Exploring the Process of Reading During Writing Using Eye Tracking and Keystroke Logging
Abstract
This study aims to explore the process of reading during writing. More specifically, it investigates whether a combination of keystroke logging data and eye tracking data yields a better understanding of cognitive processes underlying fluent and nonfluent text production. First, a technical procedure describes how writing process data from the keystroke logging program Inputlog are merged with reading process data from the Tobii TX300 eye tracker. Next, a theoretical schema on reading during writing is presented, which served as a basis for the observation context we created for our experiment. This schema was tested by observing 24 university students in professional communication (skilled writers) who typed short sentences that were manipulated to elicit fluent or nonfluent writing. The experimental sentences were organized into four different conditions, aiming at (a) fluent writing, (b) reflection about correct spelling of homophone verbs, (c) local revision, and (d) global revision. Results showed that it is possible to manipulate degrees of nonfluent writing in terms of time on task and percentage of nonfluent key transitions. However, reading behavior was affected only for the conditions that explicitly required revision. This suggests that nonfluent writing does not always affect the reading behavior, supporting the parallel and cascading processing hypothesis.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
Appendices
| Condition | Sentence | Characters with spaces | Characters without spaces | Words | Mean word length |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Fluent | Vandaag ga ik een taart bakken voor vrienden Today I will bake a cake for friends | 44 | 37 | 8 | 4.6 |
| 2. Spelling challenge | De reisgids leidt ons door de smalle straten The guide leads us through the narrow streets | 44 | 37 | 8 | 4.6 |
| 3. Word revision | Ik heb nieuwe kleding nodig voor de bruiloft (kleding should be revised into schoenen) I need new clothes for the wedding (clothes should be revised into shoes) | 44 | 37 | 8 | 4.6 |
| 4. Sentence revision | De melk werd meteen opgedronken door de poes (Should be revised into an active sentence: De poes heeft de melk meteen opgedronken) The milk was immediately drunk by the cat (Revision: The cat immediately drunk the milk) | 44 | 37 | 8 | 4.6 |
| Fixation duration | Pause time | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zero model | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Zero model | Model 1 | Model 2 | |
| Fixed part | |||||||
| Intercept | |||||||
| Estimated mean | 520.484 | 152.949 | |||||
| SE | 27.911 | 4.124 | |||||
| Condition 1 | 468.996 | 520.063 | 496.073 | 134.409 | 436.373 | ||
| SE | 28.014 | 30.063 | 28.932 | 3.794 | 4.595 | ||
| Condition 2 | 478.180 | 527.603 | 504.133 | 144.280 | 439.926 | ||
| SE | 27.922 | 29.814 | 28.910 | 3.796 | 4.588 | ||
| Condition 3 | 594.778 | 643.685 | 514.693 | 166.904 | 455.449 | ||
| SE | 27.450 | 29.335 | 28.742 | 3.747 | 4.559 | ||
| Condition 4 | 530.563 | 578.651 | 488.022 | 165.586 | 451.674 | ||
| SE | 26.960 | 28.817 | 28.443 | 3.687 | 4.532 | ||
| Fluency (ref. fluent) | −58.261 | −326.304 | |||||
| SE | 12.235 | 1.436 | |||||
| Pause location (ref. within word) | 42.459 | ||||||
| SE | 6.929 | ||||||
| Random part | |||||||
| Estimate | 251581.655 | 251836.972 | 251410.163 | 129134.113 | 21156.4 | 21156.297 | 10716.592 |
| SE | 3078.880 | 3077.854 | 3072.639 | 1658.939 | 124.324 | 124.322 | 62.979 |
| Participant | |||||||
| Estimate | 17202.363 | 16909.976 | 16951.605 | 17506.374 | 285.530 | 282.139 | 460.412 |
| SE | 5037.243 | 4951.608 | 4964.275 | 5049.832 | 83.471 | 82.353 | 131.556 |
| Sentence | |||||||
| Estimate | 2750.811 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 586.255 | 207.924 | 12.792 | 0.000 |
