cursive writing brain research

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Your Health

Treatments & Tests
Health Inc.
Public Health

Why writing by hand beats typing for thinking and learning

Jonathan Lambert

A close-up of a woman's hand writing in a notebook.

If you're like many digitally savvy Americans, it has likely been a while since you've spent much time writing by hand.

The laborious process of tracing out our thoughts, letter by letter, on the page is becoming a relic of the past in our screen-dominated world, where text messages and thumb-typed grocery lists have replaced handwritten letters and sticky notes. Electronic keyboards offer obvious efficiency benefits that have undoubtedly boosted our productivity — imagine having to write all your emails longhand.

To keep up, many schools are introducing computers as early as preschool, meaning some kids may learn the basics of typing before writing by hand.

But giving up this slower, more tactile way of expressing ourselves may come at a significant cost, according to a growing body of research that's uncovering the surprising cognitive benefits of taking pen to paper, or even stylus to iPad — for both children and adults.

Is this some kind of joke? A school facing shortages starts teaching standup comedy

In kids, studies show that tracing out ABCs, as opposed to typing them, leads to better and longer-lasting recognition and understanding of letters. Writing by hand also improves memory and recall of words, laying down the foundations of literacy and learning. In adults, taking notes by hand during a lecture, instead of typing, can lead to better conceptual understanding of material.

"There's actually some very important things going on during the embodied experience of writing by hand," says Ramesh Balasubramaniam , a neuroscientist at the University of California, Merced. "It has important cognitive benefits."

While those benefits have long been recognized by some (for instance, many authors, including Jennifer Egan and Neil Gaiman , draft their stories by hand to stoke creativity), scientists have only recently started investigating why writing by hand has these effects.

A slew of recent brain imaging research suggests handwriting's power stems from the relative complexity of the process and how it forces different brain systems to work together to reproduce the shapes of letters in our heads onto the page.

Your brain on handwriting

Both handwriting and typing involve moving our hands and fingers to create words on a page. But handwriting, it turns out, requires a lot more fine-tuned coordination between the motor and visual systems. This seems to more deeply engage the brain in ways that support learning.

Shots - Health News

Feeling artsy here's how making art helps your brain.

"Handwriting is probably among the most complex motor skills that the brain is capable of," says Marieke Longcamp , a cognitive neuroscientist at Aix-Marseille Université.

Gripping a pen nimbly enough to write is a complicated task, as it requires your brain to continuously monitor the pressure that each finger exerts on the pen. Then, your motor system has to delicately modify that pressure to re-create each letter of the words in your head on the page.

"Your fingers have to each do something different to produce a recognizable letter," says Sophia Vinci-Booher , an educational neuroscientist at Vanderbilt University. Adding to the complexity, your visual system must continuously process that letter as it's formed. With each stroke, your brain compares the unfolding script with mental models of the letters and words, making adjustments to fingers in real time to create the letters' shapes, says Vinci-Booher.

That's not true for typing.

To type "tap" your fingers don't have to trace out the form of the letters — they just make three relatively simple and uniform movements. In comparison, it takes a lot more brainpower, as well as cross-talk between brain areas, to write than type.

Recent brain imaging studies bolster this idea. A study published in January found that when students write by hand, brain areas involved in motor and visual information processing " sync up " with areas crucial to memory formation, firing at frequencies associated with learning.

"We don't see that [synchronized activity] in typewriting at all," says Audrey van der Meer , a psychologist and study co-author at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. She suggests that writing by hand is a neurobiologically richer process and that this richness may confer some cognitive benefits.

Other experts agree. "There seems to be something fundamental about engaging your body to produce these shapes," says Robert Wiley , a cognitive psychologist at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. "It lets you make associations between your body and what you're seeing and hearing," he says, which might give the mind more footholds for accessing a given concept or idea.

Those extra footholds are especially important for learning in kids, but they may give adults a leg up too. Wiley and others worry that ditching handwriting for typing could have serious consequences for how we all learn and think.

What might be lost as handwriting wanes

The clearest consequence of screens and keyboards replacing pen and paper might be on kids' ability to learn the building blocks of literacy — letters.

"Letter recognition in early childhood is actually one of the best predictors of later reading and math attainment," says Vinci-Booher. Her work suggests the process of learning to write letters by hand is crucial for learning to read them.

"When kids write letters, they're just messy," she says. As kids practice writing "A," each iteration is different, and that variability helps solidify their conceptual understanding of the letter.

Research suggests kids learn to recognize letters better when seeing variable handwritten examples, compared with uniform typed examples.

This helps develop areas of the brain used during reading in older children and adults, Vinci-Booher found.

"This could be one of the ways that early experiences actually translate to long-term life outcomes," she says. "These visually demanding, fine motor actions bake in neural communication patterns that are really important for learning later on."

Ditching handwriting instruction could mean that those skills don't get developed as well, which could impair kids' ability to learn down the road.

"If young children are not receiving any handwriting training, which is very good brain stimulation, then their brains simply won't reach their full potential," says van der Meer. "It's scary to think of the potential consequences."

Many states are trying to avoid these risks by mandating cursive instruction. This year, California started requiring elementary school students to learn cursive , and similar bills are moving through state legislatures in several states, including Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina and Wisconsin. (So far, evidence suggests that it's the writing by hand that matters, not whether it's print or cursive.)

Slowing down and processing information

For adults, one of the main benefits of writing by hand is that it simply forces us to slow down.

During a meeting or lecture, it's possible to type what you're hearing verbatim. But often, "you're not actually processing that information — you're just typing in the blind," says van der Meer. "If you take notes by hand, you can't write everything down," she says.

The relative slowness of the medium forces you to process the information, writing key words or phrases and using drawing or arrows to work through ideas, she says. "You make the information your own," she says, which helps it stick in the brain.

Such connections and integration are still possible when typing, but they need to be made more intentionally. And sometimes, efficiency wins out. "When you're writing a long essay, it's obviously much more practical to use a keyboard," says van der Meer.

Still, given our long history of using our hands to mark meaning in the world, some scientists worry about the more diffuse consequences of offloading our thinking to computers.

"We're foisting a lot of our knowledge, extending our cognition, to other devices, so it's only natural that we've started using these other agents to do our writing for us," says Balasubramaniam.

It's possible that this might free up our minds to do other kinds of hard thinking, he says. Or we might be sacrificing a fundamental process that's crucial for the kinds of immersive cognitive experiences that enable us to learn and think at our full potential.

Balasubramaniam stresses, however, that we don't have to ditch digital tools to harness the power of handwriting. So far, research suggests that scribbling with a stylus on a screen activates the same brain pathways as etching ink on paper. It's the movement that counts, he says, not its final form.

Jonathan Lambert is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance journalist who covers science, health and policy.

handwriting

Every print subscription comes with full digital access

Science News

Handwriting may boost brain connections more than typing does.

The finding adds to growing evidence of handwriting’s benefits

Using a pen or pencil to write boosts brain connectivity, which suggests handwriting might help with learning.

Rafa Fernandez Torres/Moment/Getty Images

A hunger protein reverses anorexia symptoms in mice

abstract person with wavy colors flowing in and out of brain

‘Then I Am Myself the World’ ponders what it means to be conscious

A vial of blood is put into a tube rack, with medical images of a brain in the background.

Alzheimer’s blood tests are getting better, but still have a ways to go

Psilocybin temporarily dissolves brain networks.

a sea lion facing the camera lies on a concrete wall. A person wearing a white jumpsuit and blue gloves is walking toward it

Bird flu has been invading the brains of mammals. Here’s why

A photograph of a mother in a green shirt breastfeeding her infant. She is sitting in a white armchair next to a small, potted plant in front of a white wall and curtained window.

Breastfeeding should take a toll on bones. A brain hormone may protect them

Art of many faceless people standing in a crowd

‘Do I Know You?’ explores face blindness and the science of the mind

This is stock art of a man and a woman clutching their stomachs as if in pain. Most of the image is black, gray and white, but their T-shirts are colored red in the abdomen area, to denote pain.

Pain may take different pathways in men and women

Subscribers, enter your e-mail address for full access to the Science News archives and digital editions.

Not a subscriber? Become one now .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

The Importance of Cursive Handwriting Over Typewriting for Learning in the Classroom: A High-Density EEG Study of 12-Year-Old Children and Young Adults

Affiliation.

1 Developmental Neuroscience Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
PMID: 32849069
PMCID: PMC7399101
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01810

To write by hand, to type, or to draw - which of these strategies is the most efficient for optimal learning in the classroom? As digital devices are increasingly replacing traditional writing by hand, it is crucial to examine the long-term implications of this practice. High-density electroencephalogram (HD EEG) was used in 12 young adults and 12, 12-year-old children to study brain electrical activity as they were writing in cursive by hand, typewriting, or drawing visually presented words that were varying in difficulty. Analyses of temporal spectral evolution (TSE, i.e., time-dependent amplitude changes) were performed on EEG data recorded with a 256-channel sensor array. For young adults, we found that when writing by hand using a digital pen on a touchscreen, brain areas in the parietal and central regions showed event-related synchronized activity in the theta range. Existing literature suggests that such oscillatory neuronal activity in these particular brain areas is important for memory and for the encoding of new information and, therefore, provides the brain with optimal conditions for learning. When drawing, we found similar activation patterns in the parietal areas, in addition to event-related desynchronization in the alpha/beta range, suggesting both similarities but also slight differences in activation patterns when drawing and writing by hand. When typewriting on a keyboard, we found event-related desynchronized activity in the theta range and, to a lesser extent, in the alpha range in parietal and central brain regions. However, as this activity was desynchronized and differed from when writing by hand and drawing, its relation to learning remains unclear. For 12-year-old children, the same activation patterns were found, but to a lesser extent. We suggest that children, from an early age, must be exposed to handwriting and drawing activities in school to establish the neuronal oscillation patterns that are beneficial for learning. We conclude that because of the benefits of sensory-motor integration due to the larger involvement of the senses as well as fine and precisely controlled hand movements when writing by hand and when drawing, it is vital to maintain both activities in a learning environment to facilitate and optimize learning.

Keywords: cursive handwriting; digital era; educational psychology; high-density electroencephalography; learning in the brain; temporal spectral evolution; typewriting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Example of writings and drawings…

Example of writings and drawings of (A) 12-year-old boy and (B) 23-year-old female…

Head model of a typical…

Head model of a typical 12-year-old boy. The model shows four dipoles (with…

Individual time-frequency displays of a…

Individual time-frequency displays of a typical male adult. The y-axes display frequencies from…

Individual time-frequency displays of a typical 12-year-old girl, in frontal, temporal, central, parietal…

Head model (nose up) with…

Head model (nose up) with average significant (* p < 0.05) data clusters…

Average results of all participants…

Average results of all participants for typewriting, handwriting, and drawing in (A) adults…

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

Europe PubMed Central
Frontiers Media SA
PubMed Central

Research Materials

NCI CPTC Antibody Characterization Program

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

The New York Times

The Opinion Pages

The benefits of cursive go beyond writing.

Suzanne Baruch Asherson is a occupational therapist at the Beverly Hills Unified School District in California and a national presenter for Handwriting Without Tears , an early childhood education company.

Updated April 30, 2013, 6:29 PM

Putting pen to paper stimulates the brain like nothing else, even in this age of e-mails, texts and tweets. In fact, learning to write in cursive is shown to improve brain development in the areas of thinking, language and working memory. Cursive handwriting stimulates brain synapses and synchronicity between the left and right hemispheres, something absent from printing and typing.

The College Board found that students who wrote in cursive for the essay portion of the SAT scored slightly higher than those who printed.

As a result, the physical act of writing in cursive leads to increased comprehension and participation. Interestingly, a few years ago, the College Board found that students who wrote in cursive for the essay portion of the SAT scored slightly higher than those who printed, which experts believe is because the speed and efficiency of writing in cursive allowed the students to focus on the content of their essays.

Some argue that cursive is no longer relevant because it isn't included in the Common Core State Standards. But these standards only include those skills that are testable and measurable in the classroom; they don’t address basic foundation skills, like handwriting or even spelling. That said, the Common Core emphasizes the importance of expository writing to demonstrate understanding of key concepts, and fast, legible handwriting is the technology universally available to students to facilitate content development. Cursive, therefore, is vital to helping students master the standards of written expression and critical thinking, life skills that go well beyond the classroom.

With all this said, does cursive need to be fancy with slants, loops and curls? Absolutely not! The emphasis should be on simplicity and function when teaching children cursive.

Regardless of the age we are in or the technological resources at one’s disposal, success is measured by thought formation, and the speed and efficiency in which it is communicated. Because of this, students need a variety of technologies, including cursive handwriting, to succeed.

Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate .

Topics: Culture , Education , handwriting

Let It Die. It's Already Dying

Handwriting Matters; Cursive Doesn't

Is cursive dead, let it die. it’s already dying, cursive benefits go beyond writing, handwriting matters; cursive doesn’t, a cultural tradition worth preserving.

Related Discussions

Recent Discussions

Handwriting Boosts Brain Connectivity and Learning

Summary: Handwriting, compared to typing, results in more complex brain connectivity patterns, enhancing learning and memory. This study used EEG data from 36 students to compare brain activity while writing by hand and typing.

Handwriting, whether in cursive on a touchscreen or traditional pen and paper, activated extensive brain regions, vital for memory and learning. These findings highlight the importance of balancing traditional handwriting instruction with digital literacy in educational settings.

Handwriting activates more complex brain connectivity than typing, beneficial for learning and memory.
The study used high-density EEGs to measure brain activity, demonstrating the unique cognitive engagement of handwriting.
The results advocate for maintaining handwriting instruction in schools alongside digital literacy.

Source: Frontiers

As digital devices progressively replace pen and paper, taking notes by hand is becoming increasingly uncommon in schools and universities. Using a keyboard is recommended because it’s often faster than writing by hand. However, the latter has been found to improve spelling accuracy and memory recall.

To find out if the process of forming letters by hand resulted in greater brain connectivity, researchers in Norway now investigated the underlying neural networks involved in both modes of writing.

“We show that when writing by hand, brain connectivity patterns are far more elaborate than when typewriting on a keyboard,” said Prof Audrey van der Meer, a brain researcher at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and co-author of the study published in Frontiers in Psychology .

“Such widespread brain connectivity is known to be crucial for memory formation and for encoding new information and, therefore, is beneficial for learning.”

The pen is mightier than the (key)board

The researchers collected EEG data from 36 university students who were repeatedly prompted to either write or type a word that appeared on a screen. When writing, they used a digital pen to write in cursive directly on a touchscreen. When typing they used a single finger to press keys on a keyboard.

High-density EEGs, which measure electrical activity in the brain using 256 small sensors sewn in a net and placed over the head, were recorded for five seconds for every prompt.

Connectivity of different brain regions increased when participants wrote by hand, but not when they typed.

“Our findings suggest that visual and movement information obtained through precisely controlled hand movements when using a pen contribute extensively to the brain’s connectivity patterns that promote learning,” van der Meer said.

Movement for memory

Although the participants used digital pens for handwriting, the researchers said that the results are expected to be the same when using a real pen on paper.

“We have shown that the differences in brain activity are related to the careful forming of the letters when writing by hand while making more use of the senses,” van der Meer explained.

Since it is the movement of the fingers carried out when forming letters that promotes brain connectivity, writing in print is also expected to have similar benefits for learning as cursive writing.

On the contrary, the simple movement of hitting a key with the same finger repeatedly is less stimulating for the brain.

“This also explains why children who have learned to write and read on a tablet, can have difficulty differentiating between letters that are mirror images of each other, such as ‘b’ and ‘d’. They literally haven’t felt with their bodies what it feels like to produce those letters,” van der Meer said.

A balancing act

Their findings demonstrate the need to give students the opportunity to use pens, rather than having them type during class, the researchers said. Guidelines to ensure that students receive at least a minimum of handwriting instruction could be an adequate step. For example, cursive writing training has been re-implemented in many US states at the beginning of the year.

At the same time, it is also important to keep up with continuously developing technological advances, they cautioned. This includes awareness of what way of writing offers more advantages under which circumstances.

“There is some evidence that students learn more and remember better when taking handwritten lecture notes, while using a computer with a keyboard may be more practical when writing a long text or essay,” van der Meer concluded.

About this learning, memory, and brain connectivity research news

Author: Deborah Pirchner Source: Frontiers Contact: Deborah Pirchner – Frontiers Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News

Original Research: The findings will appear in Frontiers in Psychology

I am completely enjoyed this article…

Yes, the impact of learning when writing by hand is indeed more than when typing on a keyboard. it is a known fact in hypnotherapy that writing is a direct connection with your subconscious mind. the hand is working based on the instructions coming from the subconscious. similarly, when you write in cursive hand it transmits the same to your subconscious mind. the slant of letters, connection of letters, slant of words, use of space on the page, size of the letters, etc. all play a role in your personality developed and or development. with handwriting, you can change your personality if you so desire. this is not possible with typing. that was the reason that during our school days, we were asked to write 100 pages of cursive writing during our summer vacation holidays.

For me, it would be much easier to comment on this by handwriting instead of typing. I grew up learning by writing with my own hand. First only in capital letters with a stylus on a slate, then adding low-case letters with pencil on paper, and finally using a penholder with ink on paper, and the coronation was a fountain pen. This latter one I used even when taking notes of lectures at the university. I learned my mother tongue with ease, and so, other various languages, enjoying a good memory for spelling and grammar. Right now, I am teaching German to a Spanish-speaking friend and insist on having him learning through handwriting. I am also motivated for doing this by the fact that the State of California reintroduced handwriting in its curriculum.

I have wondered for some time about the benefits of putting pen to paper. Yes, it enables a neater presentation to digitalize our thoughts, but to take away the skills of hand writing goes way too far. I totally agree that it is therapeutic to journal, write out one’s thoughts, messiness and all. Word processing programs have their place but they are also dumbing down the necessary processes of spelling, thinking and growing language skills.

