The influence of sensory-motor components of handwriting on Chinese character learning in second- and fourth-grade Chinese children.

Abstract

In the present study, 144 second- and 150 fourth-grade Chinese students were recruited to complete a Chinese character learning task to explore the specific contributions of sensory-motor components (i.e., visual, motor, and haptic systems) of handwriting to Chinese character learning. After matching for age, nonverbal IQ, and a series of cognitive-linguistic skills, each child was assigned to 1 of 4 training conditions (i.e., reading, visual processing, air-writing, or handwriting) to investigate the specific contributions of the sensory-motor components (i.e., visual, motor, and haptic systems) of handwriting to Chinese character learning. In the reading condition, the children were shown images of characters. In the other 3 conditions, they were shown animations of how a given character is written. The participants were asked to view the animations in the visual processing condition, whereas in the air-writing and handwriting conditions they were asked, respectively, to follow the animations and write the Chinese characters with their index fingers in the air or write the Chinese characters with a pen on paper. They were asked to name the learnt characters in the posttest. Both air-writing and handwriting elicited a larger training effect than reading or visual processing, but there was no difference between the air-writing and handwriting groups. Also, no age differences were found in either the air-writing or the handwriting conditions. Unique contributions of visual-motor integration, motor programming, and their corresponding integration with a haptic system of handwriting to reading are discussed.

From Hand to Eye With the Devil In-Between: Which Cognitive Mechanisms Underpin the Benefit From Handwriting Training When Learning Visual Graphs?

“…Adults learning Chinese as second language also showed larger post-training gains in hanzi categorization, not only after HW training, but also after training in an animation condition, where stroke order was presented unfolding but without a motor action involved (Xu et al, 2013). Furthermore, the post-training gains in graph naming by 2ndgrade Chinese children were similar (and larger than in control training) after HW training as after kusho training (air-writing training; Xu et al, 2020). Additionally, fluent adult readers of logographic scripts like Chinese or Japanese often adopt kusho and show better identification of decomposed kanjis when simultaneously doing kusho than when writing circles in the air or holding still (Itaguchi et al, 2015).…”

“…Note, however that such flexible expression already suggests that stroke processing might not be a core operation. This mechanism is also incompatible with the observation of a benefit from HW training after a single training session of less than 20 min by preliterate children (e.g., Li and James, 2016;Guan and Wang, 2017) and of larger gains in post-training graph recognition in learners who are naïve to graphs or have less reading experience (Williams, 1969;Xu et al, 2020). Regarding the temporal course of a putative top-down effect of stroke processing during visual graph recognition, such effect would occur at a later time-window, whose assessment implies the adoption of high-temporal resolution methods as eye movement recordings or electroencephalography (EEG).…”

“…This observation also highlights a second loose end of this topic of research, which regards whether post-training gains in new (unknown) graphs by literate participants would generalize to those elicited in preliterate or illiterate participants (Naka and Naoi, 1995;Xu et al, 2020;Vinci-Booher and James, 2020;Vinci-Booher et al, 2021). This loose end is not specific to the stroke processing hypothesis, given that other accounts have also provided evidence with learners that had prior reading expertise in another script Vinci-Booher et al, 2021).…”

“…However, fMRI evidence is correlational. It does not provide a causal explanation per se and neither does the mere reference to action-perception coupling due to brain-body-environment interaction (e.g., Longcamp et al, 2006;James and Atwood, 2009;Bara and Gentaz, 2011;Labat et al, 2020;Xu et al, 2020). To go beyond observation, it is necessary to bridge the evidence with psychological processes and mechanisms (Norris and Cutler, 2021).…”

“…Specifically, post-training gains in visual graph recognition seem to be larger for children with less reading skills (Williams, 1969;Xu et al, 2020). Second-grade readers showed the same large post-training gains after HW as after kusho training and only for 4th-graders HW training was no longer as effective as kusho training (Xu et al, 2020). More important, when preliterate children (without pre-training knowledge) and firstgrade beginning readers were trained on graphs (letter-like), only preliterate children showed larger post-training gains after HW than after a control training, whereas first-graders did not show any effect of type of training.…”