Reading and Writing

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 493–516

Differences between good and poor child writers on fMRI contrasts for writing newly taught and highly practiced letter forms

  • Todd L. Richards
  • Virginia W. Berninger
  • Pat Stock
  • Leah Altemeier
  • Pamala Trivedi
  • Kenneth R. Maravilla
Article

Abstract

During fMRI imaging, 12 good and 8 poor writers aged 11 wrote a newly taught pseudoletter and a highly practiced letter. Both letters were formed from the same components, but the pseudoletter had a novel configuration not corresponding to a written English letter form. On the first fMRI contrast between the newly taught pseudoletter and highly practiced letter, based on a group map, good and poor writers significantly activated many common regions; but the poor writers showed spatially more extensive brain activation than did the good writers. The additional regions of significant activation may reflect inefficiency in learning a new letter form. For the second contrast between the highly practiced and newly taught letters, individual brain activation analyses, based on exact clusters, showed that good and poor writers differed significantly in activation only in left fusiform. This individual fusiform activation correlated significantly with behavioral measures of automatic letter writing and expressive orthographic coding. Multiple regression in which both individual fusiform activation and individual orthographic coding were entered explained significant variance in written composition. Results are discussed in reference to the role of the orthographic loop, from internal letter form to external letter writing by hand, in writing letters and composing. The overall results are consistent with prior brain and behavioral studies of writing.

