Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 523–542 | Cite as

Character reversal in children: the prominent role of writing direction

Article

Abstract

Recent research has established that 5- to 6-year-old typically developing children in a left–right writing culture spontaneously reverse left-oriented characters (e.g., they write Open image in new window instead of J) when they write single characters. Thus, children seem to implicitly apply a right-writing rule (RWR: see Fischer & Koch, 2016a). In Study 1, the reversal of all asymmetrical digits and capital letters by 356 children was modeled with a simple Rasch model, which describes reversal as the outcome of two competing responses, correct writing and writing in the cultural direction of writing. It accounts for the high frequency of reversals of the left-oriented characters (3, Z, J, 1, 2, 7, 9), as predicted by the RWR. Study 2 investigated letter reversals when children spontaneously write their name from right to left. Most of the 204 children in the study radically changed the direction of the RWR by reversing mainly the right-oriented letters (B, C, D, E, F, G, K, L, N, P, R, S). Hence, a more universal formulation of the RWR would be as an implicit rule orienting characters in the writing direction. This reformulated rule is consistent with the “spatial agency bias” model (Suitner & Maas, 2016), according to which writing direction affects thoughts and actions. Visual and motoric statistical learning may favor bootstrapping of the rule. Taken together, these data demonstrate the prominent role of culture in a phenomenon—character reversal or mirror writing—which has often been presented uniquely as biologically determined.

Keywords

Mirror writing Writing direction Capital letter reversal Digit reversal Rasch model 