| SE | 815.920 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 230.185 | 50.273 | 6.212 | 0.000 |
| −2 log likelihood | 205041.289 | 204995.714 | 204973.060 | 178073.650 | 742208.551 | 742126.760 | 702126.189 |
| Sig. | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
| Zero model | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed part | ||||
| Intercept | ||||
| Coefficient | 1.290 | |||
| SE | 0.074 | |||
| Condition 1 | 1.412 | 0.771 | 1.375 | |
| SE | 0.078 | 0.083 | 0.082 | |
| Condition 2 | 1.348 | 0.723 | 1.341 | |
| SE | 0.078 | 0.083 | 0.082 | |
| Condition 3 | 1.292 | 0.680 | 1.311 | |
| SE | 0.077 | 0.082 | 0.081 | |
| Condition 4 | 1.190 | 0.582 | 1.242 | |
| SE | 0.076 | 0.081 | 0.080 | |
| Fluency | 0.700 | |||
| SE | 0.030 | |||
| Pause location | 0.020 | |||
| SE | 0.022 | |||
| Random part | ||||
| Participant | ||||
| Estimate | 0.033 | 0.136 | 0.137 | 0.146 |
| SE | 0.040 | 0.041 | 0.041 | 0.044 |
| Wald z | 0.806 | 3.339 | 3.339 | 3.337 |
| Sig. | 0.420 | 0.001 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Sentence | ||||
| Estimate | 0.012 | 0.001 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| SE | 0.005 | 0.001 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Wald z | 2.360 | 1.074 | 1.140 | 1.018 |
| Sig. | .018 | .283 | .254 | .309 |
| Akaike corrected | 280174.3 | 280568.9 | 281412.3 | 259794.3 |
| Sig. | ns | ns | <.001 | |
References
Ailhaud E., Chenu F., Jisa H. (2016). A developmental perspective on the units of written French. In Perera J., Aparici M., Rosado E., Salas N. (Eds.), Written and spoken language development across the lifespan: Essays in honour of Liliana Tolchinsky (pp. 287-305). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Alamargot D., Chesnet D., Dansac C., Ros C. (2006). Eye and pen: A new device for studying reading during writing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 38(2), 287-299.
Alamargot D., Plane S., Lambert E., Chesnet D. (2010). Using eye and pen movements to trace the development of writing expertise: Case studies of a 7th, 9th and 12th grader, graduate student, and professional writer. Reading and Writing, 23(7), 853-888.
Alves F., Pagano A., Da Silva I. (2010). A new window on translator’s cognitive activity: Methodological issues in the combined use of eye tracking, key logging and retrospective protocols. In Mees I., Alves F., Göpferich S. (Eds.), Methodology, technology and innovation in translation process research (Vol. 38, pp. 267-292). Copenhagen, Denmark: Samfundslitteratur.
Anson C. M., Schwegler R. A. (2012). Tracking the mind’s eye: A new technology for researching twenty-first century writing and reading processes. College Composition and Communication, 64(1), 151-171.
Beauvais C., Olive T., Passerault J.-M. (2011). Why are some texts good and others not? Relationship between text quality and management of the writing process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 415-428.
Beers S. F., Quinlan T., Harbaugh A. G. (2010). Adolescent students’ reading during writing behaviors and relationships with text quality: An eyetracking study. Reading and Writing, 23, 743-775.
Bosman A. M. T. (1989). Verb spelling in Dutch university students. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: University of Amsterdam.
Bourdin B., Fayol M. (2000). Is graphic activity costly? A developmental approach. Reading and Writing, 13, 183-196.
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 Rijlaarsdam G., Van den Bergh H., Couzijn M. (Eds.), Theories, models, and methodology in writing research (pp. 10-20). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
Cerni T., Velay J.-L., Alario F.-X., Vaugoyeau M., Longcamp M. (2016). Motor expertise for typing impacts lexical decision performance. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 5(3), 130-138.
Chukharev-Hudilainen E. (2014). Pauses in spontaneous written communication: A keystroke logging study. Journal of Writing Research, 6(1), 61-84.
Clifton C. J., Staub A., Rayner K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In Gompel R. V., Fisher M., Murray W., Hill R. L. (Eds.), Eye movement research: A window on mind and brain (pp. 341-372). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Delattre M., Bonin P., Barry C. (2006). Written spelling to dictation: Do irregularity effects persist on writing durations? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1330-1340.
Douhou S., Magnus J. R. (2009). The reliability of user authentication through keystroke dynamics. Statistica Neerlandica, 63(4), 432-449.
Dragsted B., Carl M. (2013). Towards a classification of translation styles based on eye-tracking and keylogging data. Journal of Writing Research, 5(1), 133-158.
Field A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frisson S., Sandra D. (2002). Homophonic forms of regularly inflected verbs have their own orthographic representations: A developmental perspective on spelling errors. Brain and Language, 81, 545-554.
Grabowski J., Weinzierl C., Schmitt M. (2010). Second and fourth graders’ copying ability: From graphical to linguistic processing. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(1), 39-53.
Guven A., Sogukpinar I. (2003). Understanding users’ keystroke patterns for computer access security. Computers & Security, 22, 695-706.
Hacker D. J., Keener M. C., Kircher J. C. (2009). Writing is applied metacognition. In Hacker D. J., Dunlosky J., Graesser A. C. (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 154-172). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hacker D. J., Keener M. C., Kircher J. C. (2017). TRAKTEXT: Investigating writing processes using eye-tracking technology. Methodological Innovations, 10(2), 1-18.
Hayes J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In Levy C. M., Ransdell S. E. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hayes J. R., Flower L., Schriver K., Stratman J., Carey L. (1985). Cognitive processes in revision. Pittsburgh, PA: Communications Design Center.
Holmqvist K., Nyström M., Andersson R., Dewhurst R., Jarodzka H., Van de, Weijer J. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Inhoff A. W., Gordon A. M. (1997). Eye movements and eye-hand coordination during typing. Current Directions of Psychological Science, 6, 153-157.
Inhoff A. W., Rayner K. (1986). Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception & Psychophysics, 40(6), 431-439.
Janssen D., Van Waes L., Van den Bergh H. (1996). Effects of thinking aloud on writing processes. In Levy C. M. (Ed.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 233-250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johansson R., Johansson V., Wengelin Å., Holmqvist K. (2008). Reading during writing: Four different groups of writers. Working papers in Linguistics, 53, 43-59.
Johansson R., Wengelin Å., Johansson V., Holmqvist K. (2010). Looking at the keyboard or the monitor: Relationship with text production processes. Reading and Writing, 23, 835-851.
Jones S. (2014). From ideas in the head to words on the page: Young adolescents’ reflections on their own writing processes. Language and Education, 28(1), 52-67.
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(2), 355-365.
Kellogg R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In Levy C. M., Ransdell S. E. (Eds.), The Science of Writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57-71). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kellogg R. T. (2004). Working memory components in written sentence generation. American Journal of Psychology, 117, 341-361. https://doi.org/10.2307/4149005
Kellogg R. T., Turner C. E., Whiteford A. P., Mertens A. (2016). The role of working memory in planning and generating written sentences. Journal of Writing Research, 7(3), 397-416.
Kennedy A., Pynte J. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading. Vision Research, 45(2), 153-168.
Keuleers E., Brysbaert M., New B. (2010). SUBTLEX-NL: A new frequency measure for Dutch words based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 643-650.
Kruger H. (2016). What’s happening when nothing’s happening? Combining eyetracking and keylogging to explore cognitive processing during pauses in translation production. Across Languages and Cultures, 17(1), 25-52.
Leijten M., De Maeyer S., Van Waes L. (2011). Coordinating sentence composition with error correction: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Writing Research, 2(3), 331-363.
Leijten M., Van Horenbeeck E., Van Waes L. (2018). Analyzing keystroke logging data from a linguistic perspective. In Sullivan K., Lindgren E. (Eds.), Computer key-stroke logging and writing: Methods and applications Amsterdam: Brill.(in press)
Leijten M., Van Waes L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30, 358-392.
Leijten M., Van Waes L. (2014). Inputlog 6.0 help. Antwerp, Belgium: University of Antwerp.
Leijten M., Van Waes L., Schriver K., Hayes J. R. (2014). Writing in the workplace: Constructing documents using multiple digital sources. Journal of Writing Research, 5(3), 285-337. Retrieved from http://www.jowr.org/articles/vol5_3/JoWR_2014_vol5_nr3_Leijten_et_al.pdf
Maggio S., Lété B., Chenu F., Jisa H., Fayol M. (2012). Tracking the mind during writing: Immediacy, delayed, and anticipatory effects on pauses and writing rate. Reading and Writing, 25(9), 2131-2151.
Maggio S., Chenu F., Bes De Berc G., Pesci B., Lété B., Jisa H., Fayol M. (2015). Producing written noun phrases in French. Written Language & Literacy, 18(1), 1-24.
Nottbusch G. (2010). Grammatical planning, execution, and control in written sentence production. Reading and Writing, 23(7), 777-801.
O’Brien S. (2010). Eye tracking in translation process research: Methodological challenges and solutions In Mees I., Alves F., Göpferich S. (Eds.), Methodology, technology and innovation in translation process research (Vol. 38, pp. 251-266). Copenhagen, Denmark: Samfundslitteratur.
Olive T. (2014). Toward a parallel and cascading model of the writing system: A review of research on writing processes coordination. Journal of Writing Research, 6(2), 173-194.
Prunty M. M., Barnett A. L., Wilmut K., Plumb M. S. (2014). An examination of writing pauses in the handwriting of children with developmental coordination disorder. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(11), 2894-2905.
Quené H., Van den Bergh H. (2004). On multi-level modeling of data from repeated measures designs: A tutorial. Speech Communication, 43(1-2), 103-121.
Quené H., Van den Bergh H. (2008). Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 413-425.
Quinlan T., Loncke M., Leijten M., Van Waes L. (2012). Coordinating the cognitive processes of writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 345-368.
Rayner K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
Reichle E. D., Rayner K., Pollatsek A. (2003). The performance of natural (and unnatural) visual tasks. The E-Z reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavior & Brain Sciences, 26, 445-526.
Sandra D., Frisson S., Daems F. (1999). Why simple verb forms can be so difficult to spell: The influence of homophone frequency and distance in Dutch. Brain and Language, 68, 277-283.
Schrijver I., Van Vaerenbergh L., Leijten M., Van Waes L. (2014). The translator as a writer: Measuring the effect of writing skills on the translation product. In Engberg J., Heine C., Knorr D. (Eds.), Methods in writing process research [Textproduktion in Medium] (pp. 99-122). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Simpson S., Torrance M. (2007). EyeWrite (Version 5.1). Unpublished report, Nottingham Trent University. Osgoode, ON: SR Research.
Sita J. C., Taylor K. A. (2015). Eye movements during the handwriting of words: Individually and within sentences. Human Movement Science, 43, 229-238.
Strömqvist S., Holmqvist K., Johansson V., Karlsson H., Wengelin Å. (2006). What keystroke logging can reveal about writing. In Sullivan K. P. H., Lindgren E. (Eds.), Computer keystroke logging: Methods and applications (Vol. 18, pp. 45–71). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Sumner E., Connelly V., Barnett A. L. (2013). Children with dyslexia are slow writers because they pause more often and not because they are slow at handwriting execution. Reading and Writing, 26(6), 991-1008.
Torrance M., Johansson R., Johansson V., Wengelin Å. (2016). Reading during the composition of multi-sentence texts: An eye-movement study. Psychological Research, 80(5), 729-743.
Torrance M., Wengelin Å. (2010). Writers’ eye movements. In Bazerman C., Krut R., Lunsford K., McLeod S., Null S., Rogers P., Stansell A. (Eds.), Traditions of writing research (pp. 394-405). New York, NY: Routledge.
Van Diepen M., Bosman A. M. T. (1999). Hoe spel jij gespelt? Werkwoordspelling door leerlingen van de basisschool en de middelbare school [Dutch verb spelling in students in primary school and in high-school students]. Tijdschrift voor Orthopedagogiek, 38, 176-186.
Van Hooijdonk C. M. J., Commandeur E., Cozijn R., Krahmen E. J., Marsi E. C. (2007). The online evaluation of speech synthesis using eye movements. Paper presented at the ICSA Speech Synthesis Workshop, Bonn, Germany.
Van Waes L., Leijten M. (2015). Fluency in writing: A multidimensional perspective on writing fluency applied to L1 and L2. Computers & Composition, 38, 79-95.
Van Waes L., Leijten M, Lindgren E, Wengelin Å. (2015). Keystroke logging in writing research: Analyzing online writing processes. In MacArthur C., Graham A., S., Fitzgerald J. (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research, 2, 410-426.New York: Guilford Press.
Van Waes L., Leijten M., Mariën P., Engelborghs S. (2017). Typing competencies in Alzheimer’s disease: An exploration of copy tasks. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 311-319.
Van Waes L., Leijten M., Quinlan T. (2010). Reading during sentence composing and error correction: A multilevel analysis of the influences of task complexity. Reading and Writing, 23(7), 803-834.
Van Waes L., Leijten M., Wengelin Å., Lindgren E. (2012). Logging tools to study digital writing processes. In Berninger V. W. (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 507-533). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Verhaert N. (2016). Rules of regularities. The homophone dominance effect in spelling and reading regular Dutch forms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Wallot S., Grabowski J. (2013). Typewriting dynamics: What distinguishes simple from complex writing tasks? Ecological Psychology, 25(3), 267-280.
Weingarten R., Nottbusch G., Will U. (2004). Morphemes, syllables and graphemes in written word production. In Pechmann T., Habel C. (Eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to speech production (pp. 529-572). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894028.529
Wengelin Å. (2006). Examining pauses in writing: Theory, methods and empirical data. In Rijlaarsdam G. (Ed.), Computer keystroke logging and writing: Methods and applications (pp. 107-130). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Wengelin Å., Johansson V., Johansson R., Frid J. (2014). Writing processes and text characteristics of texts produced in a triple-task situation. Paper presented at the EARLI SIG writing conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wengelin Å., Leijten M., Van Waes L. (2010). Studying reading during writing: New perspectives in research. Reading and Writing, 23(7), 735-742.
Wengelin Å., Torrance M., Holmqvist K., Simpson S., Galbraith D., Johansson V., Johansson R. (2009). Combined eyetracking and keystroke-logging methods for studying cognitive processes in text production. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 337-351.
Biographies
Milou J. R. de Smet is an educational scientist in the field of writing research, more specifically the cognitive processes in writing, and computer assisted learning. At the time of this study she was a postdoctoral researcher at the Faculty of Applied Economics, Department of Management, at the University of Antwerp.
Mariëlle Leijten is a writing researcher in the field of cognitive processes, writing processes, and professional and digital communication. She is professor and researcher at the Faculty of Applied Economics, Department of Management, at the University of Antwerp.
Luuk Van Waes is a writing researcher in the field of cognitive processes, writing processes, and professional and digital communication. He is professor and researcher at the Faculty of Applied Economics, Department of Management, at the University of Antwerp.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: July 19, 2018
Issue published: October 2018
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Article usage*
Total views and downloads: 1391
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 12 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 0
- Modelling typing disfluencies as finite mixture process
- Capturing writers’ typing while visually attending the emerging text: ...
- Chapter 9. Using eye tracking to study digital writing processes
- Reading-to-Writing Mediation model of higher-order literacy
- Scriptism with a vengeance. Or, how writing was forgotten.
- Assessing the Status of Phonemic and Auditory Symptoms, and Examining ...
- Envisioning multilingualism in source-based writing in L1, L2, and L3:...
- An eye-tracking study examining information search in transit maps
- Online management of text production from pictures: a comparison betwe...
- MAPPING MASTER’S STUDENTS’ USE OF EXTERNAL SOURCES IN SOURCE-BASED WRI...
- INTRODUCTION
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
