汉字书写产生中的笔尖效应&#x0002A;

林炜豪; 杨婷婷; 郑国瑞; 王瑞明

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260107

PDF(551 KB)

心理科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (1) : 56-67. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260107

基础、实验与工效

汉字书写产生中的笔尖效应^*

林炜豪^1,2, 杨婷婷^1,2, 郑国瑞^1,2, 王瑞明^**1,2

作者信息 +

Tip-of-the-Pen Effect in Chinese Written Production

Lin Weihao^1,2, Yang Tingting^1,2, Zheng Guorui^1,2, Wang Ruiming^1,2

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

笔尖效应是指书写者暂时不能提取出自己确切知道的字的字形,是一种典型的书写困难现象。近年来,研究者以一项大型汉字书写数据库为基础进行实证研究,对该效应做出了清晰的概念界定和操作定义,并开发了一套完整的实验范式诱发该现象的产生。笔尖效应的影响因素既包括频率、字形以及语音等目标字相关的词汇学变量因素,也包括书写者日常打字频率、日常书写频率以及阅读量等个体差异变量因素。研究者基于书写产生的心理认知过程,结合口语产生中舌尖效应的理论解释,探讨笔尖效应可能的产生阶段和潜在发生机制。此外,研究者结合汉字书写特有的心理语言学背景,分析汉字书写中笔尖效应的独特性。未来应进一步从时间进程和涉及的加工脑区两方面揭示笔尖效应的神经基础,深入探究笔尖效应的影响机制,推进笔尖效应的干预研究。

Abstract

The tip-of-the-pen (TOP) effect is a phenomenon in writing difficulty where individuals temporarily fail to retrieve the orthographic information of a known character. Recent research based on a large-scale Chinese character handwriting database has clearly defined and operationalized this effect and developed a standard character dictation paradigm to reliably elicit it. Despite these advancements, the TOP effect remains a relatively new area of study, and its cognitive mechanisms are not yet fully understood. This review aims to address these gaps by proposing a comprehensive model of the TOP effect, examining its occurrence stages and providing theoretical explanations for the first time.
Existing research has identified several factors influencing the TOP effect. Lexical variables at the character level, such as frequency, orthography, and phonology, significantly impact its occurrence. Characters that are less frequently used, learned later in life, or have more complex orthographic structures are more likely to trigger the TOP effect. The intricate stroke patterns and structural rules of Chinese characters make them particularly prone to this phenomenon. Additionally, individual differences such as daily typing and writing frequency also play a crucial role. A higher frequency of typing and a lower frequency of handwriting are associated with an increased likelihood of experiencing the TOP effect, supporting the notion that the shift from traditional handwriting to digital typing may contribute to writing difficulties. Furthermore, increased reading habits are associated with a decreased likelihood of the TOP effect, indicating that frequent exposure to written text enhances orthographic retrieval.
The cognitive mechanisms behind the TOP effect involve multiple stages of processing. During the conceptual-semantic stage, the writer processes the input stimulus, identifies the target character, and retrieves its semantic information. This stage is similar to that involved in spoken language production, where the tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) phenomenon occurs. The subsequent orthographic encoding stage involves retrieving the character's orthographic representation from long-term memory. This stage is more complex in written production due to the additional involvement of phonological mediation, whereby phonological information aids in orthographic retrieval. The orthographic buffer stage temporarily stores the retrieved orthographic representation, ensuring that the strokes and structure are correctly sequenced and sized before the motor execution stage. Studies have shown that deficits in the orthographic buffer can lead to increased writing errors and difficulties, particularly in individuals with developmental writing disorders or incomplete working memory development.
Theoretical explanations for the TOP effect draw from models of the TOT phenomenon. The Transmission Deficit Hypothesis (TDH) suggests that the TOP effect occurs due to insufficient activation of the connections between semantic and orthographic representations. This leads to partial retrieval, where some orthographic information is accessible, but not enough for complete character recall. The Blocking Hypothesis (BH) posits that the activation of semantically related non-target characters interferes with the retrieval of the target character, resulting in writing difficulties. This study is the first to propose these detailed stages and theoretical explanations for the TOP effect, offering a new perspective on writing difficulties.
Future research should focus on elucidating the neural basis of the TOP effect through event-related potentials (ERP) to study the time-course characteristics of TOP, identifying stages where orthographic retrieval fails, and utilizing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to compare brain activation patterns during successful and unsuccessful character retrieval, pinpointing the neural correlates of TOP. Additionally, researchers should investigate how various factors, such as phonological cueing and second-language experience, affect the likelihood of experiencing TOP. Future studies can provide a comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon by addressing both positive and negative aspects of TOP and exploring the complex interactions between lexical, orthographic, phonological, and individual factors. This knowledge will advance theoretical models of written language production and inform practical approaches to improving literacy and writing skills in diverse populations.

