Cited by 270Reading and Literacy DevelopmentTactile and Sensory InteractionsVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Sensori-motor experience leads to changes in visual processing in the developing brain

Open access
James, Karin Harman·2010·Developmental Science

Abstract

Since Broca’s studies on language processing, cortical functional specialization has been considered to be integral to efficient neural processing. A fundamental question in cognitive neuroscience concerns the type of learning that is required for functional specialization to develop. To address this issue with respect to the development of neural specialization for letters, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to compare brain activation patterns in pre‐school children before and after different letter‐learning conditions: a sensori‐motor group practised printing letters during the learning phase, while the control group practised visual recognition. Results demonstrated an overall left‐hemisphere bias for processing letters in these pre‐literate participants, but, more interestingly, showed enhanced blood oxygen‐level‐dependent activation in the visual association cortex during letter perception only after sensori‐motor (printing) learning. It is concluded that sensori‐motor experience augments processing in the visual system of pre‐school children. The change of activation in these neural circuits provides important evidence that ‘learning‐by‐doing’ can lay the foundation for, and potentially strengthen, the neural systems used for visual letter recognition.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00883.x

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Handwriting provides a concurrent spatiotemporal pattern from vision, motor commands, and proprioceptive feedback through fine hand and finger movements.

    “The concurrent spatiotemporal pattern from vision, motor commands, and proprioceptive feedback provided through fine hand and finger movements, is lacking in typewriting, where only a simple key press is required to produce the entire wanted form (Longcamp et al., 2006; James, 2010; Vinci-Booher et al., 2016, 2021).”

    From Handwriting but not typewriting leads to widespread brain connectivity: a high-density EEG study with implications for the classroom (2024) · cites this paper as James, 2010

    The Discussion (page not provided) says printing couples visual and motor systems and reports that writing and typing training recruited different neural substrates. It does not describe a concurrent spatiotemporal pattern, proprioceptive feedback, or fine hand and finger movements, nor does it explain typing as a single key press producing the whole form. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Typewriting lacks the concurrent spatiotemporal pattern from vision, motor commands, and proprioceptive feedback.

    “The concurrent spatiotemporal pattern from vision, motor commands, and proprioceptive feedback provided through fine hand and finger movements, is lacking in typewriting, where only a simple key press is required to produce the entire wanted form (Longcamp et al., 2006; James, 2010; Vinci-Booher et al., 2016, 2021).”

    From Handwriting but not typewriting leads to widespread brain connectivity: a high-density EEG study with implications for the classroom (2024) · cites this paper as James, 2010

    The Discussion says printing couples visual and motor systems and reports that writing and typing recruit different neural substrates, suggesting different types of sensori-motor training. It does not specify a concurrent pattern of visual, motor-command, and proprioceptive feedback, or explain the difference as a single key press producing the whole form. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Bader LA Bader Reading and Language inventory 2005 Merrill Prentice Hall New York
  2. James KH Atwood TP Active motor experience changes neural activation patterns to letter-like symbols. Cognitive Neuropsychology 2009 26 91 110 18830859
  3. Piaget J The origins of intellegence in the child 1953 Routledge and Kegan Paul London

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
James, K. H.
Affiliations
Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Corresponding author
James, Karin Harman
Venue
Developmental Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-02-02
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
279-288
ISSN
  • 1363-755X (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-7687
OpenAlex
W2107057632
Cited by
269
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 13
FWCI
18.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Developmental Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Lilly Endowment
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD057077)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
alphabet learning, visual association cortex, preschool children, hands-on learning, neural development, writing practices, reading development
MeSH terms
Brain, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Language Development, Functional Laterality, Learning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Reading, Visual Cortex, Visual Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review