontology. Age, Aging, and
the Aged (pp. 177-185). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Stelmach, G.E., & Nahom, A. (1992). Cognitive motor habilities of the elderly driver. Human Factors, 34(1), 53-65.

Thon, B. (1999). Approche comportementale et cognitive de la motricité humaine : concepts, méthodes et modèles. In
J. M. Albaret & R. Soppelsa (Eds.), Précis de réeducation de la motricité manuelle (pp. 15-28). Marseille : Solal.

Verhaeghen, P. , & Salthouse, T. A. (1997). Meta-analysis of age cognition relations in adulthood:Estimates of linear
and non-linear age effects and structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 231-249.

Zacks, R., & Hasher, L. (1997). Cognitive Gerontolgy and Attentional Inhibition: A reply to Burke and McDowd (in
Journal of Gerontology). Psychological Sciences, 52B,274-283.

Zesiger, P. (1995). Écrire. Approches cognitive, neuropsychologique et développementale. Paris : PUF.