References

  1. Andersen, E. B. (1973). A goodness of fit test for the Rasch model. Psychometrika, 38, 123–140. doi:10.1007/BF02291180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Casasanto, D., & Bottini, R. (2014). Mirror reading can reverse the flow of time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 473–479. doi:10.1037/a0033297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chokron, S., Bartolomeo, P., Perenin, M. T., Helft, G., & Imbert, M. (1998). Scanning direction and line bisection: A study of normal subjects and unilateral neglect patients with opposite reading habits. Cognitive Brain Research, 7, 173–178. doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(98)00022-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chokron, S., & De Agostini, M. (2000). Reading habits influence aesthetic preference. Cognitive Brain Research, 10, 45–49. doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(00)00021-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christophe, A., Millotte, S., Bernal, S., & Lidz, J. (2008). Bootstrapping lexical and syntactic acquisition. Language and Speech, 51, 61–75. doi:10.1177/00238309080510010501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  7. Corballis, M. C., & Beale, I. L. (1976). The psychology of left and right. New York, NY: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Cornell, J. (1985). Spontaneous mirror-writing in children. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 39, 174–179. doi:10.1037/h0080122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dehaene, S. (2010). Reading in the brain. New York, NY: Penguin Viking.Google Scholar
  10. Erickson, L. C., & Thiessen, E. D. (2015). Statistical learning of language: Theory, validity, and predictions of a statistical learning account of language acquisition. Developmental Review, 37, 66–108. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2015.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischer, J. P. (2010). Vers une levée du mystère des écritures en miroir (des chiffres) chez l’enfant [Digit mirror-writing in children: Towards an unlocking of the mystery]. L’année psychologique, 110, 227–251. doi:10.4074/S0003503310002034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer, J. P. (2013). Digit reversal in children’s writing: A simple theory and its empirical validation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115, 356–370. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischer, J. P., & Koch, A. M. (2014). La magie computationnelle de la voie ventrale est-elle à l’origine de l’inversion des lettres et des chiffres chez l’enfant de cinq à six ans ? [Does the reversal of the letters and digits by the five to six-year-old child originate in the computational magic of the ventral stream?]. Revue de Neuropsychologie, 6, 230–237. doi:10.1684/nrp.2014.0318.Google Scholar
  14. Fischer, J. P., & Koch, A. M. (2016a). Mirror writing in 5- to 6-year-old children: The preferred hand is not the explanation. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 21, 34–49. doi:10.1080/1357650X.2015.1066383.Google Scholar
  15. Fischer, J. P., & Koch, A. M. (2016b). Mirror writing in typically developing children: A first longitudinal study. Cognitive Development, 38, 114–124. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2016.02.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer, J. P., & Tazouti, Y. (2012). Unraveling the mystery of mirror writing in typically developing children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 193–205. doi:10.1037/a0025735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flieller, A. (1994). Méthodes d’étude de l’adéquation au modèle logistique à un paramètre (modèle de Rasch) [Methods of assessment of Rasch’s model-data fit: A review]. Mathématiques et Sciences Humaines, 127, 19–47.Google Scholar
  18. Gordon, H. (1921). Left-handedness and mirror writing, especially among defective children. Brain, 43, 313–368. doi:10.1093/brain/43.4.313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hildreth, G. (1950). The development and training of hand dominance: IV. Developmental problems associated with handedness. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 76, 39–100. doi:10.1080/08856559.1950.10533526.Google Scholar
  20. Ireland, W. W. (1881). On mirror-writing and its relation to left-handedness and cerebral disease. Brain, 4, 361–367. doi:10.1093/brain/4.3.361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kiefer, T., Robitzsch, A., & Wu, M. (2016). Package ‘TAM’: Test analysis modules (version 1.16-0). Retrieved from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/TAM/TAM.pdf on February 6, 2016.
  22. Lebrun, Y., Devreux, F., & Leleux, C. (1989). Mirror-writing. In P. G. Aaron & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and writing disorders in different orthographic systems (pp. 355–378). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maass, A., Suitner, C., & Deconchy, J. P. (2014). Living in an asymmetrical world: How writing direction affects thought and action. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  24. Maass, A., Suitner, C., & Nadhmi, F. (2014). What drives the spatial agency bias? An Italian–Malagasy–Arabic comparison study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 991–996. doi:10.1037/a0034989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mair, P., & Hatzinger, R. (2007). Extended Rasch modeling: The eRm package for the application of IRT models in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(9), 1–20. doi:10.18637/jss.v020.i09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2013). Goodness-of-fit assessment of item response theory models. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 11(3), 71–101. doi:10.1080/15366367.2013.831680.Google Scholar
  27. McIntosh, R. D., & Della Sala, S. (2012). Mirror-writing. The Psychologist, 25, 742–746.Google Scholar
  28. Oosterhof, N. N., Wiggett, A. J., Diedrichsen, J., Tipper, S. P., & Downing, P. E. (2010). Surface-based information mapping reveals crossmodal vision-action representations in human parietal and occipitotemporal cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 104, 1077–1089. doi:10.1152/jn.00326.2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
  30. Ritchey, K. D. (2008). The building blocks of writing: Learning to write letters and spell words. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 27–47. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9063-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Román, A., Flumini, A., Lizano, P., Escobar, M., & Santiago, J. (2015). Reading direction causes spatial biases in mental model construction in language understanding. Scientific Reports, 5(18248), 1–8. doi:10.1038/srep18248.Google Scholar
  32. Scheidemann, N. V. (1936). Inverse writing: A case of consistent mirror writing. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 48, 489–494. doi:10.1080/08856559.1936.10533745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shuttleworth, S. (2010). The mind of the child: Child development in literature, science, and medicine, 1840–1900. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Spencer, M., Kaschak, M. P., Jones, J. L., & Lonigan, C. J. (2015). Statistical learning is related to early literacy-related skills. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 467–490. doi:10.1007/s11145-014-9533-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Suitner, C. (2009). Where to place social targets? Stereotyping and spatial agency bias. Retrieved from http://paduaresearch.cab.unipd.it/1756/1/tesi_suitner.pdf on April 8, 2016.
  36. Suitner, C., & Maass, A. (2016). Spatial agency bias: Representing people in space. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 245–301. doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thompson, B., Kirby, S., & Smith, K. (2016). Culture shapes the evolution of cognition. PNAS, 113, 4530–4535. doi:10.1073/pnas.1523631113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Treiman, R., & Allaith, Z. (2013). Do reading habits influence aesthetic preferences? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 1381–1386. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9424-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Treiman, R., Gordon, J., Boada, R., Peterson, R. L., & Pennington, B. F. (2014). Statistical learning, letter reversals, and reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 383–394. doi:10.1080/10888438.2013.873937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2011). Similarities among the shapes of writing and their effects on learning. Written Language and Literacy, 14, 39–57. doi:10.1075/wll.14.1.03tre.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilson, M., & De Boeck, P. (2004). Descriptive and explanatory item response models. In P. de Boeck & M. Wilson (Eds.), Explanatory item response models: A generalized linear and nonlinear approach (pp. 43–74). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.InterPsy LaboratoryUniversity LorraineNancy CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations