It has long been debated
whether the neural circuits for reading in, say, French, which is an alphabetic
language, and in Chinese, which is a logographic language, are radically different.
Previous studies had
suggested that there was a radical difference but Stanislas Dehaene and
colleagues have published a paper in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, US, indicating
otherwise, provided that cross-cultural confounds are controlled for. One such
confound is the great memory load needed for Chinese characters. More
precisely, they used dynamic handwritten stimuli in a cursive style rather than
letter strings with a static roman typography such as that you are reading in
now. It is suggested that a fast neural pathway automatically recovers the
intended visually perceived handwritten traces in both languages.
At the microscopic level, as
would be expected, restricted neural networks are found better tuned to
specific graphic shapes and sounds for the different languages but at the
macroscopic level their findings suggest universal mechanisms in pre-existing
innate networks. In fact there are two networks: one for the analysis of shape
and another which decodes motor gestures. A motor memory for writing in Chinese
is not specific to that culture because it also plays a general role in the
acquisition of literacy in French; however it is more activated in Chinese than
in French presumably owing to the fact that the Chinese have to memorize a huge
number of characters. The environment, that is teaching, then fine-tunes and
balances these networks specifically for each language as literacy is taught.
Culture does matter but the brain is plastic and adaptable, significantly more
so in children.
Take-home message for teachers: These experiments lend strong support for
multisensory methods of teaching, especially for children with dyslexia.
Stanislas Dehaene is a
speaker at the forthcoming Oxford-Kobe conference.
* December
12, Volume 109, pages 20762 - 20767
In both French and Chinese a
character may be presented whole or a compound of dynamic movements. For
instance, ‘a’ is in fact written in a
different way with a forward movement first to form the arc and then a backward
movement to complete the upright. Chinese characters are also formed with
forward and backward movements but the researchers were attempting to discover
what happens when this effect is shown dynamically rather than when the complete
character is presented statically.
The subjects were in France,
near Paris, and Taiwan, where a modified form of Mandarin Chinese is spoken.
Complex combinations of tests were run in two types of experiment. The first, a
behavioural test, used a research paradigm known as ‘priming’. A stimulus is
flashed briefly on a screen, followed by a mask then a target character or word
presented statically or dynamically and reaction times recorded. The quicker
reaction time shows that the target has been swiftly detected. The second type
deployed functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to capture areas of the
brain activated by specific tasks. This method is not used to determine the
speed of the reaction but where it is taking place.
The conclusions of the
studies are as follows.
There was support for the
view that the brain uses motor patterns of hand-writing gestures in order to
perceive the shapes of letters.
There is a distributed
network of regions in the brain, which is fast, automatic and is activated in
fluent reading. There is no difference across different cultures.
Interestingly, elements of this network are also found in the perception of
hand movements in non-human primates, indicating a long lineage for this
ability.
In summary, when the expert
reading network has been well trained it actually uses two distinct pathways in
all cultures but with fine-grained modifications depending on the orthography.
There is a visual word-from area, ‘reading by eye’, and another area in a
specific area that decodes gestures, ‘reading by hand’. The authors write:
‘… recent developmental
data show that reading acquisition is facilitated when young children are
taught to write or finger-trace the letter shapes compared with classical grapho-phonemic
teaching without a haptic [touch] component ... Conversely, fMRI of normal and
dyslexic children also suggests that reading difficulties lead to a greater reliance
on [a specific area in the left hemisphere], suggesting partial compensation
through the gesture system ...’