Knowledge Vault 3/58 - G.TEC BCI & Neurotechnology Spring School 2024 - Day 5
Alphabet reversal writing in children’s learning process: a study of
event-related potential in alerting, orienting, and inhibition
Ivy Jong Hui Ying, Universiti Sains Malaysia (MY)
<Resume Image >

Concept Graph & Resume using Claude 3 Opus | Chat GPT4 | Llama 3:

graph LR classDef malaysia fill:#f9d4d4, font-weight:bold, font-size:14px; classDef dysgraphia fill:#d4f9d4, font-weight:bold, font-size:14px; classDef attention fill:#d4d4f9, font-weight:bold, font-size:14px; classDef reversal fill:#f9f9d4, font-weight:bold, font-size:14px; classDef study fill:#f9d4f9, font-weight:bold, font-size:14px; A[Ivy Jong Hui Ying] --> B[Malaysia lacks dysgraphia data. 1] A --> C[Over 7s flipping letters:
learning difficulties, reading impairment. 2] A --> D[Visual attentional orienting deficit
causes dyslexia, impacts reading. 3] A --> E[4-6: normal reversal.
After 6: possible impairment. 4] E --> F[Reversal types: vertical,
horizontal, vertical/horizontal symmetry. 5] E --> G[Horizontal sensitivity: 4.
Left-right orientation: 5-7. 6] E --> H[Reversal hinders learning, reading. 7] H --> I[Malaysia reversal study difficult:
typical children, indirect priming. 8] H --> J[Reversal vs normal:
behavioral/neuronal attention unclear. 9] A --> K[Study: compare reversal/normal
attention network using EEG. 10] K --> L[Custom Children's Attention
Network Task ANT-C used. 11] K --> M[Executive function, self-regulation
crucial for challenging writing. 12] K --> N[Posner's attention model:
alerting, orienting, inhibition. 13] K --> O[ERP analysis: N100, N170, P300. 14] O --> P[N100: alerting/orienting. N170: visual.
P300: attention/language. 15] K --> Q[Objective: compare reaction times,
ERPs between groups. 16] K --> R[44 children: normal n=22,
reversal n=22 after screening. 17] K --> S[ANT-C: fish stimuli for
alerting, orienting, inhibition. 18] K --> T[16 EEG electrodes: frontal,
central, parietal, occipital, temporal. 19] K --> U[Results: no alerting difference,
significant orienting/inhibition differences. 20] U --> V[N100: no alerting effects
environment, development. 21] U --> W[Orienting: reversal group reduced
N1 to invalid cues. 22] U --> X[Congruent: reversal group higher P300. 23] U --> Y[Incongruent: reversal group smaller P300. 24] K --> Z[Limitations: few studies,
participant recruitment difficulty. 25] U --> AA[Reversal: unusual alerting without
auditory vs normal. 26] U --> AB[Reduced N1 invalid: distinct
orienting in reversal. 27] U --> AC[P300 contrast: different attentional
resource allocation between groups. 28] A --> AD[Future: cognitive mechanisms in
reversal and learning challenges. 29] A --> AE[Acknowledgments. Questions invited. 30] class B,I malaysia; class C,D dysgraphia; class E,F,G,H,AA,AB,AC,AD reversal; class J,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,V,W,X,Y attention; class K,U,Z study;


1.- Statistical data for dysgraphia in Malaysia is lacking, which is a serious issue in the country.

2.- Children over 7 years old who flip letters might face specific learning difficulties that can impact their reading skills.

3.- Visual attentional orienting deficit is one cause of developmental dyslexia and is crucial for reading acquisition.

4.- Letter reversal (writing "b" as "d") is common in 4-6 year olds but may indicate impairment if persisting after age 6.

5.- Examples of letter reversal include vertical line symmetry, horizontal line symmetry, and both vertical/horizontal symmetry.

6.- Horizontal character sensitivity develops around age 4, while left-right orientation sensitivity develops from ages 5-7.

7.- Although letter reversal doesn't necessarily indicate poor reading proficiency, it can lead to difficulties in learning and reading.

8.- Studying letter reversal in Malaysia is difficult as previous experiments focused on typical children using indirect priming techniques.

9.- Both behavioral and neuronal level information related to attention processes in letter reversal vs normal writing children remains unclear.

10.- This study compares the attention network between letter reversal writing children and normal letter writing children using EEG.

11.- The study uses a custom Children's Version of Attention Network Task (ANT-C) to assess attention related to letter writing.

12.- Executive functioning and self-regulation are important cognitive skills for coping with challenging writing tasks.

13.- The study uses a model of attention proposed by Posner, combining alerting, orienting and inhibition.

14.- For ERP analysis, the study focuses on N100 (alerting/orienting), N170 (visual processing), and P300 (attention/categorization).

15.- N100 is a marker for alerting/orienting effects, N170 responds to familiar visual objects, and P300 relates to language understanding.

16.- The objective is comparing reaction times and ERP components between the letter reversal and control groups.

17.- 44 children were allocated into normal writing (n=22) and reverse writing (n=22) groups after screening.

18.- The ANT-C paradigm presented fish stimuli to assess alerting (sound cues), orienting (valid/invalid cues) and inhibition (congruent/incongruent).

19.- 16 EEG electrodes were placed in frontal, central, parietal, occipital and temporal regions based on the attention model.

20.- Behavioral results showed no significant alerting differences, but significant orienting and inhibition differences between groups.

21.- N100 ERP analysis showed no significant effects of alerting cues, possibly due to uncontrolled recording environment and developmental changes.

22.- For orienting, letter reversing children had reduced N1 amplitudes to invalid cues compared to normal writing children.

23.- Congruent stimuli evoked higher P300 amplitudes in letter reversing children, suggesting increased sensitivity to congruency.

24.- Incongruent stimuli showed smaller P300 amplitudes in letter reversing children, indicating less effective attentional resource distribution.

25.- Limitations include a lack of studies specifically on letter reversal writing and difficulty recruiting participants.

26.- Findings suggest letter reversing children may have unusual alerting attention without auditory stimulation compared to normal writing children.

27.- Reduced N1 amplitudes to invalid stimuli in letter reversing children indicate distinct orienting attention mechanisms.

28.- Contrasting P300 results highlight different attentional resource allocation between letter reversing and normal writing children.

29.- Future research should explore cognitive mechanisms related to attention in children with letter reversal and other learning challenges.

30.- Acknowledgments were given and the presentation concluded, inviting further questions from the audience.

Knowledge Vault built byDavid Vivancos 2024