Keywords

Brain and writing development fMRI writing tasks Handwriting 

References

  1. Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relationships among developmental skills and writing skills in primary and intermediate grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 478–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of writing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Alamargot, D., Chesnet, D., Dansac, C., & Ros, C. (2006). Eye and pen: A new device for studying reading during writing. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basso, A., Taborelli, A., & Vignolo, L. (1978). Dissociated disorders of speaking and writing in aphasia. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 41, 556–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckmann, C., Jenkinson, M., & Smith, S. (2003). General multi-level linear modelling for group analysis in FMRI. Neuroimage, 20, 1052–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beckmann, C., & Smith, S. (2004). Probabilistic independent component analysis for functional magnetic resonance imaging. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 23, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berninger, V. (1987). Global, component, and serial processing of printed words in beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 43, 387–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berninger, V. (2001). Process assessment of the learner (PAL) test battery for reading and writing. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  9. Berninger, V. (2007). Process assessment of the learner, 2nd edition. Diagnostic for reading and writing (PAL-II RW). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation/Pearson.Google Scholar
  10. Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Augsburger, A., & Garcia, N. (2009a). Comparison of pen and keyboard transcription modes in children with and without learning disabilities affecting transcription. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 123–141.Google Scholar
  11. Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Rogan, L., Reed, E., Abbott, S., Brooks, A., et al. (1998). Teaching spelling to children with specific learning disabilities: The mind’s ear and eye beat the computer or pencil. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 106–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Whitaker, D., Sylvester, L., & Nolen, S. (1995). Integrating low-level skills and high-level skills in treatment protocols for writing disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berninger, V., Cartwright, A., Yates, C., Swanson, H. L., & Abbott, R. (1994). Developmental skills related to writing and reading acquisition in the intermediate grades: Shared and unique variance. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 161–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Berninger, V., Dunn, A., Lin, S., & Shimada, S. (2004). School evolution: Scientist-practitioner educators creating optimal learning environments for ALL students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 500–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Berninger, V., & Fayol, M. (2008). Why spelling is important and how to teach it effectively. http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca/On-Line Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy Development. National Centres for Excellence Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network (CLLRNet). (Published online: 2008-01-22 14:57:52).
  16. Berninger, V., & Fuller, F. (1992). Gender differences in orthographic, verbal, and compositional fluency: Implications for diagnosis of writing disabilities in primary grade children. Journal of School Psychology, 30, 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Berninger, V., Raskind, W., Richards, T., Abbott, R., & Stock, P. (2008). A multidisciplinary approach to understanding developmental dyslexia within working-memory architecture: Genotypes, phenotypes, brain, and instruction. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 707–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Berninger, V., & Richards, T. (2002). Brain literacy for educators and psychologists. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Berninger, V., & Richards, T. (2009). Brain and learning. In E. Anderman & L. Anderman (Eds.), Psychology of classroom learning: An encyclopedia (Vol. 1, pp. 15–22). Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA.Google Scholar
  20. Berninger, V., Richards, T., & Abbott, R. (2009b). The role of the hand in written idea expression. Proceedings for Writing in all its states. In D. Alamargot, J. Bouchand, E. Lambert, V. Millogo, & C. Beaudet (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference « de la France au Québec: l'Ecriture dans tous ses états », University of Poitiers, France, 12–15 November 2008. http://www.poitou-charentes.iufm.fr/spip.php?article1048.
  21. Berninger, V., Richards, T., Stock, P., Abbott, R., Trivedi, P., Altemeier, L., et al. (2009c). fMRI activation related to nature of ideas generated and differences between good and poor writers during idea generation. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II, 6, 77–93.Google Scholar
  22. Berninger, V., & Rutberg, J. (1992). Relationship of finger function to beginning writing: Application to diagnosis of writing disabilities. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 34, 198–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Berninger, V., Rutberg, J., Abbott, R., Garcia, N., Anderson-Youngstrom, M., Brooks, A., et al. (2006). Tier 1 and Tier 2 early intervention for handwriting and composing. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., Brooks, A., Rogan, L., et al. (1997). Treatment of handwriting fluency problems in beginning writing: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 652–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Berninger, V., Yates, C., Cartwright, A., Rutberg, J., Remy, E., & Abbott, R. (1992). Lower-level developmental skills in beginning writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Berninger, V., Yates, C., & Lester, K. (1991). Multiple orthographic codes in acquisition of reading and writing skills. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3, 115–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Brain, L. (1967). Speech disorders: Aphasia, apraxia, and agnosia. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
  28. Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Specialization within the ventral stream: The case for the visual word form area. Neuroimage, 22, 466–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cohen, L., Lehéricy, S., Chhochon, F., Lemer, C., Rivaud, S., & Dehaene, S. (2002). Language-specific tuning of visual cortex? Functional properties of the visual word form area. Brain, 125, 1054–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Connelly, V., Campbell, S., MacLean, M., & Barnes, J. (2006). Contribution of lower-order skills to the written composition of college students with and without dyslexia. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dehane, S., Le Clec’H, G., Poline, J.-B., Bihan, D., & Cohen, L. (2002). The visual word form area: A prelexical representation of visual words in the fusiform gyrus. Brain Imaging, 13, 321–325.Google Scholar
  32. Demie, F. (2001). Ethnic and gender differences in educational achievement and implications for school improvement strategies. Educational Research, 43, 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dunn, A., & Miller, D. (2009). Who can speak for the children? Implementing research-based practices in an urban school district. In S. Rosenfield & V. Berninger (Eds.), Implementing evidence-based interventions in school settings (pp. 385–414). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Fayol, M. (1994). From declarative and procedural knowledge to the management of declarative and procedural knowledge. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 9, 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fayol, M. (1999). From on-line management problems to strategies in written production. In M. Torrance & G. Jefferey (Eds.), The cognitive demands of writing. Processing capacity and working memory effects in text production (pp. 13–23). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Fayol, M. (2008). Toward a dynamic conception of written production. In Presentation at the Santa Barbara conference on writing research: Writing research across borders. Santa Barbara, CA.Google Scholar
  37. Fayol, M., Jisa, H., & Mazur-Palandre, A. (2008). Information flow in written and spoken French: A developmental perspective.In Presentation at the Santa Barbara conference on writing research: Writing research across borders. Santa Barbara, CA.Google Scholar
