Functional magnetic resonance imaging sequential-finger movement activation differentiating good and poor writers

Richards, Todd L.; Berninger, Virginia W.; Stock, Pat; Altemeier, Leah; Trivedi, Pamala; Maravilla, K R

doi:10.1080/13803390902780201

Cited by 32 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also of interest, several of these learning activities involving ordering words in sentences or other syntax units were also related to spelling outcomes, consistent with sequencing of elements being related to spelling (Richards et al, 2009) and value of teaching to both the word and syntax levels of language in the same lessons.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…However, the nature of the user-computer interface may be different for typically developing writers and those with SLDs affecting writing in upper elementary and middle school. For example, students with dysgraphia (Richards, Berninger, Stock, Altemeier, Trivedi, & Maravilla, 2009) have been shown to have specific difficulty in sequential finger movements, which are needed for writing with pen and paper and keyboard.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Computer instruction in handwriting, spelling, and composing for students with specific learning disabilities in grades 4–9

Berninger

Nagy

Tanimoto

et al. 2015

Computers & Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effectiveness of iPad computerized writing instruction was evaluated for 4th to 9th graders (n=35) with diagnosed specific learning disabilities (SLDs) affecting writing: dysgraphia (impaired handwriting), dyslexia (impaired spelling), and oral and written language learning disability (OWL LD) (impaired syntax composing). Each of the 18 two-hour lessons had multiple learning activities aimed at improving subword- (handwriting), word- (spelling), and syntax- (sentence composing) level language skills by engaging all four language systems (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) to create a functional writing system. To evaluate treatment effectiveness, normed measures of handwriting, spelling, and composing were used with the exception of one non-normed alphabet writing task. Results showed that the sample as a whole improved significantly from pretest to posttest in three handwriting measures, four spelling measures, and both written and oral syntax construction measures. All but oral syntax was evaluated with pen and paper tasks, showing that the computer writing instruction transferred to better writing with pen and paper. Performance on learning activities during instruction correlated with writing outcomes; and individual students tended to improve in the impaired skill associated with their diagnosis. Thus, although computers are often used in upper elementary school and middle school in the United States (US) for accommodations (alternatives to pen and paper) for students with persisting SLDs affecting writing, this study shows computers can also be used for Tier 3 instruction to improve the writing skills of students in grades 4 to 9 with history of persisting writing disabilities.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer instruction in handwriting, spelling, and composing for students with specific learning disabilities in grades 4–9

Berninger

Nagy

Tanimoto

et al. 2015

Computers & Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings provide converging validation of brain-behavior relationships between left fusiform and orthographic coding during middle childhood. Both behavioral measures, which have been shown in prior research to explain unique variance in handwriting and composing skills (e.g., Abbott & Berninger, 1993), participate in the orthographic loop that integrates internal written word representations with writing their constituent letters via the hand (and sequential finger movements) in the external environment (see Berninger et al, 2006;Berninger, Raskind, Richards, Abbott, & Stock, 2008;Richards et al, 2009b). Thus, the final hypothesis tested examined whether this brain-behavior relationship between left fusiform and expressive orthographic coding might be relevant for higher-order composing.…”

Section: Writing Highly Practiced Letters Automaticallymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the next step, for these exact clusters, the individual z-scores were averaged for each individual after the brain was co-registered to the standard brain. We have used individual brain analyses in the past to compute correlations for the purpose of identifying and validating brain-behavior relationships in writing (e.g., Richards, Berninger, & Fayol, 2009a;Richards, Berninger, Stock, Altemeier, Trivedi, & Maravilla, 2009b).…”

Section: Poor Writersmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Compared with men, women are thought to be better writers; however fMRI does not show significant differences in brain activation for either sex while writing. 9 The same study found significant differences between good and poor writers while handwriting, mostly in brain regions involved with planning for serial finger movements. The opposite of writer's block is also known to occur, and it can be temporary or affect an individual all of his or her life.…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Writer's Block

Castillo¹

2013

American Journal of Neuroradiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional magnetic resonance imaging sequential-finger movement activation differentiating good and poor writers

Cited by 32 publications

References 35 publications

Computer instruction in handwriting, spelling, and composing for students with specific learning disabilities in grades 4–9

Computer instruction in handwriting, spelling, and composing for students with specific learning disabilities in grades 4–9

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

Writer's Block

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About