In the present study, four components of legibility were analysed on an individual basis in four categories as follows. Y-27632 Category 1: word size. The mean of the size of 36 letters was calculated. Size was defined as the distance between the tops and the bottoms of letters. Category 2: word length. The mean of the word length was calculated. Length was defined as the distance between the extreme left point of the word’s first letter and the extreme right

point of the word’s last letter. This variable reflects one component of legibility, the letter spacing. Category 3: word legibility. Each word received a score of “1” if it could be read by two examiners or of “0” if one of two reviewers selleck screening library was unable to read it. Category 4: letter legibility. Each letter of words received a score of “1” for a legible letter, or of “0” for an illegible letter. The examiner considered as illegible: (a) omitted letters; (b) unrecognised letters; (c) letters outside the word; (d) letter that was too similar to any other; and (e) uncompleted letters (e.g. T without the horizontal trace). Individual means in each category were calculated for each time (baseline and after MP), separately for each experimental session. Because of imprecise measurements or subjectivity

with the judgment of letter and word legibility, two examiners, both blind to stimulation type, independently mafosfamide scored each sample. If the reviewers disagreed regarding the legibility of a word/letter, it was given a score of “0” (illegible). Some authors consider a word/letter to be illegible if it cannot be read by two people (Glisson et al., 2011). The legibility represents the handwriting quality, so a score nearer to the maximum score (36) represented

a higher level of writing performance. For writing time, a stopwatch was used to record the time for subjects to finish the copying task. Handwriting time generally decreases with motor performance improvement (Overvelde & Hulstijn, 2011). The handwriting test was performed before (baseline) and immediately after each experimental session. Different word sets were presented per session, to exclude specific word learning. The experiment was conducted in a double-blinded sham-controlled complete crossover design. Each subject participated in six experimental sessions separated by at least 48 h to avoid cumulative stimulation effect. In each experimental session, the subjects performed two handwriting tests (before and after MP), one MP session and received anodal/sham tDCS on only one electrode position condition. The experimental procedures are summarised in Fig. 1. tDCS was administered by a researcher who neither instructed the handwriting test nor took part in the data analysis. Subjects were blind to condition tDCS (real or sham). The data were analysed, blind to experimental condition.