The incidence of visual-motor processes in the acquisition of orthographic representations in Spanish-speaking schoolchildren (La incidencia de los procesos perceptivo-motrices en la adquisición de las representaciones ortográficas en escolares hispanoparlante)

Abstract

This study analyses the relative incidence of visual-motor processes compared to other cognitive processes involved in spelling, to understand its relevance in orthography acquisition in school-aged children when contextual variables are controlled for and there has been explicit instruction. A sample of 96 students between third and sixth grade of primary education was divided into two groups according to their spelling performance (low and high performance). They were all assessed in rapid naming, vocabulary, visual and auditory working memory, visual-motor integration and intelligence. Results show that visual-motor integration and auditory working memory differentiate the low and high performance groups, being the variables that best predict spelling. The relationship between auditory working memory and visual-motor integration appears to establish when the word is being incorporated into the child’s lexicon. These results have important educational implications referred to teaching spelling through handwriting when its use is being debated against the use of digital technologies for writing acquisition.

A Role for Visual Memory in Vocabulary Development: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The corresponding authors of five studies were contacted to provide further information for data extraction and synthesis; of these, four authors were contacted regarding participant information (Evans et al, 2008 ; Montoya et al, 2019 ; Palombo & Cuadro, 2020 ; Wilson et al, 2018 ), and one author was contacted for additional detail regarding their chosen vocabulary measure (Yoo & Yim, 2018 ). Three authors responded and provided the requested information (Evans et al, 2008 ; Montoya et al, 2019 ; Palombo & Cuadro, 2020 ) and no response was received from the other two authors (Wilson et al, 2018 ; Yoo & Yim, 2018 ). Information regarding the vocabulary measures from Yoo and Yim ( 2018 ) was ultimately able to be sourced from other papers using the same measure.…”

“…Then, they are shown a second array and are asked to identify the items from the first array in the same order (left-right). STM Visuospatial Concurrent Item Recognition & Span Y Palombo and Cuadro ( 2020 ) Visual Matrix, Swanson Cognitive Processing Test; Swanson ( 1996 ) Participants are presented with a series of dots in a matrix for 5-seconds. The matrix is then removed, and the participant is asked a ‘process question’ (e.g., how many dots in the first column?).…”

A Role for Visual Memory in Vocabulary Development: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The corresponding authors of five studies were contacted to provide further information for data extraction and synthesis; of these, four authors were contacted regarding participant information (Evans et al, 2008;Montoya et al, 2019;Palombo & Cuadro, 2020;Wilson et al, 2018), and one author was contacted for additional detail regarding their chosen vocabulary measure (Yoo & Yim, 2018). Three authors responded and provided the requested information (Evans et al, 2008;Montoya et al, 2019;Palombo & Cuadro, 2020) and no response was received from the other two authors (Wilson et al, 2018;Yoo & Yim, 2018). Information regarding the vocabulary measures from Yoo and Yin (2018) was ultimately able to be sourced from other papers using the same measure.…”

“…Given our specific interest in the types of visual memory tasks used, the second additional quality measure considered whether the authors of the included studies justified their choice of a particular visual memory tasks (e.g., reliability, validity, known association with other variables of interest, previous research, links to neuroscientific understanding of visual processing). Eleven studies provided a justification for their choice of visual memory task: three referenced previous research on a similar topic using the same visual memory task (Critten et al, 2018;Senese et al, 2020;Yoo & Yim, 2018), three referenced reliability and/or validity of their visual memory task in a relevant population (Barbosa et al, 2017;Evans et al, 2008;Palombo & Cuadro, 2020), two referenced manipulating aspects of their tasks, such as choosing colours that were easy or not easy to verbalise (Laws, 2002) or manipulating the memory load on a visual perception task (Williams et al, 1977), one referenced a known association with their outcome variable (Meneghetti et al, 2020), one designed a new task to be appropriate for their age-range (Stokes et al, 2017), and one referenced specifically assessing different aspects of memory (e.g., storage versus storage plus manipulation of information in working memory; Blom et al, 2014). No study provided a justification that related back to aspects of visual processing (e.g., why a spatial task was chosen over a visuo-perceptual task, or vice versa).…”

“…One study (Obeid & Brooks, 2018) required participants to recall both spatial and visuo-perceptual (colour) features of a presented array, and compare this to a second array (change detection). The remaining six studies (Critten et al, 2018;Evans et al, 2008;Laws, 2002;Palombo & Cuadro, 2020;Séguin et al, 2009;Williams et al, 1977) with eight datapoints examined visuo-perceptual concurrent array tasks, where the participant was required to recall perceptual details of the presented stimuli (e.g., different objects or colours). All eight tasks required participants to view an array with several perceptually different objects (or colours), and then recognise those items from a larger array (including distractors).…”