I believe this is true, although upsetting to me personally, as my dominant hand has been giving me a lot of trouble when I write extensively ~ whether it be journaling, letters to family & friends, or notes for myself. I am relegated to using the keyboard @those times. However, because of doing this, I find that my intuitive thoughts seem to blossom anyway. So, although this info has been presented to me by a few doctors, therapists, friends, I’m not sure it 100% applicable in all cases or people.

True. Chinese emperor punishes their loved ones by ordering them to write out Buddhist’s scriptures by the thousands. Myself screenshot and copies Buddhist teaching’s Q&A from You Tube, then writes them into text books. It’s VERY effective in helping one to understand and digest better whence each word is being written down along. When coming to how brain and mind works it’s all pure complexities. Hand writing them out is the best remedy. Now towards more digitalizations AI and whatnots many will disagree. So be it just as the Dao (Tao) said let the nature flow. To the moon with rockets or via submarine into the deep ocean no matter how impatient one is Nature is the way. (Sir/Mdm please edit as you please but my full agreement to the effectiveness of hand writing STANDS). May all timely hit nature and quickly percept the true nature in us all so as to escape the untold long sufferings but short happiness in humanities 🙏🙏🙏.

Typing means alternatively hitting keys with all your 10 fingers and not hitting a key with the same finger repeatedly. It would be extremely awkward to type with only one finger… such a study cannot convince me…

The point is not about how effective or not to type with single finger only or 10 fingers, but about how brain’s neurons being actively activated when people do handwritings, leading to better learning and memorizing. Did you miss the point or what?

Does the same effect happen when writing in block letters?

An outdated certification,of sorts, but extremely beneficial as a teacher and also a school administrator: Handwriting Analyst. My certificate after two years of classes and exams is dated 1970. I used this study in helping many high school students and ,administratively, in the hiring of staff. Without disclosing my ‘skill’ in examining the ‘specimen’ (called back in the day) in addition to a resume and intuition, it was an extremely helpful tool used to help others and/or the hiring process.

Alas, the public schools no longer teach cursive handwriting.

So true. We had a 21 year old hired for an administrative position that could not read or write handwriting!

Comments are closed.

Increase in Protein Linked to Salt Intake Implicated in Multiple Sclerosis

New Imaging Technique Identifies Autism Markers with 95% Accuracy

This shows a little girl playing with cars.

Gender Nonconformity in Play Linked to ASD and Behavioral Problems

How Moths Evolve Through Time-Based Speciation

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List

Teaching of cursive writing in the first year of primary school: Effect on reading and writing skills

Cristina semeraro.

1 Department of Education, Psychology, Communication, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

Gabrielle Coppola

Rosalinda cassibba, daniela lucangeli.

2 Department of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

Associated Data

All files are available from Figshare: https://figshare.com/s/209a49a536acef7cf0bb .

There is increasing evidence that mastering handwriting skills play an important role on academic achievement. This is a slow process that begins in kindergarten: at this age, writing is very similar to drawing (i.e. scribbles); from there, it takes several years before children are able to write competently. Many studies support the idea that motor training plays a crucial role to increase mental representations of the letters, but relatively little is known about the specific relation between handwriting skills and teaching practices. This study investigated the efficacy of cursive writing teaching. The sample comprised 141 students attending eight classes of the first grade of primary school, all with typical development, not exhibiting any cognitive or sensory disabilities, nor displaying motor disorders that could significantly hinder the execution of the writing task. We tested whether the development of academic writing skills could be effectively supported by training strategies focusing on cursive writing. All rules and characteristics of the letters were explained by demonstrating the correct writing movements, based on the idea that movement learning becomes more valuable when children begin to connect the letters in order to write individual words. Growth models on pre-, post- and follow-up measures showed that performance on prerequisites and writing and reading skills were better overall among the children in the intervention group as compared to control group.

Introduction

The research in the area of handwriting ability highlights an increase in graphical and visual-spatial difficulties in handwriting [ 1 ]. “Dysfluent writing” and “shape abnormality” are key characteristics of handwriting disorders described in the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5). The term “dysfluent writing” refers to less fluent (i.e., slower) handwriting, while the term “shape abnormality” refers to distortions of pressure and irregularities in the forms of letters. According to the official international diagnostic systems [ 2 , 3 , 4 ], visual-motor and visual-spatial difficulties in writing are manifestations of a motor development disorder (dysgraphy). Poor graph-motor skills may increase the risk of difficulties in the visual-motor and spatial components of writing; therefore, interventions aimed at supporting and enhancing graphic activity, a function not adequately recognized thus far [ 5 ], could represent a valid action to prevent graphical and spatial difficulties in writing, especially in the context of formal education.

At the time of entry into primary school, children use much of their cognitive energy to control the production of letters and the graphical aspects of writing. A significant portion of their time and cognitive energy is, in fact, invested in controlling down processes (for example, correct writing of letters), while few attentive resources remain available for more complex tasks, such as generating ideas, lexical access, management of cognitive activities, and orthographic review of the text [ 6 ].

The well-known “cognitive constraint” related to writing [ 7 , 8 , 9 ] suggests the importance of automating the production of letters and words during writing, so that children can direct their attentive resources to the more complex aspects of text production, such as the decoding of reading and the orthographic accuracy of writing [ 10 , 11 ]. Available findings support the idea that, in the second [ 11 ] and third grade of primary school [ 12 ], a considerable amount of variance in the quality of a written text can be attributed to the automation of the production of letters. Since the movements necessary for the production of letters are under voluntary control, if not automated they can represent a high cognitive cost for children in terms of attention, which in turn prevents them from performing higher order academic tasks such as composing or paying attention to spelling and grammar [ 13 ].

With this in mind, research has examined the efficacy of early interventions targeting handwriting or of spelling instruction for struggling writers in first grade and findings show increased output, improved sentence writing skills, and better writing quality for children benefitting of such support [ 14 , 15 , 11 ]. Similar gains in writing output and sentence writing skills were obtained when struggling writers in second grade were provided with extra spelling instruction [ 16 , 17 ]. The findings from the two studies reviewed above, altogether, indicate that handwriting intervention early in primary grades may be a critical factor in preventing writing difficulties, at least for children who do not master handwriting easily [ 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Graham and Harris [ 21 ] reviewed the evidence on the role of handwriting in children's development as writers. Consistent with the view that handwriting instruction is an essential ingredient in writing development, they found that handwriting skills, particularly handwriting fluency (i.e., the amount of text that can be written down correctly per minute), improve with age and schooling [ 22 , 23 ], and that individual differences in handwriting skills (most notably handwriting fluency) predict how much and how well children will write [ 24 , 25 ]. Thus, these findings underscore the importance of motor programs in supporting the development of writing skills in primary school children [ 26 , 27 ]. However, it is still unclear what should the training target in order to effectively promote writing development [ 28 ].

To promote better writing skills the choice of writing style seems to be fundamental [ 29 ]. Cursive style, besides being predictive of better writing skills, seems easier to learn for young children in primary school [ 29 – 31 ]. Let us consider the graphical features differentiating printed writing from cursive [ 32 ], as cursive and print are the basic types of handwriting that children learn in primary school [ 33 , 34 ]. The movements used for these types of handwriting can be generally classified as either discontinuous patterns (i.e., temporally consistent start-and-stop movements, as in printed handwriting) and continuous patterns (i.e., an emergent property of trajectory-throughout movements as in cursive handwriting). Consistency of movement in time and space has been claimed to be an important feature of “good” handwriting [ 35 ], and this is a distinctive characteristic of cursive writing.

It has been reported that younger-aged children have higher irregularity and inconsistency of movement and time when performing discontinuous loops than with continuous ones [ 36 ]; moreover, it seems that young children have more difficulty performing discontinuous handwriting patterns compared with continuous patterns [ 37 ].

We believe such differences require further attention. In printed characters, graphic movement is not continuous: the gesture stops, there are repeated stops and starts of the pencil and the motor process is broken. Instead, on the graph-motor plane, cursive is the writing style closest to the child’s natural movements. For example, if we think of scribbles, the first graphic charts of the child are curved and rotating and, by the age of 3, they tend to close the open shapes. Therefore, there is a spontaneous curvilinear and/or circular graphical tendency in writing processes; moreover, the first letter reproduced by children is usually the letter "O", which does not require a template. Lastly, while the reproduction of printed letters involves copying a static model composed of segments that must be plotted in a precise graphic direction, the letters in cursive connect to each other dynamically [ 1 ]. Spencer et al. [ 38 ] proposed different control mechanisms for continuous versus discontinuous movements. Performing discontinuous movements requires an explicit representation of the temporal goal (i.e., when to start and stop), whereas performing continuous movements does not require an explicit event-related timing process. The authors claimed that the explicit processes used in controlling temporal consistency of discontinuous movements involve the cerebellum. In contrast, implicit timing processes for continuous movements may not closely relate to the cerebellum. Behaviorally, temporal deficits in patients with cerebellum damage were restricted to discontinuous circle drawing [ 39 ]. It is known that the cerebellum develops more slowly over a longer duration (i.e., until about 16 years of age) than most of the subcortical and cortical areas [ 40 ] and it is especially vulnerable to developmental disorders [ 41 ]. Thus, there is also a neuropsychological rationale for believing that temporal control for discontinuous handwriting may be more challenging than for continuous patterns in young children due to the relatively slower cerebellum development. If this is the case, these findings suggest that teaching cursive writing should occur much earlier than it is typically done in the current education systems of most countries (e.g., Canada, France, the Netherlands). In particular, a study examined temporal consistency in continuous and discontinuous circle and line drawing in children from five to twelve years of age [ 31 ] and, in line with Spencer et al. [ 38 ], the explicit timing demands were lower in continuous drawing than in the discontinuous task. This study showed that young children had high temporal and spatial variability in discontinuous circle drawing but not in continuous circling, continuous line drawing, and discontinuous line drawing. Overall, these findings [ 20 , 25 , 29 , 35 ] suggest that the temporal control of discontinuous movements (i.e., printed handwriting) may be more challenging than that of continuous movements (i.e., cursive handwriting) and that these discontinuous movements are under voluntary control. This is a cost for children in terms of attention and cognitive resources. Therefore, cursive handwriting might be easier for young children to learn.

Despite this state of the art of the current literature, in Italy there is widespread belief among teachers that printed writing is easier for young children to learn than cursive writing. The guidelines of the Italian National Ministry of Education (MIUR) regarding teaching in primary school give no clear guideline about the timing and methods for teaching writing skills and teachers are free to make personal decisions in this regard (MIUR, reference legislation 2012 - Prot. n°5559 - 2012 ). Nevertheless, pedagogical models [ 25 – 29 ] have influenced the selection of global methods (use of printed characters for reading and writing) for read-write abilities. The predilection for printed characters is certainly not justified in light of what we know about the development of the child’s graph-motor skills, but exclusively on a perceptive basis.

Despite this, it is common practice to start teaching the printed style of writing and to move to cursive writing by the middle or end of the first year of primary school, continuing to give more attention to printed writing, especially for children with learning difficulties.

On this topic, the results of a study conducted by Morin and colleagues [ 35 ] are of particular interest: these scholars explored the existing relationship between three different methods of teaching writing (print writing only, cursive writing only, and print writing in the first grade of primary school with cursive in the second grade) and writing skills development (writing speed, spelling and text production) in a sample of children attending the second grade of primary school in Canada. Findings show that children who have learned to write using only the cursive style show superior performance in both spelling and syntax when compared to the other two groups. The teaching of both styles (first print, and then cursive in the second grade of primary school) does not favor the acquisition of automatic movements, resulting, therefore, in disadvantages compared to the cursive-only method.

All previously published studies have evaluated writing skills exclusively in terms of cognitive measurement, perceptive and graph-motor. Over the years, a broad range of studies have been developed pertaining, in particular, to the learning of writing skills for pre-school and primary school students without, however, deepening the issue of the methods used for teaching writing. To our knowledge, no previously published study has focused on using cursive as the primary type of writing in order to improve writing, reading and spelling skills in children at the start of primary school.

In order to fill this gap, we first aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a teaching program focuses on the effects of intensive cursive learning on the prerequisites of writing and reading. Secondly, we aimed to test the efficacy of the teaching program for the acquisition of writing and reading skills. More specifically, we propose a specific graph-motor training program and intend to evaluate the effect of the training on reading and writing skills at a distance of 6 months, comparing the children who benefited from the training with children who followed the standard programs used in Italian schools.

Material and methods

Participants.

The sample comprised 141 students attending eight classes in the first grade (68 female—48.2%; 73 male—51.8%); age: M = 6.2, SD = .29) at four schools in the centre and suburbs of a city in the south of Italy. Selection criteria included Italian native speaker children, unidentified for cognitive or sensory disabilities and not displaying motor disorders which could significantly hinder the execution of the writing task. The eight classes were comparable in terms of: gender ratio ( χ 2 = 2.61, n.s.); age t (139) = 1.68, n.s.; measurement of socioeconomic status (parents’ years of education): mother’s educational level, t (127) = -.976, n.s. and father’s educational level, t (127) = -1.223, n.s.; teacher experience (all teachers were female with more than 15 years of teaching experience); and pre-test prerequisites of reading and writing skills ( Table 1 and Table 2 ). The total sample was divided randomly into two sub-samples. An intervention group (TG) was made up of children from four classes (N = 73, F = 40 (54.8%), age: M = 6.16, SD = .28) who took part in the cursive training. The remaining four classes (N = 68; F = 28 (41.2%), age: M = 6.24, SD = .30) made up the control group (CG) and followed the standard programs of writing skills training (uppercase, lowercase, printed, and cursive writing were presented simultaneously). The study had the prior approval of the Local Ethics Committee of Department of Education, Psychology, Communication, University of Bari “Aldo Moro” (Committee: Andrea Bosco, Associate Professor in Psychometrics and Statistics, Antonietta Curci, Associate Professor in General Psychology, Valerio Meattini Full Professor in Theoretical Philosophy). For all children, parents signed an informed consent prior to the taking part to the protocol.

Variables	Control sub-sample	Intervention sub-sample
	N = 68 (48.59%)	N = 73 (51.40%)	(1)
Males	40 (58.82%)	33 (45.20%)	2.61(n.s.)
	M (SD)	M (SD)	(127)
Maternal Years of education	12.03 (3.12)	11.50 (3.06)	-.97 (n.s.)
Paternal Years of education	11.64 (3.23)	10.93 (3.36)	. -1.22 (n.s.)

Task	Control sub-sample M(SD)	Intervention sub-sample M(SD)	( )
Semicircles	3.38 (3.32)	4.29 (2.49)	-1.85(140)
Recognition of Letters	1.09 (2.08)	1.03 (1.69)	-.18 (140)
Search of two letters	8.84 (6.20)	9.22 (6.33)	.36 (140)
Search of letters written in different ways	6.16 (2.85)	5.62 (2.53)	-1.20 (139)
Search of sequence of letters	18.54 (6.73)	17.15 (7.98)	-1.11 (140)
Handwriting Speed	42.17 (4.79)	43.44 (5.21)	1.50 (139)

Note . The statistic test was not significance.

Design overview

At pre-training (September, beginning of the school year: T0) two tasks to evaluate the prerequisites of reading and writing skills were administered. Subsequently, classes were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions: the intervention group, which took part in teaching sessions focused on cursive writing; and the control group, with classes following the traditional method of teaching writing skills. The training phase took place during the whole school year of first grade (September–May). The same tasks were administered post-training (in May, at the end of the school year: T1). In addition, in post-training, we administered a standardized battery of tests to evaluate reading and writing skills. Another six months later, prerequisites and reading and writing skills tests were administered a second time (T2) during a follow-up session (November).

Prerequisites assessment

Two tests were selected to assess the prerequisites:

1. Prerequisite of reading and writing skills PRCR-2/2009 (Batteria per la valutazione dei prerequisiti di letto-scrittura) [ 42 ]. Selective visual and left-right serial analysis tests were selected:

Semicircles: This task assesses the ability to analyze and remember graphic signs and their sequence; it also evaluates a visual memory of differently oriented signs.

Recognition of letters: This task examines visual analysis abilities.

Two-letter search: This task allows the evaluation of both discrimination and visual search abilities and the capacity to proceed from left to right, as well as the ability to make the short-term memory operational, all of which is fundamental to reading and writing learning.

Search of letters written in different ways: This task evaluates the ability to recognize a letter written in different allographs (uppercase, lowercase, printed and cursive) evaluating grapheme-phoneme conversion capacity.

Search of a sequence of letters: This task examines a child’s ability to look for a visual configuration sequentially, thus evaluating visual search abilities.

2. Test for the Evaluation of Writing and Orthographic Ability BVSCO-2 (Batteria per la Valutazione della Scrittura e della Competenza Ortografica-2) [ 43 ]. This task examines handwriting fluency when writing the sequence of letters “ LE ” for one minute (handwritten lowercase cursive characters LE praxis). The test involves the calculation of a measure of fluency: how many graphemes are written correctly in one minute.

All participants were evaluated through a collective administration.

Reading and writing skills assessment

Reading and writing skills assessment was conducted using the following tests:

MT battery for primary school [ 44 ], for the assessment of 3 parameters: fluency, accuracy and reading comprehension. Fluency and comprehension suggest two measures of reading ability, while accuracy of reading is represented by the number of errors committed.
Test for the Evaluation of Writing and Orthographic Ability BVSCO-2 (Batteria per la Valutazione della Scrittura e della Competenza Ortografica-2) [ 43 ]. This included two other tasks to evaluate handwriting fluency: writing the sequence of letters UNO ( ONE ) for one minute ( UNO praxis) and writing the sequence of numbers UNO-DUE- , and so on ( ONE–TWO–… ) for one minute (Number praxis). The test involves the calculation of a measure of fluency: how many graphemes are written correctly in one minute. In addition, we selected another task concerning this battery to evaluate accuracy in writing during text dictation. This test measures spelling accuracy, represented by the number of errors committed.
Diagnosis of spelling disorders in developmental age, spelling to dictation test [ 45 ]: This consisted of two sections: dictation of (1) words and (2) pseudo-words. This test measures spelling accuracy as represented by the number of errors committed.

Training phase

The training lasted nine months, from September to May; forty sessions were managed by teachers who had been previously trained. Supervision was provided by psychologists who were expert in learning psychology (including the first author).

In applying this training to writing instruction, the first phase clarifies the conventions and characteristics of the letters, illustrating the necessary movements for their formation and verifying that each child has learned them (pre-graphism).

In the second phase, the child practices the production of letters, learning to control movements and trajectories. The aim of this phase is to produce graphemes carefully, respecting the proportions of letters, spaces, and lines of writing.

Each training session lasted about 90 minutes, with two weekly meetings. The experimental group practiced the cursive characters exclusively, while the control group practiced the two different types of writing (i.e. printed and cursive) simultaneously. These activities were carried out during teaching hours.

The sessions took place collectively, but the children worked on their own. At the beginning of the session, after a short period welcoming the children and making them feel comfortable (10 min.), and after leading review activities of the materials and activities presented in the previous session (10 min.), the teacher presented the new activities on the blackboard (20 min.). Each child practiced on their own cards for the various activities proposed (30 min.). After each card had been completed and coloured, children put the materials in a personal folder (10 min.). The last part of the lesson involved a blackboard exercise focusing on the materials presented during the session (10 min.). In order to consolidate learning, after every ten sessions there was a review lesson of the work done in the previous sessions. Children spent about 70 minutes per week writing in cursive, in accordance with the authors who have stated that handwriting should be taught systematically in short sessions several times a week, totalling 50–100 minutes per week, for it to be beneficial to students.

The activities, selected by “Write in Cursive” [ 46 ] were built on different levels in order to promote the learning of cursive handwriting:

Pre-graphism: We started with simple executions that required a progressive degree of motor precision, sign control, directionality, and respect for spacing. In this training, we exerted the subsequent production of cursive letters through repetitive and curvilinear movements.
Letters Presentation: Letters were presented according to their similarity and gradual articulator movements rather than in alphabetical order, respecting the following sequence: a, o, c, d, g, q / i, t, u / n, m / e, l, f, b / v, w, r, s/ p / h / z / x, y, k, j.
Connection Between Letters Presentation: Vowels and consonants were shown together. This movement learning becomes more valuable when children start to connect one letter to the next to write digrams and trigrams.

We preferred to use lined exercise books and not quadrille pads to support a progressive motor and space control.

Within each training session, the activities were structured by steps:

First step: all rules and characteristics of the cursive letters were explained to the entire group by having the teacher demonstrate the correct movements to execute each letter on the blackboard. The teacher dedicated to this activity about 15 minutes of each session.
Second step: the children subsequently began their individual activity on the pages in the manual. The activity was to copy the cursive letter on a sketch design of the letter either in isolation or at the beginning, middle or end of a word (only the letter presented by the teacher, and not the other letters of the word); this task demanded increasing motor, direction and space control.
Third step: the next task consisted of copying the same cursive letter on one page of their notebook for about 50 times (A4 format). This task, through repetitive and circular movements, enabled the children to strengthen the writing of cursive letters.
Fourth step: the last task was the fusion of cursive letters to form syllables and then words. Consequently, children practiced cursive letters writing by controlling the movements and trajectories in order to better understand the relationship between cursive letters, spaces and lines.
Fifth step: finally, to verify correct production across all students, the teacher performed a double check; the first on-line occurred during the writing of the letters, and consisted of correcting the pupils who produced erratic movements; the second occurred after execution, by verifying the single materials produced by the pupils. Those pupils who showed more uncertain graphic traits or incorrect production were joined by the teacher in the next session.

The training activities did not provide any intervention on reading skills or orthographic knowledge. For these skills, students followed traditional teaching methods.

Preliminary analyses

First, we tested for possible associations between the socio-demographic variables (child’s gender and mother’s and father’s years of education) and the variables of interest in the study at each time point. All preliminary analyses were tested using the Bonferroni-corrected alpha level to protect against capitalizing of chance, according to the number of associations that were tested at each time point (6 at the pre-test, and 14 at the post-test and follow-up). None of the measures at each time point was found to be associated with mothers’ and fathers’ years of education. As to the effect of the child’s gender, none of the measures collected at each time point differed between girls and boys, with the exception of the two-letter search in the post-test, t(139) = 3.42, p < .001, with girls performing significantly better compared to boys, M girls = 3.94, SD = 3.10; M boys = 6.36, SD = 4.99 (lower scores indicate a better performance, as scores refer to the number of errors).

Main analyses

Because we were dealing with a repeated-measures design with measurements collected at two and three points in time (Level 1) nested within cases (Level 2), the aims were tested using multilevel models which allow the treatment of non-independent measures and give the added advantage of being able to deal with missing data at each time point. A set of multilevel models were run, with measures at each time (Level 1) nested within cases (Level 2). Each of the six measures of prerequisite reading and writing skills as well as those of reading, writing and spelling skills (respectively three, two and three measures) was used as the dependent variable. As random effects, we entered intercepts for subjects as well as by-subject random slopes for the effect of time, with a variance components covariance structure. This latter random effect was dropped when it did not result in a significant increase of the model fit. In accordance with the aims, the fixed effects of time and group (intervention vs. control) were tested: the first predictor allowed us to test whether the outcomes underwent a change over time, irrespective of group; the second predictor allowed us to test whether the two groups differed in the outcome measures. Thirdly, the interaction term time X group was inserted in order to verify whether the effect of time was moderated by that of the intervention. The test of our aims depends mainly on this term, which whether significant or not proved that the intervention was causing different growth curves of the outcome/s across the two groups (intervention vs. control). Along with these predictors, in order to control for possible effects on the outcome, fixed effects of the child’s gender were also included in the models and were dropped from the final models if they resulted in non-significant effects. Δ -2LL < .05 and lowest Akaike’s AIC were the fit indexes used to select the models best fitting the data, for nested and non-nested models respectively.

As to the test of the first aim, the models for each outcome measure with the best fit are reported in Table 3 : None of the models predicting the prerequisites gained significant fit from the random effects of time, suggesting no significant inter-individual variability in the growth curve of each outcome; therefore, this effect was dropped from each final model. As to the fixed effects of time, results show a linear improvement in the recognition of letters, the search of sequences of letters, and handwriting speed. Conversely, the two-letter search results worsened from one time to the next. Gender was found to be a significant predictor of performance in the two-letter search and the recognition of sequences of letters, with girls performing better compared to boys in both cases. As expected, group condition was found not to be a significant predictor, which means that there were no significant differences between the two groups in the dependent variable, while a significant interaction group X time was found for three out of five outcomes, namely, the performance in the semicircles task, the two-letter search, and handwriting speed. Overall, these interactions mean that over time in the two groups the dependent variables underwent different growth rates. In order to explore these interaction effects and understand the differing growth rates of the measures among the two groups, the mixed models were re-run separately for each sub-group [ 47 ]. Each model included the fixed and random effects of time, while the between-subject variance was estimated by entering intercepts for subjects as the random effects. Results showed that performance on the three tasks was better overall among the children belonging to the intervention group compared to those of the control group; as to the performance in the semicircles task, from one time to the next, the children demonstrated reduced errors of b = -1.436, p < .001, intercept = 3.711, p < .001 in the intervention group, compared to b = -.35, n.s., intercept = 3.064, p < .001 in the control group. As to the two-letter-search task, the performance of the control group decreased significantly over time, b = 2.127, p < .001, intercept = 7.247, p < .001, while that of the intervention group remained stable, b = .539, n.s., intercept = 7.386, p < .001. Lastly, as to handwriting speed, the intervention group gained on average almost 16 graphemes per minute across time, compared to the control group which gained on average 11 graphemes per minute from one time point to the next, b = 15.953, p < .001, intercept = 44.641 and b = 11.003, p < .001, intercept = 42.853, p < .001, respectively for each group. Fit of the models run within each group to explore the interaction effects time X group did not improve their fix when estimating the random effects of time, suggesting, therefore, a similar slope for the effects of time among the children of each group (intervention vs. control).

	Semicircles (number of errors)			Recognition of Letters (number of errors)			Search of two letters (number of errors)			Search of sequences of letters (number of errors)			Handwriting Speed (graphemes/minute)

Intercept	3.06	.258	394.194	16.798	.708	397.100	42.855	1.032	372.653	1.032	.153	393.653	7.025	.724	393.452
Time (fixed effect)	-.352	.194	279.786	-5.394	.541	378.752	10.997	.740	279.643	-.344	.115	278.857	2.174	.549	278.570
Group	.647	.359	394.219	-1.690	.985	396.829	1.782	1.440	372.463	-.181	.213	393.678	.476	1.007	393.181
Gender	—	—	—	-1.550	.645	137.819	—	—	—	—	—	—	-2.323	.666	138.493
Time × group	-1.084	.271	280.900	-.006	.753	279.266	4.962	1.036	280.651	-.071	.161	279.973	-1.650	.765	279.662

σu	.328			.118			1.720			1.168			11.541
σe	5.11			1.801			40.39			39.267			74.399
Deviance
-2LL (df)	1904.399(6)			1470.597(6)			2734.566(7)			2724.750(7)			3046.679(6)
AIC	1908.399			1474.597			2738.566			2728.750			3050.679

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

Note . Time: 0,1, 2. Group: 0 = control; 1 = intervention. Gender: male -.5 and female .5. Random effects of time were dropped due to the lack of a significant increase in the fit indexes.

With respect to the test of the second aim, models with the best fit indexes predicting reading skills are reported in Table 4 and show that reading comprehension, fluency and accuracy increase linearly over time and none were predicted by child’s gender; models predicting reading fluency and accuracy also included random effects of time, suggesting significant inter-individual differences in slopes for the effects of time. As to the group effects, the group benefitting from the intervention months before performed better on reading comprehension but worse on reading accuracy when compared to the control group. Lastly, the interaction term group X time was significant for reading comprehension and fluency, which means that over time in the two groups the dependent variables underwent different growth rates. In order to explore these interaction effects and understand the different growth rates of the measures among the two groups, the mixed models were re-run separately for each sub-group [ 48 ]. Each model included the fixed and random effects of time, while the between-subject variance was estimated by entering intercepts for subjects as the random effects. As to reading fluency, the model tested among each group showed that the random effects of time increased the fit only for the intervention group, suggesting significant inter-individual variability in the growth curve among the children who had benefitted from the intervention. Over time, the reading fluency of these children decreased significantly, b = -.238, p < .001, intercept = 1.161, p < .001. Conversely, the reading fluency scored of the children in the control group increased significantly over time, b = .198, p < .05, despite having an average starting point lower than that of the intervention group (intercept = 1.131, p < .001).

	Reading comprehension			Reading fluency			Reading accuracy

Intercept	6.782	.225	269.363	1.131	.060	142.000	5.304	.415	142.000
Time (fixed effect)	1.431	.297	137.715	.198	.081	139.160	2.272	.690	137.817
Group	1.957	.314	269.363	.029	.084	142.000	-3.201	.579	142.000
Gender	—	—	—	—	—	—	-2.323	.666	138.493
Time × group	-1.647	.415	138.130	-.433	.113	139.854	-.994	.968	138.252

σu	.512			.073			4.115
σe	3.001			.180			7.783
Var(time)	—			.084			16.503

-2LL (df)	1140.096(6)			438.420(7)			1588.707(7)
AIC	1144.096			452.420			1602.707

Note . Time: 0,1, 2. Group: 0 = control; 1 = intervention. Gender: male = -.5; female = .5.

A similar pattern of results emerged from the single slope analysis predicting reading comprehension: the model tested in each group showed that the random effects of time increased the fit only among the intervention group, suggesting a significant inter-individual variability in the slope for the effect of time for the children who had benefitted from the intervention. Over time, these children remained stable in their reading comprehension, b = -213, n.s., intercept = 8.739, p < .001. Conversely, the children of the control group displayed an average level of comprehension lower than that of the intervention group, intercept = 6.782, p < .001, but differently from the intervention children, it increased significantly over time, b = 1.433, p < .001.

Models with the best fit indexes predicting writing skills are reported in Table 5 and show that none of the two indexes for writing fluency was predicted by the child’s gender, and that both increased linearly over time. Besides the fixed effects of time, writing fluency was also predicted by a random effect of time, suggesting significant inter-individual differences in the children’s improvement. Children who had benefited from the intervention had better performance, compared to the control group; nevertheless, as the significant interaction term time X group and the following single slope analysis both suggest, the intervention group started with a higher performance in writing fluency on the word ONE which did not increase significantly over time, while the control group displayed a significant increase in the same performance, although having a much lower starting point compared to the former group, b = 1.493, n.s., intercept = 59.972, p < .001 in the intervention group and b = 7.460, p < .001, intercept = 48.797, p < .001.

	Writing Fluency “ONE”			Writing Fluency “NUMBERS’S NAME”

Intercept	48.797	1.154	265.703	54.318	1.245	142.000
Time (fixed effect)	7.493	1.456	139.498	4.523	1.434	138.017
Group	11.175	1.610	265.703	3.681	1.736	142.000
Gender	—	—	—	—	—	—
Time × group	-5.967	2.039	140.374	3.723	2.011	138.423

σu	71.852			60.025
σe	20.104			46.939
Var(time)	—			44.555

-2LL (df)	2039.196(6)			2101.049(7)
AIC	2051.196			2115.049

Lastly, models with the best fit indexes predicting spelling skills are reported in Table 6 and show that spelling skills were not predicted by gender, nor by random effects of time, suggesting similar slopes among the children. Spelling words and pseudo-words significantly increased over time, while spelling text did not. Children who had benefited from the intervention, when compared to the control children, displayed overall higher performance on all three spelling skills tests, as their performances were characterized by a significantly lower number of mistakes. Lastly, no significant interaction was found between time and group condition, suggesting that both groups underwent the same changes over time.

	Spelling Accuracy for Words (number of errors)			Spelling Accuracy for Pseudowords (number of errors)			Spelling Accuracy for Text (number of errors)

Intercept	9.710	.566	254.814	4.478	.292	258.255	7.275	.471	260.662
Time (fixed effect)	-2.210	.675	137.309	-1.401	.354	138.394	1.103	.580	137.994
Group	-3.751	.790	254.814	-2.396	.408	258.255	-3.330	.657	260.662
Gender	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Time × group	-.654	.946	138.140	.494	.496	139.239	-.927	.816	139.318

σu	6.703			1.650			4.115
σe	15.455			4.260			7.783
Var(time)	—			—			16.503

-2LL (df)	1637.187(6)			1271.845(6)			1533.535(6)
AIC	1649.187			1283.845			1545.535

This study focused on the impact of visual-motor handwriting training on the reading and writing skills of 6-year-old children. The children involved had not yet begun systematic school handwriting instruction. We therefore aimed to explore the effects of a teaching program focused on intensive cursive instruction on: (a) the prerequisites of writing and reading; and (b) the acquisition of writing and reading skills. The results revealed that changes in reading and writing skills varied as a function of the type of training received. Moreover, within the longitudinal research design we also tested the effects of time. Regarding the first aim, we found that post-training, the intervention group made fewer mistakes than the control group in the “semicircles” task. The intervention group also showed a more stable performance through time in the “two-letter-search task. Moreover, the intervention group was able to write 16 graphemes per minute, while the control group had a rate of 11 graphemes per minute. In line with previous studies, the reading and writing prerequisites strongly correlated with age, thus suggesting that the progressive acquisition of the visual search ability and the semicircles task followed a specific developmental trajectory [ 45 ].

We can detect a worsening performance in each group over time in the “two-letter-search” task. Nevertheless, the training group’s performance was more stable than the control group’s performance. This performance difference can be explained by the children’s ability to process the words in their entirety by accessing mental vocabulary, rather than identifying every single letter which forms the word itself (global versus local processing) [ 45 ]. As far as writing fluency is concerned, our data comply with previous studies which show a linear relationship between graphic-motor abilities and developmental trajectories [ 49 , 50 ]. The higher number of graphemes written by the intervention group is due to the training. This result is important because handwriting speed can be considered a good predictor for more complex tasks such as orthography and test processing. A substantial gender difference in prerequisite tasks—mainly in analysis and visual search abilities—in favor of females was found. Previous studies have demonstrated a higher rate of learning disabilities in boys than girls, but it has not yet been fully explained why this gender difference appears. In most studies the gender effect appears in the early stages of learning [ 49 ]. Therefore, this study suggests that the gender difference can play a relevant role in reading and writing prerequisite skills, but that these differences were no longer present further on when considering writing and reading skills. The second aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of training on reading and writing skills. There are a lot of research studies that demonstrate a linear trend of reading skills, highlighting an increased performance in instrumental reading abilities such as fluency and accuracy, as well as text comprehension. These data can be observed for both groups, but there is also an inter-individual difference over time. This variability affects the first learning phases in reading; performances become more homogeneous with schooling and with age. Accuracy reading performance in the control group increased more than in the intervention group, since there were substantial differences at the beginning: the control group started from a significantly lower average performance, not due to an effect of the training. Similarly, at the early learning stages, text comprehension processes are necessarily distinguished by a huge inter-individual variability, because text comprehension is a complex learning process in which several abilities merge; as a consequence, it takes a longer period and more skills to make this ability stable over time. In the early learning stages, we cannot find a strict correlation between reading abilities and comprehension [ 50 ]; indeed, some studies show that children in the fourth grade are able to understand the meaning of a text even without proper accuracy abilities [ 51 ]. This result may be obtained by submitting simpler texts with lower syntactic complexity [ 5 ]. It is worth pointing out how the training produced a certain stabilizing effect from the early learning stages, for both instrumental reading abilities and text comprehension. In various studies, this fact is seen as a good predictor of study skills in the following years. Concerning writing and reading abilities, there is a remarkable linear growth over the time due to a higher grapho-motor control. Concerning writing speed, many studies show that automating certain activities in the act of handwriting may enable students to apply their cognitive resources to more complex activities, such as orthographic accuracy [ 27 ]. As proof of what was previously stated, the intervention group achieved better performance both in orthographic ability and text fundamental units. These findings are in agreement with the literature in affirming that the development of more fluent writing with grapho-motor abilities during the early stages of learning to write enables students to reach better accuracy levels for orthographic features [ 48 ]. The most interesting result related to cursive handwriting training is the data regarding writing fluency. A great deal of the literature supports the idea that children with more fluent handwriting in the early stages of learning show better writing abilities in terms of orthography and increased text composition skills. Our results support the literature by underlining the relationship between graphic and orthographic skills. This relationship is observed and supported by other studies [ 15 , 16 , 20 , 25 ], which show the contribution made by this variable with regard to more complex cognitive writing skills. We also observed that the intervention group’s handwriting skills changed dramatically over the school year, showing better results than those predicted by the usual evolutionary trends. These results demonstrate how children can improve not only basic skills, but also subsequent learning abilities thanks to domain-specific training carried out in the field of grapho-motor learning. Our study supports recent works that demonstrate how improvements in instrumental handwriting features may occur upon teaching and direct, explicit daily practice [ 15 , 16 ], particularly during the early stages of schooling. All this suggests the importance of automating the production of letters and words during writing so children can direct their attentive resources to the regulation of more complex aspects of text production, such as the decoding of texts and the orthographic accuracy of writing [ 8 ]. In fact, working memory seems to play a key role in the processes of writing and reading.

Bourdin and Fayol [ 7 ] examined writing processes within the explicit context of working memory. They varied the response modality (spoken vs. written) in a serial recall task and found that recall was significantly poorer in the written condition for children but not for adults. The authors interpreted these findings as evidence that the transcription process of adults, but not children, was sufficiently fluent to operate with minimal working memory demands. When adults were required to write in cursive uppercase letters, thereby preventing their use of overlearned, highly fluent transcription processes and depriving them of access to working memory, also adults showed poorer recall when writing. In a related series of experiments, Bourdin and Fayol [ 7 ] changed the task from serial recall to sentence generation and again demonstrated that transcription imposed resource costs for children but not for adults. Thus, until transcription processes develop sufficient fluency, writers seem constrained by working memory limits [ 9 ]. With regard to the reading processes, certainly the training of visuo-spatial skills has strengthened the positive effect that writing has provided to reading skills. A study undertaken at Indiana State University, in which an experimental group of children were taught exclusively cursive writing in the first grade, appears to support our position. Achievement in spelling and word reading was higher in the experimental group, while there were more reversals and transposition errors in the control group [ 52 ]. Recent studies support the same results [ 30 , 53 , 54 ].

Nevertheless, we believe that working on the quality of the practice is fundamental; otherwise it would be highly improbable for writing feature rates to increase without negatively affecting readability. Concerning this feature of education, further investigation is needed to better understand the relation between handwriting practice and the development of writing abilities during primary school. Moreover, our study introduces an innovative fact not previously dealt with in recent literature: that children who adopted the cursive type as the only handwriting type showed a higher writing rate than pupils using more types. This fact contrasts with the literature which states that the cursive type decreases writing rates [ 51 ]. We also observed that pupils using cursive as the only handwriting type had better results in producing orthographically correct words than students using more types. As shown by other studies [ 20 ], it seems that the grapho-motor component affects word production management, especially for writers in the learning phase. In addition, we observed that children who only learned the cursive type made faster improvements in reading. This fact may be explained by a major focus of active resources on the lexical access task. The very nature of the cursive type may help students to easily memorize and recall a word unit, since in the cursive type the letters of a word are linked one to another, while in print type they are separated [ 35 ].

In conclusion, like other studies [ 10 , 11 , 35 ], our work tends to demonstrate how, upon training, writing and reading abilities improve in terms of written letter rate (students write faster), orthography (words are written correctly), and reading (students read and understand better). However, writing quality is a parameter to be investigated thoroughly in further studies. Considering writing type, we can observe how students who learn every type simultaneously do not achieve results as good as those achieved by cursive-only students. This finding supports the idea that the development of writing abilities in primary school is better favored by the teaching of a single type of handwriting, namely cursive handwriting. Furthermore, teaching of the cursive type generates improvement in graphic and orthographic word production by the end of the school year. A remarkable feature to be taken into account is the rapid improvement of basic skills in the intervention group as compared to the control group.

Our research sheds light on a number of educational issues. Firstly, it is necessary to think about the role of grapho-motor abilities in the development of handwriting skills, as well as giving more weight to grapho-motor skills in teaching plans. Secondly, it is important to support the teaching community to ensure that decisions regarding handwriting automatization are taken at the beginning of the educational process [ 55 ]. In order to do so, explicit and direct teaching of letter shapes and frequent practice are essential elements [ 35 ]. Last but not least, it is necessary to think further about the relevance of single-learning process based teaching, since it has been demonstrated that by acting on single learning abilities, there are greater advantages to be had in future learning.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

The Case for Cursive: 6 Reasons Why Cursive Handwriting is Good for Your Brain

If you have kids or attend school yourself, you might have noticed that cursive handwriting—that loopy, continuous written style popular in the 20th century and recently cast aside in favor of key-boards—is making a comeback. And just because we have more tools to communicate doesn’t mean that those who aren’t in school should abandon cursive writing, which provides an abundance of benefits. Keep reading to see what we mean.

1. Cursive provides a flow of thought as well as a flow of words.

Numerous studies on the effect of writing in cursive have been completed, but one of the most influential remains a 1976 investigation from the journal Academic Therapy. It demonstrated that the act of writing words in a continuous fashion—as opposed to the interrupted format of block letters—promoted an understanding of complete words better than separate letters. Humans, after all, think structurally, not phonetically. Cursive helps reinforce that.

2. Cursive helps you focus on content.

When one becomes proficient in cursive, the barrier between thought and action is minimal. In fact, the College Board found that students taking the essay portion of the SAT exam scored slightly higher when writing in cursive than if they printed their answers. By not having to slow down with block printing, experts believed they could put virtually all of their focus on the content of their work.

3. Cursive gets the entire brain working.

Cursive may seem like just a different way of writing, but studies have found that it activates different neurological pathways than typing or manuscript writing. And reading cursive also activates different parts of the brain than printed text—one study found that in all cases they studied, when they presented information to the left hemisphere of the brain fewer errors occurred than when it was presented to the right hemisphere. But when reading cursive, this advantage was much smaller, indicating that the right hemisphere plays a much larger in reading cursive than in printed form.

4. Cursive helps you retain more information.

Studies have shown that taking notes during an educational class using handwriting is preferable to typing. That’s because when we type, we’re able to transcribe speech almost verbatim. When we write, we have to be more selective and the brain has to process information to decide what’s important enough to write down. That level of brain engagement tends to make information “stick” rather than just pass through our typing fingers.

5. Cursive may help improve motor control.

Cursive handwriting is a fine motor skill that allows for plenty of practice. For people with developmental dysgraphia this can have a range of benefits to improve these skills.

6. Cursive will make you a better speller.

The act of writing out words and thinking of them as a single unit means you’re more likely to re-tain their proper spelling than if you simply typed them out. Cursive writers tend to spell more accurately as a result.

Every time you put pen to paper, you can get creative from curlicues to calligraphy. It’s just one of the incredible things paper can help you do. Learn more at howlifeunfolds.com/learning-education .

Sources: Mental Floss ; Academic Therapy ; NASBE [ PDF ]; Medium/@JudySantilliPackhem ; Written Language and Literacy [ PDF ]; Brain and Language ; Developmental Neuropsychology [ PDF ]; The New York Times [ 1 , 2 ]; Intechopen ; NPR

Handwriting Helps the Brain Function

Submitted: The Two Sides Team March 31, 2014

“For children, handwriting is extremely important. Not how well they do it, but that they do it and practice it,” said Karin Harman James, an assistant professor in the department of psychological and brain sciences at Indiana University. “Typing does not do the same thing.”

William R. Klemm, D.V.M., Ph.D. agrees. In an article he wrote called “Cursive writing makes kids smarter” published on March 14, 2013 in Memory Medic, Klemm states that in the case of learning cursive writing, the brain develops functional specialization that integrates both sensation, movement control, and thinking. Brain imaging studies reveal that multiple areas of the brain become co-activated during learning of cursive writing of pseudo-letters, as opposed to typing or just visual practice.

He also believes there is spill-over benefit for thinking skills used in reading and writing. To write legible cursive, fine motor control is needed over the fingers. Students have to pay attention and think about what and how they are doing it. They have to practice.

There are also benefits to the physical aspects of the actual act of writing. Julie Deardorff wrote an article in the Tribune newspaper that outlined the benefits of gripping and moving a pen or pencil that reach beyond communication. She stated that emerging research shows that handwriting increases brain activity, hones fine motor skills and can predict a child’s academic success in ways that keyboarding can’t.

According to an article last year by reporter Chris Gayomali in The Wall Street Journal, some physicians claim that the act of writing — which engages your motor skills, memory, and more — is good cognitive exercise for baby boomers who want to keep their minds sharp as they age. And if you’re looking to pick up a new skill, a 2008 study published in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience found that adults had an easier time recognizing new characters — like Chinese, math symbols, or music notes — that were written by hand over characters generated by a computer.

“Handwriting aids memory. If you write yourself a list or a note — then lose it — you’re much more likely to remember what you wrote than if you just tried to memorize it,” said Occupational Therapist Katya Feder, an adjunct professor at the University of Ottawa School of Rehabilitation.

According to Feder in the same Tribune article, handwriting proficiency inspires confidence. The more we practice a skill such as handwriting, the stronger the motor pathways become until the skill becomes automatic. Once it’s mastered, children can move on to focus on the subject, rather than worry about how to form letters.

Handwriting engages different brain circuits than keyboarding. The contact, direction and pressure of the pen or pencil send the brain a message. And the repetitive process of handwriting “integrates motor pathways into the brain,” said Feder. When it becomes automatic or learned, “there’s almost a groove in the pathways,” she said. The more children write, the more pathways are laid down.

So now you’ve heard what the experts say…keep writing! And we will keep paving the way for responsible paper production.

References:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/memory-medic/201303/what-learning-cursive-does-your-brain

http://theweek.com/article/index/238801/4-benefits-of-writing-by-hand

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/04/30/should-schools-require-children-to-learn-cursive/the-benefits-of-cursive-go-beyond-writing

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-15/health/sc-health-0615-child-health-handwriti20110615_1_handwriting-virginia-berninger-brain-activation

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704631504575531932754922518

Phil Riebel President, Two Sides North America, Inc.

Share this story

Get the latest news and updates from Two Sides by subscribing to our blog!

Share the Story

Protecting Your Right to Paper

MidCountry Media Joins Two Sides

Join us in celebrating U.S. National Forest Products Week from October 21–27

Celebrate International Print Day 2018

Keep up to date with the latest articles from two sides by subscribing to our blog.

Only fill in if you are not human

Subscribe to our Blog

Please enter your details below to subscribe to our mailing list

You can opt out of Two Sides emails at any time by emailing [email protected] . View our full privacy policy here .

the official website for the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America sm

Waldorf Education

Share Print Mail

In This Section

Art in Education
AWSNA Member News
Child Development
Creativity and Resourcefulness
Diversity Equity & Inclusion
Early Childhood
Gardening/Permaculture
Health and Safety
High School
High School - Grades 9-12
Lower School
Lower School - Grades 1-5
Mathematics
Member News
Middle School
Middle School - Grades 6-8
Mindfulness
Nature and Environment
Outdoor Learning
Public Policy
Subject Teacher
Waldorf Alum
Waldorf Alumni
Waldorf Athletics
Waldorf Chronicles
Waldorf Conference
Waldorf Training
WaldorfWildlifeWeb

News & Articles of Interest

Another scientific study on the benefits of handwriting was published this summer in Frontiers in Psychology Magazine. The study by Norwegian University of Science and Technology -- The Importance of Cursive Handwriting Over Typewriting for Learning in the Classroom: A High-Density EEG Study of 12-Year-Old Children and Young Adults -- looked at brain scans of young adults and 12-year-olds as they were writing in cursive by hand, typewriting, or drawing.

Scientists found that cursive writing and drawing activated brain areas important for memory and the encoding of new information and, therefore, helped “provide the brain with optimal conditions for learning.” This was not seen in the subjects who were typewriting.

The conclusion reached was: “We suggest that children, from an early age, must be exposed to handwriting and drawing activities in school to establish the neuronal oscillation patterns that are beneficial for learning. We conclude that because of the benefits of sensory-motor integration due to the larger involvement of the senses as well as fine and precisely controlled hand movements when writing by hand and when drawing, it is vital to maintain both activities in a learning environment to facilitate and optimize learning.”

Read the full study at Frontiers in Psychology Magazine. Photo Credit: Emerson Waldorf School

License Renewal begins September 1st

Connecting Writing to the Brain, Literacy, and Technology

Learning differences, written by: kristin barbour.

January is an excellent month for us to highlight writing. Annually, National Handwriting Day is on January 23rd. My curiosity about why National Handwriting Day is observed on January 23rd led me to discover that the day was selected in honor of John Hancock (coinciding with his birthday). As a Founding Father of our nation, he was the first to sign the U.S. Declaration of Independence. John Hancock was known for his penmanship and famous signature. In fact, Hancock’s cursive autograph became so renowned that we commonly use “John Hancock” as another term for signature.

As I reflect on the writers of the American Constitution and other governing documents, I realize that they were thought generators and innovators. These writers established the foundation of this nation through multiple drafts of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and all were done in cursive writing. Although writing is embedded in our nation’s history, writing ability is not just a skill needed in the past. The need for this ability to write well spans across time, past-present-and future. Let me share a few noteworthy aspects of writing that are presently being highlighted and delve into future implications of technology and writing.

Learning scientists continue their research exploring the link between the brain and writing. Writing is a complex cognitive ability that requires working memory, executive function, and self-regulation (Berninger, 2012). One component of writing, the physical act of handwriting, stimulates many geographical regions of the brain responsible for thinking, language, and working memory (James, 2012).Handwriting is defined as using the hand to construct units of written language symbols, including single letters, words, sentences, and connected text to express ideas and thinking (Berninger, 2012). Cursive handwriting uses connecting strokes to link the letters within a word which involves the coordination of motor planning, visual perception, and attention (Mangen & Velay, 2010).

Hang in here with me a bit longer as we dig into the science of writing. Let’s take a moment to consider encoding. Encoding is breaking a spoken word into its individual sounds in the act of spelling and writing. In the complex orchestration of encoding, the brain is tying muscle movement and tactile kinetic letter formation with hearing a sound and associating the sound with its letter name. Stated in simpler terms, writing influences reading ~ you can’t separate the different strands of language!

So, the science of writing informs us that reading and the physical act of writing, and the cognitive processes involved in creating written expression are intimately connected. Margie Gillis, a nationally recognized literacy expert, indicates that encoding and decoding are reciprocal and bootstrap each other (Heubeck, 2023). She argues that encoding cannot be an afterthought in literacy instruction that heavily focuses on decoding. How do these neuroscientific findings impact our NILD work with students? In thinking about my NILD students, many need help with decoding skills and are weak spellers and writers. The science of writing research reminds me not to overly focus on reading over writing.

NILD Cognitive Literacy: Gray Matter Literacy

We must continue emphasizing encoding and writing within the Gray Matter Literacy technique and other NILD techniques such as Buzzer, Grammar, and Dictation and Copy. Integrating writing with reading is both efficient and effective. Coming full circle back to the science of writing, literary research expert Timothy Shanahan states, “There is no question that reading and writing share a lot of [cognitive] real estate; they depend on a lot of the same knowledge and skills.” (January 17, 2023). But let’s be honest with each other; teaching students writing is hard and takes time. Our educational therapy sessions are already so full! However, writing is essential for all students to learn as it is a primary mode of communication beyond speech.

Like reading, foundational writing skills need to be taught systematically and explicitly. Foundational writing skills, including handwriting and spelling, can be taught explicitly and systematically through NILD’s Rhythmic Writing and Gray Matter Literacy techniques. In addition, we incorporate other foundational writing skills such as text structure, vocabulary, orthographic mapping, and world knowledge in our educational therapy sessions using many other NILD techniques, including Dictation and Copy, Buzzer, and Memory Cards, to name just a few. Allowing students to write about what they learned (e.g., a Dictation and Copy homework extension activity) can help them to make sense of it. Be sure students spend time organizing their thoughts and selecting the right word choices and the type of writing conventions they will use to convey their ideas.

Incorporating writing in Math Block is a great way to help improve students' mathematical learning. For example, engage students in error analysis by giving students mathematical problems that have already been solved. Students identify the mathematical error and, if appropriate, provide several different ways to solve the problem. Writing about what error occurred and how to fix it builds their analysis and argumentative writing skills. Lower-level mathematical writing activities can include summarizing and explaining how to solve a word problem or a numerical progression.

We know that writing matters even in the earliest grades when students learn to read. We also know that writing is a cognitively complex task requiring significant investments of students' cognitive resources; hence students should be guided in constructing sentences and paragraphs. However, what if current and future technology can help students write sentences and compose essays? Recent educational media headline coverage about writing focuses on technology and writing, specifically software writing apps. The newest artificial intelligence apps and software that can be used for writing have implications for the present and future. Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered tools like ChatGPT are trending now and have the potential to affect K-12 students. ChatGPT is a new AI chatbot that can write about all subjects in various writing styles (Hess, 2023).

The capabilities of AI-powered tools to influence students' writing will continue to capture educators' and students' attention for years to come. Critics concerned with the use of AI-powered tools indicate that the software is very good at putting words into an order that makes sense but understanding the meaning or knowing whether the statements it makes are correct is yet to be a capability of the tool. In essence, the sentences look like they might be good, and the answers are very easy to produce as the chatbot can write an article on any topic efficiently, but not necessarily accurately or meaningfully) within mere seconds. Overuse of AI-powered tools may mean that students do not have the opportunity to learn how to write correctly. Also, students need to determine if the AI-generated plausible-sounding sentences are correct or incorrect or nonsensical answers.

Supporters of AI-powered tools argue for incorporating them into teaching and learning, such as providing students suggestions for grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure. Other ways to incorporate these tools include creating quizzes for self-check and writing samples to practice revisions (almost like an error analysis in math). Students could experiment with writing voice, adding evidence, analyzing, or reorganizing the structure. In the short time that AI-powered writing tools have been introduced into mainstream education, there have been various responses from students, educators, school leaders, and parents ranging from cheering to hand-wringing and philosophizing. The opportunity is ripe for us to encourage educators and administrators to bring writing back into the classroom where teachers can facilitate and observe students' writing process!

The recent findings about the science of writing combined with the national attention AI-powered writing tools are receiving have renewed my intentionality to help develop my NILD students’ writing skills. Rhythmic Writing builds the necessary skills needed for handwriting which is so important because of the multitude of benefits that comes with writing in cursive. All five NILD core techniques lend themselves to intentionally building writing skills - including Math Block! I am also very excited that NILD is in the process of developing a new Rx for Discovery Spelling workshop. The new spelling workshop combined with Rx for Discovery Writing Fundamentals and Standard workshops are great ways to gain new insights into developing your students’ writing abilities.

Kristin Barbour, Ed.D. PCET

Berninger, V. W. (2012). Strengthening the Mind's Eye. Principal, 91(5), 28-31. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=57bb6336-d477-40a7-8628-80963a024149%40sessionmgr103

Dinehart, L. H. (2015). Handwriting in early childhood education: Current research and future implications. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 15(1), 97-118. doi:10.1177/1468798414522825

Hess, R. (2023, January 26). Will ChatGPT unflip the classroom? EducationWeek. https://www.edweek.org/technology/opinion-will-chatgpt-unflip-the-classroom/2023/01?utm_source=nl&utm_medium=eml&utm_campaign=eu&M=6055996&UUID=dda74d04211477c311c86b440e0a00de&T=8149445

Heubeck, E. (2023, January 17). ‘Encoding explained: What it is and why it’s essential to literacy. EducationWeek. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/encoding-explained-what-it-is-and-why-its-essential-to-literacy/2023/01

James, K.H. “How Printing Practice Affects Letter Perception: An Educational Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective.” Presented at Handwriting in the 21st Century?: An Educational Summit, Washington, D.C., January 23, 2012.

Klemm, W. R. (2013). Why writing by hand could make you smarter. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/memory-medic/201303/why-writing-hand-could-make-you-smarter

Mangen, A., & Velay, J. L. (2010). Digitizing Literacy: Reflections on the Haptics of Writing. In Advances in Haptics. InTech, 385-401. Retrieved from https://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/9927/inTechDigitizing_literacy_reflections_on_the_haptics_of_writing.pdf

Sawchuk, S. (2023, January 17). How does writing fit into the ‘science of reading’? EducationWeek. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/how-does-writing-fit-into-the-science-of-reading/2023/01

Geopolitics
Computer Science
Health Science
Exercise Science
Behavioral Science
Engineering
Mathematics

The Power of Cursive Writing: Unlocking the Benefits of Handwriting Skills

In today’s digital age, where keyboards and touchscreens dominate our lives, the art of handwriting seems to have taken a backseat. However, there is a growing body of research suggesting that cursive writing, an elegant and flowing style of penmanship, holds significant importance in our cognitive and brain development. In this article, we will explore the landmark research conducted by George H. Early in 1973, titled “The Case for Cursive Writing,” and discuss why cursive writing remains an essential skill even in the year 2023.

Why is Cursive Writing Important?

Cursive writing serves as a crucial tool for communication, self-expression, and critical thinking. It goes beyond the mere act of putting words on paper; it involves a unique cognitive process that engages the brain in a way that typing or printing does not. By learning cursive, individuals develop fine motor skills, hand-eye coordination, and the ability to connect letters fluidly, forming a seamless whole.

Moreover, cursive writing has historical and cultural significance. It connects us to our past, allowing us to read and understand important historical documents, letters, and manuscripts. Imagine being unable to decipher the beautiful script of the United States Constitution or the intricate handwriting of Leonardo da Vinci’s journals. By preserving cursive as a cherished skill, we ensure that future generations can retain this cultural heritage.

“Cursive writing is not just a relic of the past; it is a skill that continues to shape the future of communication and cognitive development.”

How Does Cursive Writing Benefit Brain Development?

The act of writing in cursive stimulates multiple regions of the brain, fostering better learning, memory retention, and overall cognitive abilities. Research has shown that the intricate movements required for cursive writing activate the brain’s neural connections more effectively than other forms of writing, such as typing or block printing.

One study conducted by Indiana University found that when children were asked to generate ideas for a composition, those who wrote in cursive produced more words and expressed more complex thoughts compared to those who used print or typing. This suggests that cursive writing promotes higher-level thinking and aids in the development of creativity and language skills.

Furthermore, cursive writing can enhance focus and concentration. According to an article published in Psychology Today, the repetitive nature of forming cursive letters serves as a form of mindfulness, allowing individuals to focus their attention on the present moment rather than becoming distracted. This mindful engagement during handwriting can improve information processing and ultimately lead to better learning outcomes.

“Cursive writing is an exercise for the brain, promoting cognitive development, creativity, and concentration.”

Is Cursive Writing Still Taught in Schools?

With technology becoming increasingly prevalent in classrooms, there has been a decline in the emphasis placed on teaching cursive writing. However, the importance of this skill has not diminished. In the United States, the decision to include cursive writing in the curriculum is determined at the state level, leading to inconsistencies across the country.

While some states, such as California and Texas, have mandated the inclusion of cursive writing in their education standards, others have abandoned it altogether. This lack of uniformity raises concerns about the potential long-term consequences for students’ cognitive development and the preservation of essential cultural documents.

It is crucial to recognize the role of educators in fostering the practice of cursive writing. Teachers who integrate cursive writing into their lesson plans can effectively develop students’ fine motor skills, creativity, and critical thinking abilities. When students are exposed to cursive writing as an integral part of their education, they develop the foundational skills necessary for success in various academic subjects.

“Educators play a vital role in equipping students with the cognitive and cultural benefits of cursive writing.”

In conclusion, the research conducted by George H. Early in 1973 highlights the significance of cursive writing as a valuable skill, even in the year 2023. The art of cursive writing offers cognitive benefits such as improved brain development, enhanced creative thinking, and greater concentration. It also provides a link to our cultural heritage, allowing us to understand our past and connect with historical documents. While the teaching of cursive writing may vary across different states and education systems, it is crucial for educators to recognize its importance and incorporate it into their curriculum.

By embracing cursive writing and its multitude of advantages, we ensure that future generations possess the necessary skills to excel in a digitally driven world without losing touch with our rich history. Let us not undervalue the elegance and power of putting pen to paper and embracing the endless possibilities that cursive writing can unlock.

Source: The Case for Cursive Writing – George H. Early, 1973

Christophe Garon

September 21, 2023

Behavioral Science , Research

continuous education , handwriting , penmanship

Brain Benefits of Learning to Write in Cursive

Is learning to write in cursive a lost art?

Research shows that learning to write in cursive offers brain benefits to kids that they don't get from printing letters or keyboarding. An article from Psychology Today states that learning to write in cursive is an important tool for cognitive development. Specifically, cursive writing trains the brain to learn functional specialization, which is the capacity for optimal efficiency. When a child learns to read and write in cursive through consistent practice and repetition, he or she must effectively integrate fine motor skills with visual and tactile processing abilities. This multi-sensory experience supports cognitive function and development.

Handwriting in Cursive and Dyslexia

Even more exciting is the belief that learning to write in cursive can help ease symptoms of dyslexia . Since new research shows that dyslexia is caused by a functional disconnection in communication between the auditory and language centers of the brain, it stands to reason that learning to write in cursive can improve these communication deficits. An article from PBS.org states that when the tactile experience of using our hands is involved, there is a stronger association for learning and memory.

Cursive Writing in Schools

Unfortunately, many school districts are no longer teaching kids to write in cursive. In those that do, lessons are abbreviated to make room for new standards. If your child needs more practice with handwriting, consider visiting these websites that offer free printable worksheets for practice:

Find cursive alphabet worksheets for individual letter practice at K5learning.com .
Find short educational lessons written in cursive for reading and writing practice at Printablecursive.com .

Help for Handwriting Proficiency

If your child is struggling with reading or with the fine motor skills needed for handwriting proficiency, we invite you to consider The Brain Balance Program .

Enjoy These Related Articles: Tips for Improving Handwriting and Dysgraphia Improving Executive Function Skills Activities for Improving Hand-Eye Coordination

Get started with a plan for your child today.

Related posts, the essential role of brain health in every life stage.

Brain health is increasingly recognized as a cornerstone of overall well-being, with its impact […]

Thinking of Homeschooling? Five Key Factors to Consider.

By Steve Kozak

ADD vs. ADHD: What's The Difference?

Of course, you love your child. You just wish they would slow down for just one minute. Maybe they […]

Call us at 800.877.5500

Webinar Sign Up

Call 800-877-5500

Intervention in Improving Cursive Handwriting towards Effective Composition of Selected Students in Grade 8 at Dagatan National High School

Elcie Lontoc

INTRODUCTION

Students have lots of ideas, but they lack ways in how to express them, especially if their handwriting is not readable. The communication gap between students and teachers also commonly occur because of their bad penmanship. The best solution to this is cursive writing. It is the best way on how to use brain and hands at the same time (Reyes 2000); it improves the brain activity and it gives thewriter a chance to enjoy the journey of writing (Olson 2016).

Being a qualitative research, the researcher interviewed respondents for data collection. The strengths and weaknesses of Grade 8 students, both section 4 and 5, were diagnosed through the activity. This measured their speed, proper stroke of letters, and usage of capital and small letters. With the use of tracing paper, they imitated the exact stroke of letters from a different paper. Within 15 minutes they copied 20 Filipino words. Afterward, they were divided into two groups, the independent cursive writers (Group A) and poor cursive writers (Group B). Those students diagnosed in Group A underwent interviews which tackled their experiences on how they improved writing within 5 to 6 years. The latter was interviewed after the activity and the obstacles they encountered.

The respondents were grouped accordingly. There are 16 independent (group A) and 77 dependent cursive writers (Group B). The outcome of Group A interviews was positive for they have supervision from their teachers and parents. Group B interview's results were summarized as nervousness; stressed; an improper way of holding a pen; forgetfulness of the words; slow writing; headache; unsuitable environment; and breaking a pencil. The suggestions were a concentration; setting an alarm; proper way of holding a pen; repeating words in their head before transcribing them; relaxation; conducive room; and changing the brand of pencil. After passing the activity, they felt happiness; confidence; can write more ideas; improvement of grades in writing outputs; and interest in the school paper.

DISCUSSIONS

Group A's interview results were used as a reference for intervention. The outcome of the interview in group B shows that physical, mental, and emotional situations hindered their goal in the activity. Compared to the result of Grapes et.al 2014, Meyers 2014, and Roberts et.al 2010 studies, they debate which among cursive writing or keyboard writing is most convenient; the importance of cursive writing to our brain; and effects of cursive writing to elementary students while this research dug deeply to the difficulties students encountered initially. Although it tackles students' abilities, this study lacks evidence on how cursive writing will produce technology. It is suggested that future researchers should produce solutions on how cursive writing will catch up with the present time.

Information

For Readers
For Authors
For Librarians

By Audience

Therapist Toolbox
Teacher Toolbox
Parent Toolbox
Explore All

By Category

Organization
Impulse Control
When Executive Function Skills Impair Handwriting
Executive Functioning in School
Executive Functioning Skills- Teach Planning and Prioritization
Adults With Executive Function Disorder
How to Teach Foresight
Bilateral Coordination
Hand Strengthening Activities
What is Finger Isolation?
Occupational Therapy at Home
Fine Motor Skills Needed at School
What are Fine Motor Skills
Fine Motor Activities to Improve Open Thumb Web Space
Indoor Toddler Activities
Outdoor Play
Self-Dressing
Best Shoe Tying Tips
Potty Training
Cooking With Kids
Scissor Skills
Line Awareness
Spatial Awareness
Size Awareness
Pencil Control
Pencil Grasp
Letter Formation
Proprioception
How to Create a Sensory Diet
Visual Perception
Eye-Hand Coordination
How Vision Problems Affect Learning
Vision Activities for Kids
What is Visual Attention?
Activities to Improve Smooth Visual Pursuits
What is Visual Scanning
Classroom Accommodations for Visual Impairments

occupational therapy infant feeding therapy. Image of a baby bottle.

OT Tips for Infant Feeding Therapy

Free Resources
Members Club
Handwriting , Letter Formation

The Research on Cursive Handwriting

Colleen beck otr/l.

by Colleen Beck OTR/L
November 1, 2017

If you have a school aged child, then you might have seen them learn cursive in schools…or maybe not. In recent years, cursive seems to have dropped from the radar in school curriculum. But why is that? What does the research tell us about cursive handwriting, and what is the science behind cursive? Should cursive be brought back to the classrooms? In this blog post, we’re talking specifically about the latest research on cursive handwriting.

We do have an extensive series and resources on how to teach cursive handwriting , so if the cursive writing research below gets you interested, you can start there!

Use this research on cursive handwriting to get a better understanding of what is going on in the brain as we learn cursive, cursive handwriting development, and how cursive can help with learning.

Cursive Handwriting Research

So, what does research say about cursive handwriting? A lot!

We pulled together a few links on different research studies that looked at different components of cursive writing. The research tells us that cursive changes the brain and helps with learning!

One thing that we have to consider (as parents and as school based OT professionals who are in the mess of handwriting goals…) is to consider technology. Kids are surrounded by tech, screens, and apps all day long. And, that’s not a terrible thing, it’s just that moderation is needed.

So, when it comes to cursive handwriting specifically, we have the technology of tablets and the writing stylus. One team of researchers shared the benefits of practicing letter formation. But, knowing how important it is to practice handwriting and that physical act of writing letters, what do we do about all of the screen use and technology we have now?

The nice thing that we see in occupational therapy in the schools is that we can transition kids from print to cursive as a tool for supporting letter formation. This helps with the motor plan of writing. It also helps with letter reversals. But, we can also use the technology to practice and get all of the benefits of learning letters.

Another study found that using a stylus and screen is just as effective as writing on paper and with a pencil. This is great for the student that needs motivating handwriting activities to actually practice letter formation.

So, what’s the takeaway? It’s all about finding the right balance. Whether you’re a student or a teacher, it’s smart to know when to go digital or stick with traditional methods. Plus, everyone’s different, right? Still another study found that what works for one learner might not click with another and that using different strategies can build those neural pathways.

Cursive Changes the Brain

This link explores the brain and how it relates to cursive handwriting . Some important areas that are referenced include findings of changes occurring in the brains that allow a child to overcome motor challenges when children are exposed to cursive handwriting.

Additionally, the article describes a study in which has shown that physical instruction such as cursive handwriting lessons actually changed the participant’s brain structure.

Cursive for Motor Control Challenges

There is some research indicating cursive handwriting can be a valuable tool for motor control challenges such as those who struggle with dyslexia or dysgraphia. Read more about dyslexia and occupational therapy .

It’s been found that there are distinct neural pathways that develop when we physically write letters.

N euroimaging studies have revealed an cognitive processes involving primarily left-hemisphere brain areas that are involved in writing tasks, finger writing, and imagined writing.

Cursive Progression

Cursive handwriting, like printed handwriting becomes more individualistic and develops a personal style, especially during grades 3 and 4, and as children develop .

Practice matters! Quality of handwriting has been shown to enhance writing skills, reading, and learning or memory of language.

There are studies that have shown improved handwriting abilities through use of multi-sensory activities (Case-Smith et al., 2012; Keller, 2001; Lust & Donica, 2011). You’ll find more research on handwriting in The Handwriting Book:

Research references on cursive handwriting

Case-Smith, J., Holland, T., Lane, A., & White, S. (2012). Effect of a co-teaching handwriting program for first graders: One-group pretest-posttest design. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66(4), 396-405. Keller, M. (2001). Handwriting club: Using sensory integration strategies to improve handwriting. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(1), 9. Lust, C. A., & Donica, D. K. (2011). Effectiveness of a handwriting readiness program in Head Start: A two-group controlled trial. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(5), 560-8.

Over the past 30 days, we’ve shared cursive handwriting tips, strategies, activity ideas, free resources including cursive letter flashcards, tricks, and everything you need to know on how to teach cursive handwriting. Today, as a final post in this cursive handwriting series, we wanted to share the science behind cursive.

Below, you’ll find the research on cursive handwriting . These are the studies that explore cursive, the evidence, and the sources you need for teaching and learning to write in cursive. This post is part of our 31 day series on teaching cursive. You’ll want to check out the How to Teach Cursive Writing page where you can find all of the posts in this series. For more ways to address the underlying skills needed for handwriting , check out the handwriting drop-down tab at the top of this site.

what is the latest research on cursive writing

Learning with Dyed Alphabet Pasta

Free Resources , Occupational Therapy Activities

Free Therapy Planner for Back-to-School

Development , Mental Health , Occupational Therapy , Self Regulation , Sensory

What is Polyvagal Theory?

Quick links, sign up for the ot toolbox newsletter.

Get the latest tools and resources sent right to your inbox!

Get Connected

Want to read the website AD-FREE?
Want to access all of our downloads in one place?
Want done for you therapy tools and materials

Join The OT Toolbox Member’s Club!

Is Cursive Writing Good for the Brain?

Writing in cursive might be a lost art in the next few decades. While it was a school staple in elementary grades, it fell out of favor in the last few years. Currently, only 23 states require that cursive writing is taught in public schools.

The debate on whether or not learning cursive is beneficial to the brain, is faster for students or is helpful with dyslexia rages on and the evidence is not complete enough to point to any studies that show there is a real cognitive benefit to understanding how to write and read cursive text.

Indiana State Senator Jean Leising (R-Oldenburg) has sponsored legislation for the past seven years to require cursive instruction in schools, but it has failed to pass. Leising recently penned an editorial in the Rushville Republican urging passage of a cursive bill and citing science research that shows learning cursive provides brain benefits. In her article, published on February 2, 2018, she states, “While some people believe there is no benefit to learning cursive writing, it has been proven to be more efficient than writing in print, and it also increased academic success by cognitive brain development. Dr. Karin Harman James of the Indiana University Department of Psychology and Brain Sciences found that cursive writing prepares students’ brains for reading and enhances their writing fluency and composition.”

Leising also points to the College Board, the company who produces and administers the SATs as a supporter of cursive writing. In 2013, the College Board did state that written essays that were in cursive did receive slightly higher scores than those that were printed, but it’s important to note that longer essays also tended to score higher, as did essays that were not written in the first person. Dr. James, who studies handwriting and cognitive development at Indiana University, Bloomington was quoted in an article on cursive writing in science magazine Nautilus, stating, “There is no conclusive evidence that there is a benefit for learning cursive for a child’s cognitive development.” Part of the problem is that finding two learning environments where the only difference is the style of handwriting is nearly impossible. In one study James was involved in, functional MRI scans of the brain showed no differences in the brain between printed and cursive handwriting. The research did show that haptic feedback, which is learning how to form letters by hand and getting feedback from touch and pressure, is beneficial, but no distinction was made between cursive text and printed text. Haptic feedback is a big reason why most experts suggest that children learn to write by hand and not just via a keyboard.

Evidence exists that shows cursive can be beneficial to students who have dyslexia, but those students are a neurological exception, and there is no evidence of a benefit in neurotypical children. Cursive is believed to be faster than printing, theoretically because the pen doesn’t have to be lifted up as often from the paper, but in a 2013 paper that studied Canadian and French students, it was found that cursive was slower. The fastest way to handwrite something was found to be whatever individual mixture of printing and cursive that students had developed on their own; in other words, whatever students are best at individually is what’s going to be faster for that student.

If a student is struggling with handwriting and needs help with their writing assignments, they can turn to domyessay.me for assistance. While cursive writing could go the way of the Dodo bird or the buggy whip, some schools will continue to teach it. While it might not be a scientific fact that it helps with cognition and learning, knowing how to read and write in a flowing script might make your holiday cards looks a little nicer. Check out the video below on the decline of cursive

Sources: Nautilus , Sage Journal article , The Rushville Republican

Personality
Cognitive Neuroscience
Research and Development
Cognitive Research
Environment
Functional Neurology
Child Psychology
Functional MRI
Neuroscience
Scientific Writing
Sponsored Content
Infographics

Why Cursive Handwriting Is Good for Your Brain

Writing by hand helps the brain learn and remember better, an eeg study finds..

Posted October 2, 2020 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

As school-age children increasingly rely solely on digital devices for remote- and in-class learning, many K-12 school systems around the world are phasing out cursive handwriting and no longer mandate that kids learn how to write in longhand script. Relying solely on a keyboard to learn the alphabet and type out written words could be problematic; accumulating evidence suggests that not learning cursive handwriting may hinder the brain's optimum potential to learn and remember.

A new EEG-based study by researchers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) reaffirms the importance of "old-fashioned" cursive handwriting in the 21st-century's Computer Age. Even if students use digital pens and write by hand on an interactive computer screen, cursive handwriting helps the brain learn and remember better. These findings ( Askvik, Van der Weel, & Van der Meer, 2020 ) were recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers in Psychology .

"Some schools in Norway have become completely digital and skip handwriting training altogether. Finnish schools are even more digitized than in Norway. Very few schools offer any handwriting training at all," Audrey van der Meer , a neuropsychology professor at NTNU, said in an October 1 news release . "Given the development of the last several years, we risk having one or more generations lose the ability to write by hand. Our research and that of others show that this would be a very unfortunate consequence of increased digital activity."

For this study, Van der Meer and colleagues used high-density EEG monitoring to study how the brain's electrical activity differed when a cohort of 12-year-old children and young adults were handwriting in cursive, typewriting on a keyboard, or drawing visually presented words using a digital pen on a touchscreen, or with traditional pencil and paper.

Data analysis showed that cursive handwriting primed the brain for learning by synchronizing brain waves in the theta rhythm range (4-7 Hz) and stimulating more electrical activity in the brain's parietal lobe and central regions. "Existing literature suggests that such oscillatory neuronal activity in these particular brain areas is important for memory and for the encoding of new information and, therefore, provides the brain with optimal conditions for learning," the authors explain.

The latest (2020) research on the brain benefits of cursive handwriting adds to a growing body of evidence and neuroscience -based research on the importance of learning to write by hand. Almost a decade ago, researchers ( James & Engelhardt, 2012 ) used MRI neuroimaging to investigate the effects of handwriting on functional brain development in young children.

Karin James and Laura Engelhardt found that handwriting (but not typing or tracing letter shapes) activated a unique "reading circuit" in the brain. "These findings demonstrate that handwriting is important for the early recruitment in letter processing of brain regions known to underlie successful reading. Handwriting, therefore, may facilitate reading acquisition in young children," the authors noted.

Another recent fMRI study ( Longcamp et al., 2017 ) of handwriting and reading/writing skills in children and adults found that "the mastery of handwriting is based on the involvement of a network of brain structures whose involvement and inter-connection are specific to writing alphabet characters" and that "these skills are also the basis for the development of more complex language activities involving orthographic knowledge and composition of texts." ( For more on the brain benefits of setting our keyboards aside see " Why Writing by Hand Could Make You Smarter " by William Klemm .)

The latest (2020) study on the importance of cursive handwriting suggests that from an early age, children who are encouraged to augment time spent using a keyboard with writing by hand or drawing * establish neuronal oscillation patterns that prime the brain for learning. As the authors sum up:

" We conclude that because of the benefits of sensory-motor integration due to the larger involvement of the senses as well as fine and precisely controlled hand movements when writing by hand and when drawing, it is vital to maintain both activities in a learning environment to facilitate and optimize learning. "

Audrey van der Meer and her NTNU colleagues are advocating for policymakers to implement guidelines that ensure school-age children receive a minimum of handwriting training and encourage adults to continue writing by hand. "When you write your shopping list or lecture notes by hand, you simply remember the content better afterward," Van der Meer said in the news release.

"The use of pen and paper gives the brain more 'hooks' to hang your memories on. Writing by hand creates much more activity in the sensorimotor parts of the brain," she added. "A lot of senses are activated by pressing the pen on paper, seeing the letters you write, and hearing the sound you make while writing. These sense experiences create contact between different parts of the brain and open the brain up for learning."

* For more on the benefits of drawing and the arts to improve K-12 classroom learning see " Arts-Integrated Pedagogy May Enhance Academic Learning ."

LinkedIn and Facebook image: Aila Images/Shutterstock

Eva Ose Askvik, F. R. (Ruud) van der Weel and Audrey L. H. van der Meer. "The Importance of Cursive Handwriting Over Typewriting for Learning in the Classroom: A High-Density EEG Study of 12-Year-Old Children and Young Adults." Frontiers in Psychology (First published: July 28, 2020) DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01810

Christopher Bergland is a retired ultra-endurance athlete turned science writer, public health advocate, and promoter of cerebellum ("little brain") optimization.

Find Counselling
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United Kingdom
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Published: 19 August 2024

Chronic adaptive deep brain stimulation versus conventional stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: a blinded randomized feasibility trial

Carina R. Oehrn ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8451-7960 1 na1 ,
Stephanie Cernera 1 na1 ,
Lauren H. Hammer 2 na1 ,
Maria Shcherbakova 1 ,
Jiaang Yao ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7062-2508 1 , 3 ,
Amelia Hahn 1 ,
Sarah Wang 2 , 4 ,
Jill L. Ostrem 2 , 4 ,
Simon Little ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6249-6230 2 , 3 , 4 na2 &
Philip A. Starr ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2733-4003 1 , 3 , 4 na2

Nature Medicine ( 2024 ) Cite this article

3414 Accesses

975 Altmetric

Metrics details

Biomedical engineering
Neurophysiology
Parkinson's disease

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a widely used therapy for Parkinson’s disease (PD) but lacks dynamic responsiveness to changing clinical and neural states. Feedback control might improve therapeutic effectiveness, but the optimal control strategy and additional benefits of ‘adaptive’ neurostimulation are unclear. Here we present the results of a blinded randomized cross-over pilot trial aimed at determining the neural correlates of specific motor signs in individuals with PD and the feasibility of using these signals to drive adaptive DBS. Four male patients with PD were recruited from a population undergoing DBS implantation for motor fluctuations, with each patient receiving adaptive DBS and continuous DBS. We identified stimulation-entrained gamma oscillations in the subthalamic nucleus or motor cortex as optimal markers of high versus low dopaminergic states and their associated residual motor signs in all four patients. We then demonstrated improved motor symptoms and quality of life with adaptive compared to clinically optimized standard stimulation. The results of this pilot trial highlight the promise of personalized adaptive neurostimulation in PD based on data-driven selection of neural signals. Furthermore, these findings provide the foundation for further larger clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of personalized adaptive neurostimulation in PD and other neurological disorders. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03582891 .

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

195,33 € per year

only 16,28 € per issue

Buy this article

Purchase on SpringerLink
Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Emerging technologies for improved deep brain stimulation

Eight-hours conventional versus adaptive deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson’s disease

Modulation of subthalamic beta oscillations by movement, dopamine, and deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease

Data availability.

De-identified individual participant data, including neural, wearable and digital diary data, are shared on the Data Archive for the BRAIN Initiative website ( https://dabi.loni.usc.edu/ ; https://doi.org/10.18120/cq9c-d057 ). The study protocol is provided in the Supplementary Information . The Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption is available on the Open Mind website ( https://osf.io/cmndq/ ). Data will be available permanently with no restrictions, for purposes of replicating the findings or conducting meta-analyses.

Code availability

Code written in C# and MATLAB, which operates the investigational device and extracts raw neural data, is available on the Open Mind GitHub platform ( https://openmind-consortium.github.io ). The code for biomarker identification implemented in MATLAB is available in the repository Code Ocean, without restrictions 59 , except for code related to linear discriminant analysis (Fig. 4c–e ), which will be made available after publication of a subsequent manuscript (currently in preparation) that uses this code.

Lozano, A. M. et al. Deep brain stimulation: current challenges and future directions. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 15 , 148–160 (2019).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Neumann, W. -J., Gilron, R., Little, S. & Tinkhauser, G. Adaptive deep brain stimulation: from experimental evidence toward practical implementation. Mov. Disord . https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.29415 (2023).

Marceglia, S. et al. Deep brain stimulation: is it time to change gears by closing the loop? J. Neural Eng. 18 , 061001 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Stanslaski, S. et al. Design and validation of a fully implantable, chronic, closed-loop neuromodulation device with concurrent sensing and stimulation. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 20 , 410–421 (2012).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Stanslaski, S. et al. A chronically implantable neural coprocessor for investigating the treatment of neurological disorders. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits Syst. 12 , 1230–1245 (2018).

Thenaisie, Y. et al. Towards adaptive deep brain stimulation: clinical and technical notes on a novel commercial device for chronic brain sensing. J. Neural Eng. 18 , 042002 (2021).

Starr, P. A. Totally implantable bidirectional neural prostheses: a flexible platform for innovation in neuromodulation. Front. Neurosci. 12 , 619 (2018).

Nakajima, A. et al. Case report: chronic adaptive deep brain stimulation personalizing therapy based on Parkinsonian state. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 15 , 702961 (2021).

Gilron, R. et al. Long-term wireless streaming of neural recordings for circuit discovery and adaptive stimulation in individuals with Parkinson’s disease. Nat. Biotechnol. 39 , 1078–1085 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Little, S. & Brown, P. Debugging adaptive deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 35 , 555–561 (2020).

Wilkins, K. B., Melbourne, J. A., Akella, P. & Bronte-Stewart, H. M. Unraveling the complexities of programming neural adaptive deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 17 , 1310393 (2023).

Ansó, J. et al. Concurrent stimulation and sensing in bi-directional brain interfaces: a multi-site translational experience. J. Neural Eng. 19 , 026025 (2022).

Ascherio, A. & Schwarzschild, M. A. The epidemiology of Parkinson’s disease: risk factors and prevention. Lancet Neurol. 15 , 1257–1272 (2016).

Vitek, J. L. et al. Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation with a multiple independent constant current-controlled device in Parkinson’s disease (INTREPID): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled study. Lancet Neurol. 19 , 491–501 (2020).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Okun, M. S. et al. Subthalamic deep brain stimulation with a constant-current device in Parkinson’s disease: an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 11 , 140–149 (2012).

Weaver, F. M. et al. Bilateral deep brain stimulation vs best medical therapy for patients with advanced Parkinson disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 301 , 63–73 (2009).

Deuschl, G. et al. A randomized trial of deep-brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 355 , 896–908 (2006).

Follett, K. A. et al. Pallidal versus subthalamic deep-brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 362 , 2077–2091 (2010).

Odekerken, V. J. et al. Subthalamic nucleus versus globus pallidus bilateral deep brain stimulation for advanced Parkinson’s disease (NSTAPS study): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 12 , 37–44 (2013).

Bronte-Stewart, H. et al. Adaptive DBS Algorithm for Personalized Therapy in Parkinson’s Disease: ADAPT-PD clinical trial methodology and early data (P1-11.002). Neurology https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000203099 (2023).

Marceglia, S. et al. Double-blind cross-over pilot trial protocol to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of long-term adaptive deep brain stimulation in patients with Parkinson’s disease. BMJ Open 12 , e049955 (2022).

Kühn, A. A., Kupsch, A., Schneider, G.-H. & Brown, P. Reduction in subthalamic 8-35 Hz oscillatory activity correlates with clinical improvement in Parkinson’s disease. Eur. J. Neurosci. 23 , 1956–1960 (2006).

Kühn, A. A. et al. High-frequency stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus suppresses oscillatory β activity in patients with Parkinson’s disease in parallel with improvement in motor performance. J. Neurosci. 28 , 6165–6173 (2008).

Little, S. et al. Adaptive deep brain stimulation in advanced Parkinson disease. Ann. Neurol. 74 , 449–457 (2013).

Velisar, A. et al. Dual threshold neural closed loop deep brain stimulation in Parkinson disease patients. Brain Stimul. 12 , 868–876 (2019).

Bocci, T. et al. Eight-hours conventional versus adaptive deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson’s disease. NPJ Park. Dis. 7 , 88 (2021).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Tinkhauser, G. et al. The modulatory effect of adaptive deep brain stimulation on beta bursts in Parkinson’s disease. Brain J. Neurol. 140 , 1053–1067 (2017).

Bronstein, J. M. et al. Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease: an expert consensus and review of key issues. Arch. Neurol. 68 , 165 (2011).

Swann, N. C. et al. Gamma oscillations in the hyperkinetic state detected with chronic human brain recordings in Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurosci. 36 , 6445–6458 (2016).

Swann, N. C. et al. Adaptive deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease using motor cortex sensing. J. Neural Eng. 15 , 046006 (2018).

Bove, F., Genovese, D. & Moro, E. Developments in the mechanistic understanding and clinical application of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. Expert Rev. Neurother. 22 , 789–803 (2022).

Wiest, C. et al. Finely-tuned gamma oscillations: spectral characteristics and links to dyskinesia. Exp. Neurol. 351 , 113999 (2022).

Sermon, J. J. et al. Sub-harmonic entrainment of cortical gamma oscillations to deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: model based predictions and validation in three human subjects. Brain Stimul. 16 , 1412–1424 (2023).

Olaru, M. et al. Motor network gamma oscillations in chronic home recordings predict dyskinesia in Parkinson’s disease. Brain J. Neurol . https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awae004 (2024).

Herdman, M. et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual. Life Res. 20 , 1727–1736 (2011).

Horne, M. K., McGregor, S. & Bergquist, F. An objective fluctuation score for Parkinson’s disease. PLoS ONE 10 , e0124522 (2015).

Nutt, J. G., Woodward, W. R., Hammerstad, J. P., Carter, J. H. & Anderson, J. L. The “on–off” phenomenon in Parkinson’s disease: relation to levodopa absorption and transport. N. Engl. J. Med. 310 , 483–488 (1984).

van Rheede, J. J. et al. Diurnal modulation of subthalamic beta oscillatory power in Parkinson’s disease patients during deep brain stimulation. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 8 , 88 (2022).

Tinkhauser, G. & Moraud, E. M. Controlling clinical states governed by different temporal dynamics with closed-loop deep brain stimulation: a principled framework. Front. Neurosci. 15 , 734186 (2021).

Alagapan, S. et al. Cingulate dynamics track depression recovery with deep brain stimulation. Nature 622 , 130–138 (2023).

Heck, C. N. et al. Two-year seizure reduction in adults with medically intractable partial onset epilepsy treated with responsive neurostimulation: final results of the RNS System Pivotal trial. Epilepsia 55 , 432–441 (2014).

