To try to isolate the different brain regions involved in reading, Dehaene and his colleagues measured Chinese and French readers' response times in recognizing words on a screen. But unbeknown to the subjects, their responses were being subtly manipulated by a process called priming, in which other words or word-like symbols appear for just 50 milliseconds before the target word is shown — too briefly for the subjects to register the ‘primes’ consciously.
These subliminal images can assist or hinder the recognition process by tampering with the visual or the gestural reading system. For example, the priming word could be the target word written backwards — this slows the recognition process by disrupting the gestural reading system. Or flashing the same target word assists recognition when it is shown properly later.
The researchers found that both the VWFA and Exner’s area were indeed activated in French and Chinese subjects. But there were cultural differences: for example, the effects of gestural direction were stronger for the Chinese.
Frith says that harnessing the gestural system more in education might help young children with reading. “So far the motor decoding side has been rather neglected in reading education,” she says.
This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on November 26, 2012.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentThis research appears to skip over the different 'bottlenecks' to code processing that the writing systems impose - particularly as it relates to 'learning to read' rather than comparing already competent readers. The 'bottleneck' I refer to is the time it takes the brain to process through the 'code-ambiguity' - the single biggest processing bog (for most) when learning to read 'deeper' alphabetic scripts (such as French and English). For more: http://goo.gl/C2aGV and http://goo.gl/ODFbT
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis study curiously seems to identify from fMRI studies of reading only the correlate between visual symbol identification and motor reproduction. Yet the most crucial element of reading seems to have been overlooked. Surely much of the brain activity produced by reading a known language must be involved with extracting abstract meaning from the encoded symbols! There's so much more involved with reading comprehension than simple symbol recognition! How could the researchers have possibly overlooked this activity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing both a native english speaker and being taught Japanese, i really have not found any real difference with reading and writing with ease of reading, comprehension and ease of writing. Granted Japanese uses both Chinese characters and an alphabet, I actualy find it easier to read kanji, than kanji written phonetically in hiragana.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsidering how easy it was to learn to use Kanji in writing, the brain is most likely processing all writing the same way. After all, "Writing this sentence" in english involved 20 letters, printed with 35 strokes of the pen. この文を書いている in japanese using two kanji was actually about 30 strokes of the pen. Basically the same and to me both are equally the same in effort, comprehension speed and visual recognition.
It would have been interesting if they included in this study people who do in fact read and write in multiple languages to see what their brains are doing.
It is worth pointing out that the main features of this result of Dehaene's is already well known. See Crinion J, et al. Language control in the bilingual brain. Science (2006) Jun 9;312(5779):1537-40.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is deplorable when eminent scientists fail to perform proper literature searches.
It makes evolutionary sense to 'view' (virtually that is), and then 're-view' (symbol-wise) with our deepest-seated sensory apps in our brain, which MUST date back to our rather speechless past, shared with other primates!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe niceties of writing systems in different languages are only like a late cultural 'varnish' on a very old
system, rooted in our limbic pre-language touchy/feely/movie department. "I think therefore I am!" seems like an afterthought, when we are 'coming to our to our senses'. The metaphysical poets were said to have had 'their intellect at the tips of their senses', as somebody put it.Talking of 'put', isn't it remarkable how our language is a web of metaphorical imagery?
I had to learn Greek letters fast in order to study ancient Greek, and to my surprise it soon became a rather empirical/instinctive skill.
We can compare the Roman number system with the Arab one: Three strokes: 'III' makes '3'- we can even call it 'alphabetical/numerical' versus 'symbolical'.
But no doubt a Roman brain must have processed the meaning of 'three', or rather, 'tres', in the same region as an Indian/Arab, or us, for that matter!
We still tend to use our fingers when counting; it involves primeval digital motion.
As a former language teacher, I have found that gesticulating helps enormously when we are searching for a better expression! No wonder the ancient art of rhetoric relied on the right movement of the speaker' s hands! The 'hands-on' approach covers all our most human achievements - from writing to playing music, or tennis,
or anything - manipulation ( meaning:literally, hand movement) included!
The content would probably light up different parts of the brain, depending on the content. What the researchers were probably looking for is areas that light up consistently. The purpose being to understand what areas are involved in the "process" of reading. The content is separate from the process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow! It actually took a formal study to point out that reading and interpreting language of two differing styles uses the same part of the brain. Reading is the same activity no matter what the subject matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this