ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2025
Are fluent letter dyads really fluent? An update on objective and subjective motor fluency in an Italian student population.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
"Motor fluency" refers to the ease with which an action can be performed and several studies have shown how it can modulate various cognitive processes, such as memory and decision making. To investigate these implications of motor fluency, typing-based paradigms have been proven to be useful. In this literature, based on pioneering works that analysed inter-keystroke intervals (IKIs, the time that elapses between two keystrokes), several studies have assumed that letter dyads typed with different hands are more fluent than dyads typed with the same hand. However, to date, there is no literature analysing subjectively perceived typing fluency, i.e. the feeling of fluency experienced by typists. Moreover, this classical conceptualization has not been updated in the last decade. This raises the question of whether this distinction is also reflected in the subjective feeling of fluency, and whether it is still valid in today's generation of everyday typists. Thus, we investigated the validity of dyad fluency classification by measuring both objective and subjective typing fluency in two samples of university students. The objective measure included both the response times required to type the entire dyads (Experiment 1) as well as reaction times from stimulus presentation to first keypress alongside IKIs (Experiment 2). Overall, we found consistent results that both objective and subjective measures follow the opposite trend compared to classical assumptions: same-hand dyads are (perceived) more fluent than different-hands dyads. Our results have important methodological implications for future research on typing-related motor fluency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.