Scangos, K. W. et al. Closed-loop neuromodulation in an individual with treatment-resistant depression. Nat. Med. 27 , 1696–1700 (2021).

Vizcarra, J. A. et al. Subthalamic deep brain stimulation and levodopa in Parkinson’s disease: a meta-analysis of combined effects. J. Neurol. 266 , 289–297 (2019).

Brown, P. et al. Dopamine dependency of oscillations between subthalamic nucleus and pallidum in Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurosci. 21 , 1033–1038 (2001).

Halje, P. et al. Levodopa-induced dyskinesia is strongly associated with resonant cortical oscillations. J. Neurosci. 32 , 16541–16551 (2012).

Wiest, C. et al. Subthalamic deep brain stimulation induces finely-tuned gamma oscillations in the absence of levodopa. Neurobiol. Dis. 152 , 105287 (2021).

Arlotti, M. et al. Eight-hours adaptive deep brain stimulation in patients with Parkinson disease. Neurology 90 , e971–e976 (2018).

Foffani, G. & Alegre, M. Brain oscillations and Parkinson disease. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 184 , 259–271 (2022).

Feldmann, L. K. et al. Toward therapeutic electrophysiology: beta-band suppression as a biomarker in chronic local field potential recordings. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 8 , 44 (2022).

Chen, Y. et al. Neuromodulation effects of deep brain stimulation on beta rhythm: a longitudinal local field potential study. Brain Stimul. 13 , 1784–1792 (2020).

Olson, J. D. et al. Comparison of subdural and subgaleal recordings of cortical high-gamma activity in humans. Clin. Neurophysiol. 127 , 277–284 (2016).

Piña-Fuentes, D. et al. Acute effects of adaptive deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Brain Stimul. 13 , 1507–1516 (2020).

Busch, J. L. et al. Single threshold adaptive deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease depends on parameter selection, movement state and controllability of subthalamic beta activity. Brain Stimul. 17 , 125–133 (2024).

Merk, T. et al. Machine learning based brain signal decoding for intelligent adaptive deep brain stimulation. Exp. Neurol. 351 , 113993 (2022).

Davis, T. S. et al. LeGUI: a fast and accurate graphical user interface for automated detection and anatomical localization of intracranial electrodes. Front. Neurosci. 15 , 769872 (2021).

Horn, A. et al. Lead-DBS v2: towards a comprehensive pipeline for deep brain stimulation imaging. NeuroImage 184 , 293–316 (2019).

Oehrn, C. R. et al. Chronic adaptive deep brain stimulation is superior to conventional stimulation in Parkinson's disease: a blinded randomized feasibility trial [Source Data]. Data Archive for the Brain Initiative https://doi.org/10.18120/cq9c-d057 (2024).

Oostenveld, R., Fries, P., Maris, E. & Schoffelen, J. -M. FieldTrip: open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2011 , 156869 (2011).

Oehrn, C. R. et al. Chronic adaptive deep brain stimulation is superior to conventional stimulation in Parkinson's disease: a blinded randomized feasibility trial. Code Ocean . https://doi.org/10.24433/CO.5656158.v1 (2024).

Oehrn, C. R. et al. Direct electrophysiological evidence for prefrontal control of hippocampal processing during voluntary forgetting. Curr. Biol. 28 , 3016–3022 (2018).

Maris, E. & Oostenveld, R. Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. J. Neurosci. Methods 164 , 177–190 (2007).

Gilron, R. et al. Sleep-aware adaptive deep brain stimulation control: chronic use at home with dual independent linear discriminate detectors. Front. Neurosci. 15 , 732499 (2021).

Cernera, S. et al. Wearable sensor-driven responsive deep brain stimulation for essential tremor. Brain Stimul. 14 , 1434–1443 (2021).

Hammer, L. H., Kochanski, R. B., Starr, P. A. & Little, S. Artifact characterization and a multipurpose template-based offline removal solution for a sensing-enabled deep brain stimulation device. Stereotact. Funct. Neurosurg. 100 , 168–183 (2022).

Neumann, W. -J. et al. The sensitivity of ECG contamination to surgical implantation site in brain computer interfaces. Brain Stimul. 14 , 1301–1306 (2021).

Goetz, C. G. et al. Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): process, format, and clinimetric testing plan. Mov. Disord. 22 , 41–47 (2007).

McAuley, M. D. Incorrect calculation of total electrical energy delivered by a deep brain stimulator. Brain Stimul. 13 , 1414–1415 (2020).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) UH3NS100544 (to P.A.S.), the Parkinson Fellowship of the Thiemann Foundation (to C.R.O.), NINDS F32NS129627 (to S.C.), NINDS R25NS070680 (to L.H.H.) and TUYF Charitable Trust Fund (to J.Y.). Research reported in this publication was also partly supported by R01 NS090913 (to P.A.S.), NINDS K23NS120037 (to S.L.) and R01 NS131405 (to S.L.). Investigational devices were provided at no charge by the manufacturer, but the manufacturer had no role in the conduct, analysis or interpretation of the study. The Open Mind consortium for technology dissemination, funded by NINDS U24 NS113637 (to P.A.S.), provided technical resources for the use of the Summit RC+S neural interface. We thank T. Wozny for lead localization, W. Chiong for neuroethical input, C. Smyth, R. Gilron, R. Wilt and C. de Hemptinne for technical contributions and K. Probst for medical art (Fig. 1a ). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Carina R. Oehrn, Stephanie Cernera, Lauren H. Hammer.

These authors jointly supervised this work: Simon Little, Philip A Starr.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Carina R. Oehrn, Stephanie Cernera, Maria Shcherbakova, Jiaang Yao, Amelia Hahn & Philip A. Starr

Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Lauren H. Hammer, Sarah Wang, Jill L. Ostrem & Simon Little

Graduate Program in Bioengineering, University of California, Berkeley and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Jiaang Yao, Simon Little & Philip A. Starr

Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Sarah Wang, Jill L. Ostrem, Simon Little & Philip A. Starr

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

P.A.S., S.L., J.L.O., C.R.O., S.C. and L.H.H. designed the study and analysis pipeline. C.R.O., S.C., L.H.H., M.S. and J.Y. collected and analyzed the data. A.H. facilitated patient communication and coordination throughout the study. S.W. oversaw study administration, including institutional review board approval and regulatory compliance. C.R.O., S.C., L.H.H., S.L. and P.A.S. drafted the manuscript, and all authors reviewed, commented on and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carina R. Oehrn .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

S.L. consults for Iota Biosciences. J.L.O. reports support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific for research and education and consults for AbbVie and Rune Labs. P.A.S. receives support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific for fellowship education. C.R.O., S.C., L.H.H., M.S., J.Y., A.H. and S.W. declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Medicine thanks Jaimie Henderson, Andrea Kühn and Theoden Netoff for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Jerome Staal, in collaboration with the Nature Medicine team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended data fig. 1 localization of leads over sensorimotor cortex and within subthalamic nucleus in native space..

a–d , Example localization of cortical and subcortical leads in patient 2, generated by fusing postoperative CT with preoperative MRI scans. Contacts appear as white CT artifacts due to metal content and are labeled with red arrows. a , Cortical leads on axial T1-weighted MRI through the vertex. b , STN leads on axial T2-weighted MRI through the region of the dorsal STN, 3 mm inferior to the intercommissural plane. c,d , Cortical leads on oblique sagittal T1-weighted MRI passing through the long axis of the lead array in left (c) and right (d) hemispheres, respectively. e–h , Location of cortical leads for each patient overlayed on 3D reconstruction of cortex rendered using the Locate Electrodes Graphical User Interface (LeGUI). Electrodes used in the anterior and posterior cortical montages are shown in cyan and yellow, respectively. For patient 1 (e) , 2 (f) and 4 (h) , anterior and posterior montages covered the pre- and postcentral gyrus, respectively. For patient 3, right side (g) , the anterior montage included one electrode on the middle frontal and one on the precentral gyrus. The posterior montage comprised one pre- and one postcentral electrode. In all figures, red arrows indicate the location of the central sulcus.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Initial and finalized adaptive stimulation parameters and example adaptive control policies.

a , Suggested initial parameters for algorithms developed for time scales of minutes to hours, as identified during steps 5 and 6 of the pipeline. An update rate of 10 s typically provided a signal to noise ratio that allowed for adequate discrimination between the presence and absence of the most bothersome symptom, and this could often be improved with a further increase in update rate. The ramp rate chosen for each patient depended on the results of step 5 (we chose an example of 1 mA/s). b , Detailed final adaptive stimulation parameters including control signals, thresholds, FFT interval, update rates, blanking periods, onset and termination duration, and ramp rates used for each patient and hemisphere. c–e , Examples of potential control policies that can be used for an adaptive algorithm, using artificial data. The upper subpanels of each subfigure illustrate an on-state biomarker (blue), as used in our study, along with thresholds (red). Lower subpanels demonstrate the adjustment of stimulation amplitude based on the relationship of the neural signal to the thresholds. c , A single threshold control policy with two stimulation amplitudes. When the biomarker is above the threshold, stimulation amplitude decreases and once below threshold, stimulation amplitude increases. d , A dual threshold control policy with three stimulation amplitudes (not used in this study), which may be applied to address three symptom states. When the neural signal is below both thresholds, the stimulation amplitude is high (for example, 4 mA). When the biomarker is between the two thresholds, stimulation adjusts to a middle amplitude (for example, 3 mA). When the biomarker exceeds the second threshold, stimulation decreases to the low amplitude (for example, 2 mA). e , A control policy utilizing a middle state as noise buffer. Stimulation is high when the control signal is below the bottom threshold and stimulation is low when the control signal is above the top threshold. When the control signal is between the two thresholds, it remains at the level of the stimulation amplitude prior to crossing the threshold (that is, no changes are made).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Neural biomarkers of medication effects identified in-clinic.

a,b , All tables show the results from our within-patient non-parametric cluster-based permutation analyses using in-clinic recordings during two medication states (off vs. on) and stimulation conditions (low vs. high stimulation amplitude). P -values were Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons. Note that p < 10 −3 indicates that the cluster was found in all 1000 permutations. This means the probability of observing this effect by chance is less than 1 in 1000. a , Statistics for the largest main effect of medication, stimulation, and their interaction for each patient and hemisphere when searching the whole frequency space (2–100 Hz) across brain regions. Frequencies represent the center frequency of 1-Hz wide power spectral density bins. For all four patients (five out of six hemispheres), we found that gamma power (specifically, stimulation-entrained gamma in four hemispheres) in the STN or cortex was the best predictor of medication state (in pat-3L, there was no significant effect of medication in any frequency band in clinic, but at home symptom monitoring identified cortical stimulation-entrained gamma power as neural biomarker; Extended Data Fig. 4 ). Positive Cohen’s d values for the medication effect highlight that the neural biomarker was higher during on-medication states. Positive Cohen’s d values for the stimulation effect indicate that the neural biomarker was higher during on-stimulation states (independent of medication), which could result in undesirable self-triggering of the algorithm (threshold crossing of the neural biomarker linked to stimulation change itself, rather than true fluctuations of medication states and symptoms). Therefore, for patient 1, we excluded 63 and 67 Hz from the subsequently used control signal (positive Cohen’s d main effect of stimulation). For patients 2, 3 and 4, we did not find stimulation effects that positively modulated biomarkers and therefore were unrestricted in biomarker selection. b , When constraining the anatomic location and frequency space to STN beta oscillations (13–30 Hz), STN spectral beta power was only predictive for medication state in two hemispheres (pat-2R and pat-4) and smaller in effect size than cortical/STN stimulation-entrained gamma oscillations for all patients.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Neural biomarkers of symptoms identified at-home.

We identified predictors of the most bothersome symptom (pat-1: bradykinesia, pat-2: lower limb dystonia), or the opposite symptom that limits the therapeutic window (pat-3 and pat-4: dyskinesia). a , Heatmaps of t -values derived from stepwise linear regressions using 1 Hz power bands between 2–100 Hz in the STN (left), anterior cortical montage (middle) and posterior cortical montage (right) to predict symptoms continuously measured with upper extremity wearable monitors for patients 1, 3 and 4 (patient 2’s bothersome symptom did not involve the upper extremity). b–d , Results from the linear regression (left) and linear discriminant analysis (LDA; right). P-values were Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons (289 predictors). b , Both methods provide converging evidence that stimulation-entrained gamma power centered at half the stimulation frequency (65 Hz) in the STN and cortex optimally distinguishes hypo- and hyperkinetic symptoms. c , When constraining the anatomic location and frequency space to STN beta oscillations (13–30 Hz), frequency bands identified as most predictive were less discriminative than cortical/STN stimulation-entrained gamma oscillations (LDA: AUC < 0.7). Regression models resulted in smaller magnitude coefficients, with only one hemisphere demonstrating a significant negative association with hyperkinetic symptoms (pat-3L). d , STN beta frequency bands were also poorly predictive of wearable bradykinesia scores (AUC < 0.6), again with only one hemisphere demonstrating a significant effect in the regression model (corresponding to a positive relationship with hypokinetic symptoms; pat-3L). e , Comparison of LDA results for STN and cortical gamma activity in predicting bothersome symptoms. Neural signals selected for adaptive stimulation are shaded in grey. In three out of six hemispheres (pat-2L, pat-2R, pat-4), stimulation-entrained gamma activity in the STN distinguished between hypo- and hyperkinetic symptoms. For pat-2, STN stimulation-entrained spectral gamma power was the optimal biomarker used for aDBS in both hemispheres. In pat-4, stimulation-entrained gamma activity in the STN was a strong predictor of residual motor signs but slightly underperformed compared to cortical signals. f , Visual illustration of AUC values comparing STN and cortical gamma activity in predicting bothersome symptoms. For pat-4, the predictive value of stimulation-entrained spectral gamma power was only slightly reduced compared to cortical signals.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Beta oscillations in the STN.

a , Power spectral density in the STN based on in-clinic recordings off medication and off stimulation for all six hemispheres. All but one hemisphere (pat-1) exhibited a peak in the beta frequency band (illustrated in yellow). b , Example of the suppressive effect of DBS on STN beta oscillations precluding use of beta band activity as a biomarker of medication state during active stimulation (pat-2L, all data collected during the same in-clinic recording session). Off stimulation, the spectral peak in the beta frequency range was suppressed by medication (13–21 Hz, Cohens’ d = −1.09, p < 10 −3 ). However, this medication effect diminished during active stimulation, even at low stimulation amplitudes (1.8 mA, largest effect in the beta band: 15–18 Hz, Cohens’ d = 0.31, p = 0.026). Data are corrected for stimulation-induced broadband shifts.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Effects of aDBS and cDBS on most bothersome symptom severity, additional motor symptoms, and sleep quality.

a–j , Bar plots illustrating the mean (±s.e.m.) self-reported symptoms, aside from the most bothersome symptoms, across testing days. Each dot represents the rating for one testing day (blue: cDBS, red: aDBS). These ratings constituted secondary outcome measures to ensure that we are not aggravating other motor and non-motor symptoms. a,b , Patient self-reported motor symptom severity from daily questionnaires (1 = least severe, 10 = most severe). Note that patients rated symptom severity (shown here) independently of symptom duration ; bar graphs for the latter are in Fig. 5a,b . Patient 3 did not record ratings within the instructed range of 1–10 and their data are therefore not reported. a , In addition to a decrease in the amount of daily hours with the most bothersome symptom (symptom duration , shown in Fig. 5a ), patients 1, 2, and 4 also experienced a significant improvement of symptom severity (pat-1: p < 10 −5 , pat-2: p = 0.018, pat = 4: p = 0.003). b , No subject reported worsened severity of their opposite symptom (pat-1: p = 0.18, pat-2: p = 1, pat-4: p = 0.19). c–h , Comprehensive list of the self-reported duration of motor symptoms from daily questionnaires. These bar graphs illustrate only symptoms that were not identified by the patient as the most bothersome or as the opposite symptom. For each patient’s most bothersome symptom, results are displayed in Fig. 5a and panel a of this figure; and are labeled in c–h as not applicable (n/a). None of these “other” motor symptoms were worsened by aDBS, and patient 2 demonstrated significant improvement in the percentage of waking hours with dyskinesia ( d , p = 0.044) and gait disturbance ( h , p < 10 −4 ). i,j , Self-reported sleep quality (1 = poorest sleep, 10 = best sleep) and duration from daily questionnaires. aDBS provided no change in patients’ sleep characteristics. The number of testing days for each patient and condition used for statistical tests are summarized in Fig. 6a . Asterisks illustrate results from two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests. P-values for all within-subject control analyses were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate procedure and are indicated as: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Extended Data Fig. 7 aDBS algorithm dynamics during nighttime.

a , Percent time spent at each stimulation amplitude during the night. Each dot represents the mean values of one night of aDBS testing across high stimulation states (orange) and low stimulation states (blue) in one hemisphere. Graphs are standard box plots (center: median; box limits: upper and lower quartiles; whiskers: minima = 25th percentile-1.5 times the interquartile range, maxima = 75th percentile+1.5 times the interquartile range). Each patient spent most of the night in the high stimulation state. b , Mean (±s.e.m.) total electrical energy delivered (TEED) during aDBS and cDBS overnight, showing increased TEED during aDBS, similar to daytime analyses (stimulation main effect: β = 27.7, p < 10 −25 , time main effect: β = 0.05, p = 0.377). Individually, TEED was increased in all hemispheres during aDBS (two-sided, one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test, pat-1: p < 10 −6 , pat-2R: p < 10 −5 , pat-2L: p < 10 −5 , pat-3R: p < 10 −6 , pat-3L: p < 10 −6 , pat-4: p < 10 −4 ). The number of testing nights for each patient and condition used for both illustrations are stated in Fig. 6a and are equivalent to the testing days. Asterisks illustrate results from two-sided one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank tests. P-values for TEED evaluations were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate procedure and are indicated as: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Flowchart of biomarker identification analyses.