  38. Garner, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Garner, W. R. (1976). Interaction of stimulus dimensions in concept and choice processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 98–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Garner, W. R. (1981). The role of configuration in the identification of visually degraded words. Memory & Cognition, 9, 445–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Garner, W. R., Hake, H. W., & Eriksen, C. W. (1956). Operationism and the concept of perception. Psychological Review, 63, 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., & Whitaker, D. (1997). The role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 170–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Weintraub, N. (1998). The relationship of handwriting style and speed and legibility. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 290–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Graham, S., Harris, K., & Fink, B. (2000). Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 620–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 7–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hayes, J. R. (2009). From idea to text. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, M. Nystrand, & J. Riley (Eds.), SAGE handbook of writing development (in press).Google Scholar
  47. Hayes, J. R., & Berninger, V. (2009). Relationships between idea generation and transcription: How act of writing shapes what children write. In C. Braverman, R. Krut, K. Lunsford, S. McLeod, S. Null, P. Rogers, & A. Stansell (Eds.), Traditions of writing research. New York: Routledge (in press).Google Scholar
  48. Hayes, J. R., & Chenoweth, N. (2006). Is working memory involved in the transcribing and editing of texts? Written Communication, 23, 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinbert (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  50. Hillis, A. E., Wityk, R. J., Barker, P. B., & Caramazza, A. (2003). Neural regions essential for writing verbs. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 19–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hoeft, F., Ueno, T., Reiss, A.L., Meyler, A., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Glover, G., et al. (2009). Prediction of children’s reading skills using behavioral, functional, and structural neuroimaging measures. Behavioral Neuroscience (in press).Google Scholar
  52. James, K. H., & Gauthier, I. (2006). Letter processing automatically recruits a sensory–motor brain network. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2937–2949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jenkinson, M., Bannister, P., Brady, M., & Smith, S. (2002). Improved optimisation for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. Neuroimage, 17, 825–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jenkinson, M., & Smith, S. (2001). A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images. Medical Image Analysis, 5, 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Jones, D. (2004). Automaticity of the transcription process in the production of written text. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Education, University of Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
  56. Jones, D., & Cristensen, C. (1999). The relationship between automaticity in handwriting and students’ ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Joseph, J., Gathers, A., & Piper, G. (2003). Shared and dissociated cortical regions for object and letter processing. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 56–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Longcamp, M., Anton, J. L., Roth, M., & Velay, J. L. (2003). Visual presentation of single letters activates a premotor area involved in writing. Neuroimage, 19, 1492–1500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Longcamp, M., Boucard, C., Gilhodes, J.-C., Anton, J.-L., Roth, M., Nazarian, B., et al. (2008). Learning through hand- or typewriting influences visual recognition of new graphic shapes: Behavioral and functional imaging evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 802–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Longcamp, M., Zerbato-Puodou, M., Velay, J. L. (2005). The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in preschool children: A comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta Psychologia, 119, 67–79. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Martin, D., & Hoover, H. (1987). Sex differences in educational achievement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 7, 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. (2002). Concurrent activation of high- and low-level production processes in written composition. Memory & Cognition, 30, 594–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Peverley, S. (2006). The importance of handwriting speed in adult writing. Implications for automaticity and working memory. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Psychological Corporation. (2002). Wechsler individual achievement test (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  65. Richards, T., Aylward, E., Berninger, V., Field, K., Parsons, A., Richards, A., et al. (2006). Individual fMRI activation in orthographic mapping and morpheme mapping after orthographic or morphological spelling treatment in child dyslexics. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 19, 56–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Richards, T., Berninger, V., & Fayol, M. (2009a). FMRI activation differences between 11-year-old good and poor spellers’ access in working memory to temporary and long-term orthographic representations. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22, 327–353. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Richards, T., Berninger, V., Nagy, W., Parsons, A., Field, K., & Richards, A. (2005). Brain activation during language task contrasts in children with and without dyslexia: Inferring mapping processes and assessing response to spelling instruction. Educational and Child Psychology, 22(2), 62–80.Google Scholar
  68. Richards, T., Berninger, V., Stock, P., Altemeier, L., Trivedi, P., & Maravilla, K. (2009b). fMRI sequential-finger movement activation differentiating good and poor writers. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29, 1–17. doi:10.1080/13803390902780201.Google Scholar
  69. Richards, T., Berninger, V., Winn, W., Swanson, H. L., Stock, P., Liang, O., et al. (2009c). Differences in fMRI activation between children with and without spelling disability on 2-back/0-back working memory contrast. Journal of Writing Research, 1(2), 93–123. (Journal of Writing Research is an open access peer reviewed journal available online: Download the articles from the JOWR-website).Google Scholar
  70. Rieben, L., Ntamakiliro, L., Gonthier, B., & Fayol, M. (2005). Effects of various early writing practices on reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sakurai, Y., Onuma, Y., Nakazawa, G., Ugawa, Y., Momose, T., Tsuji, S., et al. (2007). Parietal dysgraphia: Characterization of abnormal writing stroke sequences, character formation, and character recall. Behavioral Neurology, 18, 99–114.Google Scholar
  72. Seitz, R., Canavan, A., Yaguez, L., Herzog, H., Tellman, L., Knorr, U., et al. (1997). Representations of graphomotor trajectories in the human parietal cortex: Evidence for controlled processing and automatic performance. European Journal Neuroscience, 9, 378–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shmuel, A., Augath, M., Oeltermann, A., & Logothetis, N. (2006). Negative functional MRI response correlates with decreases in neuronal activity in moneky visual area V1. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 569–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Smith, S. (2002). Fast robust automated brain extraction. Human Brain Mapping, 17, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Swanson, H. L., & Berninger, V. (1996). Individual differences in children’s working memory and writing skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 358–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tan, L., Spinks, J., Eden, G., Perfetti, C., & Siok, W. (2005). Reading depends on writing, in Chinese. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 8781–8785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children, 4th edition (WISC IV). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  78. Woolrich, M. W., Ripley, B. D., Brady, J. M., & Smith, S. M. (2001). Temporal autocorrelation in univariate linear modeling of FMRI data. Neuroimage, 14, 1370–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Worsley, K. J., Evans, A. C., Marrett, S., & Neelin, P. (1992). A three-dimensional statistical analysis for CBF activation studies in human brain. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, 12, 900–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Todd L. Richards
    • 1
  • Virginia W. Berninger
    • 2
  • Pat Stock
    • 2
  • Leah Altemeier
    • 2
  • Pamala Trivedi
    • 2
  • Kenneth R. Maravilla
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations