The effect of fine motor skills, handwriting, and typing on reading development
Open accessAbstract
Discussions on the contribution of motor skills and processes to learning to read has a long history. Previous work is essentially divided into two separate strands, namely the contributions of fine motor skills (FMS) to reading and the influence of writing versus typing. In the current 2 × 2 × 3 mixed, single-blind, and randomly assigned experiment, we tested both strands together. A total of 87 children learned to decode pseudowords in either typing or writing conditions in which their FMS were either impaired or not. Decoding gains were measured at pretest, posttest, and follow-up, with FMS and working memory included as participant variable predictors. Findings indicated that FMS and working memory predicted decoding gains. Importantly, children performed best when typing if in the impaired FMS condition. Results have implications for motor representation theories of writing and for instruction of children with FMS impairments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The greater focus of attention involved in handwriting contributes to a more intense level of cognitive processing.
“The greater focus of attention involved in handwriting also contributes to a more intense level of cognitive processing [39].”
From The Neuroscience Behind Writing: Handwriting vs. Typing—Who Wins the Battle? (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
Cites
Processing time declines exponentially during childhood and adolescence
Kail, R. (1991) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.27.2.259 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Neuroscience Behind Writing: Handwriting vs. Typing—Who Wins the Battle?
Marano, G., Kotzalidis, G. D., Lisci, F. M., Anesini, M. B., Rossi, S., Barbonetti, S., Cangini, A., Ronsisvalle, A., Artuso, L., Falsini, C., et al. (2025) · Life · doi:10.3390/life15030345 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
- Authors
- Suggate, S. P., Karle, V. L., Kipfelsberger, T., & Stoeger, H.
- Affiliations
- University of York (GB)
- University of Regensburg (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Suggate, Sebastian P.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-08
- Volume
- 232
- Pages
- 105674
- ISSN
- 0022-0965 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4361256309
- Cited by
- 67
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 23.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg) (acceptedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (STO 481/10-1, SU 766/7-1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Children's Physical and Motor Development
- Keywords
- fine motor skills, handwriting, typing, reading development, pseudoword decoding, working memory, children
- MeSH terms
- Child, Handwriting, Humans, Motor Skills, Psychomotor Performance, Reading, Single-Blind Method
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review