With respect to handwriting, the present focus is on well-formed, joined handwriting. Speed, fluency and automaticity of handwriting are mostly neglected. On the one hand, automatic processes are carried out rapidly and with minimal conscious effort. On the other hand, controlled processes are effort demanding. Processes are automatic under certain conditions and controlled under other conditions. There is a need for a screening instrument to identify children with difficulties regarding the automaticity of handwriting. Graphonomics is a research field that analyses the relationships between the planning and generation of handwriting and drawing movements, the resulting spatial traces of writing and drawing instruments and the resulting dynamic features.

In graphonomic research, handwriting is understood as a process of kinematic and spatial parameters. One can measure for example position, time course, velocity, and acceleration. The parameter ‘number of inversions in the velocity profile’ (NIV) of a movement has been demonstrated to be of importance for the assessment of highly skilled motor activities. Automated movements are those performed with the least motor effort possible: only one change in velocity. By profiles of velocity, one can distinguish between non-automated and automated movements. The analysis of these profiles provides evidence for the being of simple motor programmes. The fluent execution is not dependent of the speed of movement execution.

Five factors influencing the production of automated handwriting movements

This article explored five factors influencing the production of automated handwriting movements.

• Direction of writing (explored by mirror writing). Mirror writing has been spontaneous in left-handed adults. These adults perform better in mirror writing tasks. However, when asked to write in mirror script, a significant increase in the number of inversions in velocity is reported. So, when writing reversely, a significant impairment of handwriting automatically emerges.

• Lexical status of writing (explored by writing nonwords). The number of inversions in velocity was increased when writing nonwords. Attention has to be allocated to the writing process, which results in an increase of processing time.

• Visual and mental control of writing movement. Loss of vision has no effect on handwriting automaticity. Visual feedback is not used for controlling the writing movement, but to monitor the stroke size, form and positioning of letters. When participants were asked to visually track the pen tip or mentally track the highest position in a letter, movement were less fluent.

• Style of writing (explored by neat handwriting). When participants engage in neat handwriting, the velocity profile is typified by multiple inversions of velocity per stroke. This indicates a non-automated movement.

• Promise of a reward. If children and adults were asked to write neatly, the number of inversions in velocity profiles was significantly increased. A further increase happened when the promise of a reward existed. Both motivational factors and the instruction given can influence handwriting automaticity.

Automaticity of handwriting is crucial, and impaired by attentional control to any characteristic of the writing process. We must keep in mind that we put too much emphasis on writing style and neatness. We neglect the automation of handwriting, which is important because it frees up mental resources for the understanding of the content.