导出引用

林炜豪, 杨婷婷, 郑国瑞, 王瑞明. 汉字书写产生中的笔尖效应^*[J]. 心理科学. 2026, 49(1): 56-67 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260107

Lin Weihao, Yang Tingting, Zheng Guorui, Wang Ruiming. Tip-of-the-Pen Effect in Chinese Written Production[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2026, 49(1): 56-67 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260107

参考文献

[1] 陈京军, 许磊, 程晓荣, 刘华山. (2016). 儿童汉字练习:纸笔手写与键盘拼音输入的效果比较. 心理学报, 48(10), 1258-1269.
[2] 何洁莹, 张清芳. (2017). 老年人书写产生中词汇频率和音节频率效应的时间进程:ERP研究. 心理学报, 49(12), 1483-1493.
[3] 李慧敏, 王若萌, 王权红, 邱江. (2015). 计算机时代的书写心理学. 心理科学进展, 23(10), 1843-1851.
[4] 刘江伟, 吴亚琦, 蒋新军, 刘嘉丽, 马雪, 王斯敏, 李晓. (2019-04-09). 提笔忘字,忘掉的不仅仅是“字”. 光明日报, p7.
[5] 欧阳明昆, 蔡笑, 张清芳. (2019). 认知还是元认知:口语产生中舌尖效应的心理机制. 心理科学进展, 27(12), 2052-2063.
[6] 王成, 尤文平, 张清芳. (2012). 书写产生过程的认知机制. 心理科学进展, 20(10), 1560-1572.
[7] 徐静, 陈家源. (2010-07-19). 电脑时代提笔忘字,只敲键盘忘记笔杆. 广州日报, p3.
[8] 赵瑞瑛, 娄昊, 欧阳明昆, 张清芳. (2019). 自然情境下舌尖效应的认知年老化——日记研究. 心理学报, 51(5), 598-611.
[9] Abrams, L., & Rodriguez, E. L. (2005). Syntactic class influences phonological priming of tip-of-the-tongue resolution. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 1018-1023.
[10] Bonin, P., & Fayol, M. (2002). Frequency effects in the written and spoken production of homophonic picture names. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 289-313.
[11] Bonin P., Fayol M., & Gombert J. E. (1998). An experimental study of lexical access in the writing and naming of isolated words. International Journal of Psychology, 33, 269-286.
[12] Bonin P., Méot A., Lagarrigue A., & Roux S. (2015). Written object naming, spelling to dictation, and immediate copying: Different tasks, different pathways? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1268-1294.
[13] Bourke L., Davies S. J., Sumner E., & Green C. (2014). Individual differences in the development of early writing skills: Testing the unique contribution of visuo-spatial working memory. Reading and Writing, 27, 315-335.
[14] Breining B., Nozari N., & Rapp B. (2016). Does segmental overlap help or hurt? Evidence from blocked cyclic naming in spoken and written production. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23, 500-506.
[15] Brown, A. S. (1991). A review of the tip-of-the-tongue experience. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 204.
[16] Brysbaert M., Mandera P., & Keuleers E. (2018). The word frequency effect in word processing: An updated review. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 45-50
[17] Buchwald, A., & Rapp, B. (2009). Distinctions between orthographic long-term memory and working memory. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26, 724-751.
[18] Burke, D. M., & Graham, E. R. (2012). The neural basis for aging effects on language. The Handbook of the Neuropsychology of Language, 1, 778-800.
[19] Burke D. M., MacKay D. G., Worthley J. S., & Wade E. (1991). On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding failures in young and older adults? Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 542-579.
[20] Cai, Q., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. PLoS ONE, 5, e10729.
[21] Chang K. L., Hu P., & Abrams L. (2022). The tip-of-the-Mandarin tongue: phonological and orthographic priming of TOT resolution in Mandarin speakers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 37, 925-938.
[22] Chen H. Y., Chang E. C., Chen S. H., Lin Y. C., & Wu D. H. (2016). Functional and anatomical dissociation between the orthographic lexicon and the orthographic buffer revealed in reading and writing Chinese characters by fMRI. NeuroImage, 129, 105-116.
[23] Chen, J. Y., & Cherng, R. J. (2013). The proximate unit in Chinese handwritten character production. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 517.
[24] Ellis, A. W., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2000). Age of acquisition effects in adult lexical processing reflect loss of plasticity in maturing systems: Insights from connectionist networks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1103-1123.
[25] Elsherif M. M., Preece E., & Catling J. C. (2023). Age-of-acquisition effects: A literature review. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 49, 812.
[26] Farrell, M. T., & Abrams, L. (2011). Tip-of-the-tongue states reveal age differences in the syllable frequency effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 277.
[27] Fu Y., Álvarez C. J., Bermúdez-Margaretto B., Afonso O., Wang H., & Domínguez A. (2024). The interaction of central and peripheral processing in L2 handwritten production: Evidence from cross-linguistic variations. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. Advance online publication.
[28] Gordon, J. K., & Kurczek, J. C. (2014). The ageing neighbourhood: Phonological density in naming. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 326-344.
[29] Graham, S., & R. Harris, K. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3-12.
[30] Hepner C., McCloskey M., & Rapp B. (2017). Do reading and spelling share orthographic representations? Evidence from developmental dysgraphia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 34, 119-143.
[31] Hong J. C., Wu C. L., Chen H. C., Chang Y. L., & Chang K. E. (2016). Effect of radical-position regularity for Chinese orthographic skills of Chinese-as-a-second-language learners. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 402-410.
[32] Huang S., Lin W., Xu M., Wang R., & Cai Z. G. (2021a). On the tip of the pen: Effects of character-level lexical variables and handwriter-level individual differences on orthographic retrieval difficulties in Chinese handwriting. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 1497-1511.
[33] Huang S., Zhou Y., Du M., Wang R., & Cai Z. G. (2021b). Character amnesia in Chinese handwriting: A mega-study analysis. Language Sciences, 85, 101383.
[34] Jones, G. V. (1989). Back to Woodworth: Role of interlopers in the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon. Memory and Cognition, 17, 69-76.
[35] Kong, M. Y. (2020). The association between children's common Chinese stroke errors and spelling ability. Reading and Writing, 33, 635-670.
[36] Kornell, N., & Metcalfe, J. (2006). “Blockers” do not block recall during tip-of-the-tongue states. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 248-261.
[37] Kuperman V., Bar-On A., Bertram R., Boshra R., Deutsch A., Kyröläinen A. J., & Protopapas A. (2021). Prevalence of spelling errors affects reading behavior across languages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150, 1974.
[38] Langsford S., Xu Z., & Cai Z. G. (2024). Constructing a 30-item test for character amnesia in Chinese. Reading and Writing, 38(1), 1-21.
[39] Larigauderie P., Guignouard C., & Olive T. (2020). Proofreading by students: Implications of executive and non-executive components of working memory in the detection of phonological, orthographical, and grammatical errors. Reading and Writing, 33, 1015-1036.
[40] Li J., Liu Y., Wang Y., Wang N., Ji Y., Wei T., & Yang Y. (2023). Functional brain networks underlying the interaction between central and peripheral processes involved in Chinese handwriting in children and adults. Human Brain Mapping, 44, 142-155.
[41] Lin W., Yang T., Zheng G., Yang Y., Su Y., & Wang R. (2025). Tip-of-the-pen states in Mandarin handwriting: The effect of brief non-target language exposure. Memory and Cognition. Advance online publication.
[42] McBride C., Pan D. J., & Mohseni F. (2022). Reading and writing words: A cross-linguistic perspective. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26, 125-138.
[43] Montefinese, M. (2019). Semantic representation of abstract and concrete words: A minireview of neural evidence. Journal of Neurophysiology, 121, 1585-1587.
[44] Muylle M., Van Assche E., & Hartsuiker R. J. (2022). Comparing the cognate effect in spoken and written second language word production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25, 93-107.
[45] Navarrete E., Pastore M., Valentini R., & Peressotti F. (2015). First learned words are not forgotten: Age-of-acquisition effects in the tip-of-the-tongue experience. Memory and Cognition, 43, 1085-1103.
[46] Nowbakht, M., & Olive, T. (2021). The role of error type and working memory in written corrective feedback effectiveness on first-language self error-correction. Written Communication, 38, 278-310.
[47] O'Brien B. A., Habib Mohamed M. B., Arshad N. A., & Lim N. C. (2020). The impact of different writing systems on children's spelling error profiles: Alphabetic, Akshara, and Hanzi cases. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 870.
[48] O'Seaghdha P. G., Chen J. Y., & Chen T. M. (2010). Proximate units in word production: Phonological encoding begins with syllables in Mandarin Chinese but with segments in English. Cognition, 115, 282-302.
[49] Ouyang M., Cai X., & Zhang Q. (2020). Aging effects on phonological and semantic priming in the tip-of-the-tongue: Evidence from a two-step approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 484283.
[50] Palmis S., Velay J. L., Fabiani E., Nazarian B., Anton J. L., Habib M., & Longcamp M. (2019). The impact of spelling regularity on handwriting production: A coupled fMRI and kinematics study. Cortex, 113, 111-127.
[51] Perret, C., & Laganaro, M. (2013). Why are written picture naming latencies (not) longer than spoken naming? Reading and Writing, 26, 225-239.
[52] Planton S., Jucla M., Démonet J. F., & Soum-Favaro C. (2019). Effects of orthographic consistency and word length on the dynamics of written production in adults: Psycholinguistic and rTMS experiments. Reading and Writing, 32, 115-146.
[53] Qu, Q., & Damian, M. F. (2020). An electrophysiological analysis of the time course of phonological and orthographic encoding in written word production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35, 360-373.
[54] Qu Q., Damian M. F., & Li X. (2016). Phonology contributes to writing: Evidence from a masked priming task. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 251-264.
[55] Qu Q., Feng C., & Damian M. F. (2021). Interference effects of phonological similarity in word production arise from competitive incremental learning. Cognition, 212, 104738.
[56] Rodd J. M., Vitello S., Woollams A. M., & Adank P. (2015). Localising semantic and syntactic processing in spoken and written language comprehension: An activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis. Brain and Language, 141, 89-102.
[57] Saarinen T., Kujala J., Laaksonen H., Jalava A., & Salmelin R. (2020). Task-modulated corticocortical synchrony in the cognitive-motor network supporting handwriting. Cerebral Cortex, 30, 1871-1886.
[58] Shao, Z., & Rommers, J. (2020). How a question context aids word production: Evidence from the picture-word interference paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 165-173.
[59] Stark K., van Scherpenberg C., Obrig H., & Abdel Rahman R. (2023). Web-based language production experiments: Semantic interference assessment is robust for spoken and typed response modalities. Behavior Research Methods, 55, 236-262.
[60] Stasenko, A., & Gollan, T. H. (2019). Tip of the tongue after any language: Reintroducing the notion of blocked retrieval. Cognition, 193, 104027.
[61] Su I. F., Yum Y. N., & Lau, D. K. Y. (2023). Hong Kong Chinese character psycholinguistic norms: Ratings of 4376 single Chinese characters on semantic radical transparency, age-of-acquisition, familiarity, imageability, and concreteness. Behavior Research Methods, 55, 2989-3008.
[62] Van Assche E., Duyck W., & Gollan T. H. (2013). Whole-language and item-specific control in bilingual language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1781.
[63] Wang, C., & Zhang, Q. (2015). Phonological codes constrain output of orthographic codes via sublexical and lexical routes in Chinese written production. PLoS ONE, 10, e0124470.
[64] Wang, C., & Zhang, Q. (2022). The time course of lexical and sublexical phonological activation in Chinese written production. Biological Psychology, 175, 108450.
[65] Wang J., Cheng L., Maurer U., & Chen H. C. (2023). Role of radical position and character configuration in Chinese handwritten production. Reading and Writing, 36, 1609-1630.
[66] Wang R., Huang S., Zhou Y., & Cai Z. G. (2020). Chinese character handwriting: A large-scale behavioral study and a database. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 82-96.
[67] White K. K., Abrams L., & Frame E. A. (2013). Semantic category moderates phonological priming of proper name retrieval during tip-of-the-tongue states. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 561-576.
[68] Xing J. Z.(2006). Teaching and learning Chinese as a foreign language: A pedagogical grammar. Hong Kong University Press.
[69] Yang T., Cai Z. G., Lin W., & Wang, R.(in press). Modality-general and modality-specific bilingual control mechanisms in spoken and written productions. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.
[70] Yu L., Zhang Q., Ke M., Han Y., & Kinoshita S. (2023). Some neighbors are more interfering: Asymmetric priming by stroke neighbors in Chinese character recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 30, 1065-1073.
[71] Zhang, L., & Xing, H. (2023). The interaction of orthography, phonology and semantics in the process of second language learners' Chinese character production. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1076810.
[72] Zheng G., Yang T., Lin W., Yang Y., & Wang R. (2024). The cross-script cognate effect in spoken and written second language production: A study based on Chinese-English bilinguals. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78(7), 17470218241279047.
[73] Zock, M., & Biemann, C. (2020). Comparison of different lexical resources with respect to the tip-of-the-tongue problem. Journal of Cognitive Science, 21, 193-252.