We identified neural biomarkers using standardized in-clinic and at-home recordings in patients’ naturalistic environments. Non-parametric cluster-based permutation analysis identified candidate spectral biomarkers from in-clinic data by assessing main effects of medication state, stimulation amplitude, and the interaction. Next, the predictability of neural biomarkers as robust aDBS control signals of symptom state was tested using at-home recordings. For patients where the most bothersome symptom was monitored by a wearable device (for example, upper extremity bradykinesia or dyskinesia), linear stepwise regression was used to take advantage of the continuous nature of the symptom measurements. The most predictive frequency bands and recording sites were selected based on t -values. If the patient’s most bothersome symptom could not be captured by wearable monitors, the patient’s motor diaries and streaming app entries instead labeled the presence of symptoms. A linear discriminant analysis (LDA) based method identified the most predictive frequency band and recording site from these discretely labeled neural signal data, as measured by the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). We also applied the LDA-based approach to symptoms measured by wearable monitors by mapping the continuous wearable scores to discrete symptom labels using a patient-specific dichotomization. This dichotomization allowed for subsequent offline assessment of the prediction accuracy based on multiple neural biomarkers combined as shown in Fig. 4e (note for online aDBS only single power band classifiers were implemented, as multiple power band classifiers were not found to be superior).

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Methods, Tables 1 and 2 and References.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Oehrn, C.R., Cernera, S., Hammer, L.H. et al. Chronic adaptive deep brain stimulation versus conventional stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: a blinded randomized feasibility trial. Nat Med (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03196-z

Download citation

Received : 04 January 2024

Accepted : 15 July 2024

Published : 19 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03196-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Writing, Research & Publishing Guides

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

Cursive Workbook For Adults: Write with Style

To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

Cursive Workbook For Adults: Write with Style Paperback – August 18, 2024

Rediscover the Art of Handwriting with Confidence and Style!

Whether you're rekindling an old skill or starting from scratch, "Cursive Workbook for Adults: Write with Style" is your ultimate guide to mastering the beauty and elegance of cursive writing. This isn't just about forming letters—it's about developing a handwriting style that's uniquely yours, allowing your personality to shine through every stroke of the pen.

Why choose the Cursive Workbook for Adults?

We understand that life gets busy, and while we type more than we write, there's something deeply personal and satisfying about putting pen to paper. That's why this workbook is designed specifically for adults who want to bring a touch of elegance back into their daily lives. Whether for personal letters, journaling, or simply adding a personal flair to your notes, this workbook guides you step-by-step.

What makes this workbook different?

A Personalized Approach: Unlike rigid, traditional textbooks, this workbook encourages you to develop a cursive style that feels natural and authentic to you.
Comprehensive Guidance: From the basics to more advanced techniques, you’ll find detailed instructions and exercises that build your confidence and skill.
Practical Applications: Learn how to apply your new cursive skills in real-world scenarios like note-taking, letter writing, and even creative projects.
Inspirational Prompts: Keep your motivation high with thoughtful writing prompts that not only enhance your handwriting but also encourage personal reflection.

What can you expect?

A Journey from Basics to Mastery: Start with foundational strokes and letters, and progress to forming words, sentences, and eventually your own unique cursive style.
Interactive Practice: With ample practice space and varied exercises, you’ll be able to reinforce what you learn and see real progress.
Personal Expression: Develop a style that’s as individual as you are, perfect for adding a personal touch to everything you write.
High-Quality Design: Crafted with adults in mind, this workbook features clean, sophisticated design and high-quality materials that make practice a pleasure.

Get ready to rediscover the joy of cursive writing!

With "Cursive Workbook for Adults: Write with Style," you’ll not only improve your handwriting but also find a new way to express yourself with confidence and flair. Start your journey today and see how cursive can transform the way you write—and the way you feel about writing.

Print length 103 pages
Language English
Publication date August 18, 2024
Dimensions 8.5 x 0.24 x 11 inches
ISBN-13 979-8336121544
See all details

From the Publisher

Product details

ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0DDPSZY9G
Publisher ‏ : ‎ Independently published (August 18, 2024)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Paperback ‏ : ‎ 103 pages
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 979-8336121544
Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 11.7 ounces
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 8.5 x 0.24 x 11 inches
#5 in Graphology
#12 in Handwriting Analysis Self-Help
#19 in Technical Writing Reference (Books)

About the author

Brainwave books.

Welcome to BrainWave Books, your trusted partner in educational and activity resources! We are passionate about making learning engaging and enjoyable for readers of all ages. Our mission is to provide high-quality, thoughtfully crafted books that cater to a wide range of interests and learning needs.

Our journey began with a simple goal: to create resources that inspire curiosity, enhance skills, and make learning fun. We believe every learning journey is unique, and we are dedicated to supporting learners at every stage with our diverse collection of books. From workbooks for young learners to puzzle books for all ages, our offerings are designed to make learning both effective and enjoyable.

As we continue to grow, we aim to expand our collection to include a wide variety of activity books, test prep guides, educational resources, and much more. Our vision is to be your go-to source for all your learning and activity needs, delivering solutions that empower and inspire.

Thank you for choosing BrainWave Books. We are excited to be part of your educational adventure and look forward to helping you achieve your goals with confidence and success!

Customer reviews

5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

About Amazon
Investor Relations
Amazon Devices
Amazon Science
Sell products on Amazon
Sell on Amazon Business
Sell apps on Amazon
Become an Affiliate
Advertise Your Products
Self-Publish with Us
Host an Amazon Hub
› See More Make Money with Us
Amazon Business Card
Shop with Points
Reload Your Balance
Amazon Currency Converter
Amazon and COVID-19
Your Account
Your Orders
Shipping Rates & Policies
Returns & Replacements
Manage Your Content and Devices

Conditions of Use
Privacy Notice
Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
Your Ads Privacy Choices

Frontiers | Science News

Science News

Featured news

Ai tools like chatgpt popular among students who struggle with concentration and attention.

In school, executive function (EF) – that is a set of cognitive processes that are essential for attention, concentration, planning, and problem-solving – plays a vital role in long-term success. Lower EF has consistently been linked to decreased academic achievement. Now, researchers have investigated if students who struggle with EF perceive using AI tools, such as ChatGPT, as more helpful than their peers. They found that they do – which highlights the need to rethink the role of generative AI in education.

Since their release, AI tools like ChatGPT have had a huge impact on content creation. In schools and universities, a debate about whether these tools should be allowed or prohibited is ongoing.

Now, researchers in Sweden have investigated the relationship between adolescents’ EF and their use and perceived usefulness of generative AI chatbots for schoolwork. They published their results in Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence .

“Students with more EF challenges found these tools particularly useful, especially for completing assignments,” said Johan Klarin, a school psychologist and research assistant at the Department of Psychology at Lund University. “This highlights these tools’ role as a potential support for students struggling with cognitive processes crucial for academic success.”

The researchers, however, also mentioned that overreliance on these tools could hinder or delay the development of EFs and students' learning. “This should be carefully considered when implementing AI support in schools, and the effects should be studied longitudinally,” added project leader Dr Daiva Daukantaitė, an associate professor at Lund University.

Perceived usefulness

The researchers conducted two studies. The first had a sample of 385 adolescents, aged 12 to 16 and attending four primary schools in the south of Sweden. The second study included 359 students aged 15 to 19 who were enrolled in the same high school.

The studies revealed that usage rates of AI chatbots were around 15% among younger teens and around 53% among older students. One possible explanation is that older students are more often given complex assignments and therefore may use AI tools more frequently. The researchers also pointed out that the two studies were conducted at different times – ‘study two’ nearly a year after ‘study one’ – which could show that during this time, AI use got more popular in general.

More crucially, however, the studies showed that students who struggle more with EF, perceived generative AI as significantly more useful for schoolwork than their peers. A possible reason is that these students derive greater productivity improvements than their classmates, the researchers said.

Read and download original article

Support or cheating?

“The line between cheating and using AI tools as an aid should be drawn based on the intent and extent of use,” said Klarin. Using ChatGPT to complete whole assignments or solve problems and submitting the results as one’s own, is cheating. Provided students engage critically with the generated content and contribute their own understanding and effort, however, can be considered a legitimate aid.

Responsible ways for students – especially those who struggle with EF – to use ChatGPT can include using it for research, idea generation, and understanding complex concepts. “Educators should provide guidelines and frameworks for appropriate use. Teaching digital literacy and ethical considerations is also crucial,” Klarin said.

Real-world feasibility of such teaching could be enhanced by using technology, facilitating peer support programs, and providing professional development for teachers to identify and support students with EF challenges, the researchers said.

Balancing AI and academic integrity

The results offer an initial attempt to understand the relationship between the use of AI tools in school settings and EF, the researchers said. “Our work lays the initial groundwork to inform educators, policymakers, and technology developers about the role of generative AI in education and how to balance its benefits with the need to maintain academic integrity and promote genuine learning. It also underscores the need for supportive measures for students, especially those with EF challenges. However, to gain a more comprehensive understanding, further studies are needed,” Daukantaité concluded.

Nevertheless, they pointed to the study’s limitations, which include the fact that students self-reported on their AI use, and that a generalization of results may not be possible because they focused on specific age groups, educational contexts, and carried out their research in a setting where every student receives a free laptop – factors that might vary between situations and countries.

REPUBLISHING GUIDELINES : Open access and sharing research is part of Frontiers’ mission . Unless otherwise noted, you can republish articles posted in the Frontiers news site — as long as you include a link back to the original research. Selling the articles is not allowed.

Post related info

August 28, 2024

Deborah Pirchner

Post categories, social science, related subjects, frontiers in artificial intelligence, related content.

Writing by hand may increase brain connectivity more than typing on a keyboard

Machine learning tools can predict emotion in voices in just over a second

The popular kids in school may be sleeping less

Frontiers ebook releases: August 2024

Men infected with high-risk types of HPV could struggle with fertility

Prof Carl Kocher explores how you can stretch your mind to grasp quantum entanglement

Arts and crafts improves your mental health as much as having a job, scientists find

IMAGES

The Research on Cursive Handwriting
Brain research and cursive writing
Traditional Handwriting: Beginning Cursive, Grades 1
Brain Research and Cursive Writing
Cursive Writing: The Human Brain
How Handwriting Trains the Brain

VIDEO

Only 21 states teach cursive. Brain development, fine motor, read historical docs #skills #teacher
Writing "Brain" In Cursive ❤️ #handwriting #cursive #dailywriting #calligraphy #shortsvideo #writes
How to write Brain In Cursive Writing #shorts
paragraph writing practice in cursive handwriting // how to write a paragraph in cursive writing
Cursive Capital Letter
Cursive Writing Practice || A To z Cursive writing Cursive Writing Kaise Likhe

COMMENTS

The Importance of Cursive Handwriting Over Typewriting for Learning in the Classroom: A High-Density EEG Study of 12-Year-Old Children and Young Adults
The study followed a cross-sectional design to study differences in oscillatory brain activity in tasks of cursive writing, typewriting, and drawing among children and adults. ... Moreover, memory systems involving retrieval might be the last to mature within the brain, suggesting that further research within this field is necessary ...
As schools reconsider cursive, research homes in on handwriting's brain
As schools reconsider cursive, research homes in on handwriting's brain benefits : Shots - Health News Researchers are learning that handwriting engages the brain in ways typing can't match ...
Handwriting may boost brain connections more than typing does
By Claudia López Lloreda. January 26, 2024 at 12:00 am. Writing out the same word again and again in cursive may bring back bad memories for some, but handwriting can boost connectivity across ...
Why Cursive Handwriting Is Good for Your Brain
The latest (2020) research on the brain benefits of cursive handwriting adds to a growing body of evidence and neuroscience-based research on the importance of learning to write by hand.
The Importance of Cursive Handwriting Over Typewriting for Learning in
High-density electroencephalogram (HD EEG) was used in 12 young adults and 12, 12-year-old children to study brain electrical activity as they were writing in cursive by hand, typewriting, or drawing visually presented words that were varying in difficulty. Analyses of temporal spectral evolution (TSE, i.e., time-dependent amplitude changes ...
The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development
These findings demonstrate that handwriting is important for the early recruitment in letter processing of brain regions known to underlie successful reading. Handwriting therefore may facilitate reading acquisition in young children. Keywords: fMRI, Brain, Development, Writing, Reading, Children. Go to: 1.
The Benefits of Cursive Go Beyond Writing
In fact, learning to write in cursive is shown to improve brain development in the areas of thinking, language and working memory. Cursive handwriting stimulates brain synapses and synchronicity ...
Handwriting Boosts Brain Connectivity and Learning
Summary: Handwriting, compared to typing, results in more complex brain connectivity patterns, enhancing learning and memory.This study used EEG data from 36 students to compare brain activity while writing by hand and typing. Handwriting, whether in cursive on a touchscreen or traditional pen and paper, activated extensive brain regions, vital for memory and learning.
Why Writing by Hand Could Make You Smarter
There is a whole field of research known as "haptics," which includes the interactions of touch, hand movements, and brain function. [5] Cursive writing helps train the brain to integrate ...
Teaching of cursive writing in the first year of primary school: Effect
Introduction. The research in the area of handwriting ability highlights an increase in graphical and visual-spatial difficulties in handwriting [].]. "Dysfluent writing" and "shape abnormality" are key characteristics of handwriting disorders described in the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5).
The Great Cursive Writing Debate
Cursive is like calligraphy--good to teach in art class, harmful to force for all assignments. Debbie McCleskey Baker. Some benefits of cursive: 1) it trains the brain to learn functional specialization, 2) it improves memory, 3) it improves fine motors skills, meaning that students who have illegible print, often have legible cursive ...
The Case for Cursive: 6 Reasons Why Cursive Handwriting is Good for
5. Cursive may help improve motor control. Cursive handwriting is a fine motor skill that allows for plenty of practice. For people with developmental dysgraphia this can have a range of benefits ...
Handwriting Helps the Brain Function
Brain imaging studies reveal that multiple areas of the brain become co-activated during learning of cursive writing of pseudo-letters, as opposed to typing or just visual practice. He also believes there is spill-over benefit for thinking skills used in reading and writing. To write legible cursive, fine motor control is needed over the fingers.
Latest Research on Cursive Handwriting
Scientists found that cursive writing and drawing activated brain areas important for memory and the encoding of new information and, therefore, helped "provide the brain with optimal conditions for learning.". This was not seen in the subjects who were typewriting. The conclusion reached was: "We suggest that children, from an early age ...
Connecting Writing to the Brain, Literacy, and Technology
Learning scientists continue their research exploring the link between the brain and writing. Writing is a complex cognitive ability that requires working memory, executive function, and self-regulation (Berninger, 2012). One component of writing, the physical act of handwriting, stimulates many geographical regions of the brain responsible for ...
The Power of Cursive Writing: Unlocking the Benefits of Handwriting
The act of writing in cursive stimulates multiple regions of the brain, fostering better learning, memory retention, and overall cognitive abilities. Research has shown that the intricate movements required for cursive writing activate the brain's neural connections more effectively than other forms of writing, such as typing or block printing.
Brain Benefits of Learning to Write in Cursive
Research shows that learning to write in cursive offers brain benefits to kids that they don't get from printing letters or keyboarding. An article from Psychology Today states that learning to write in cursive is an important tool for cognitive development. Specifically, cursive writing trains the brain to learn functional specialization ...
Intervention in Improving Cursive Handwriting towards Effective
The best solution to this is cursive writing. It is the best way on how to use brain and hands at the same time (Reyes 2000); it improves the brain activity and it gives thewriter a chance to enjoy the journey of writing (Olson 2016). METHODS Being a qualitative research, the researcher interviewed respondents for data collection.
The Research on Cursive Handwriting
We pulled together a few links on different research studies that looked at different components of cursive writing. The research tells us that cursive changes the brain and helps with learning! One thing that we have to consider (as parents and as school based OT professionals who are in the mess of handwriting goals…) is to consider ...
Is Cursive Writing Good for the Brain?
Dr. Karin Harman James of the Indiana University Department of Psychology and Brain Sciences found that cursive writing prepares students' brains for reading and enhances their writing fluency and composition.". Leising also points to the College Board, the company who produces and administers the SATs as a supporter of cursive writing.
Why Cursive Handwriting Is Good for Your Brain
The latest (2020) research on the brain benefits of cursive handwriting adds to a growing body of evidence and neuroscience-based research on the importance of learning to write by hand.
Reading and Writing by Hand: How Handwriting Builds Literacy Skills
Cursive writing uses both the left and right hemispheres of the brain, which research shows can enhance memory and language function. Because the letters are connected, the brain "sees" words as whole units rather than as individual letters. The connected letters are also helpful for students who have difficulty recognizing where words ...
Handwriting boosts brain connections and enhances learning ...
Handwriting benefits brain functionality. A team from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim undertook research to compare the engagement of neural networks in handwriting ...
Frontiers
The study followed a cross-sectional design to study differences in oscillatory brain activity in tasks of cursive writing, typewriting, and drawing among children and adults. ... Moreover, memory systems involving retrieval might be the last to mature within the brain, suggesting that further research within this field is necessary ...
Chronic adaptive deep brain stimulation versus conventional ...
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a widely used therapy for Parkinson's disease (PD) but lacks dynamic responsiveness to changing clinical and neural states. Feedback control might improve ...
Cursive Workbook For Adults: Write with Style Paperback
Writing, Research & Publishing Guides Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime ... Cursive writing doesn't seem to be taught in a lot of schools today like it once was. I remember learning cursive in elementary school, but we never really focused on penmanship. I love this book because it is ...
AI tools like ChatGPT popular among students who struggle with
Researchers found that students who struggle with skills essential for academic success thought that using AI tools is particularly helpful for schoolwork