While reading, children and adults alike must avoid confusing mirror-image letters (like b/d or p/q). Why is it difficult to differentiate these letters? When learning to read, our brain must be able to inhibit the mirror-generalization process, a mechanism that facilitates the recognition of identical objects regardless of their orientation, but also prevents the brain from differentiating letters that are different but symmetrical. A study conducted by the researchers of the Laboratoire de Psychologie du Développement et de l’Education de l’Enfant (CNRS / Université Paris Descartes / Université de Caen Basse-Normandie) is available on the website of the Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (Online First Articles).

In recent years, many studies on the process of learning to read have been based on the neuronal recycling hypothesis: the reuse of old brain mechanisms in a new adaptive role —a kind of “biological trick.” Specifically, neurons that are originally dedicated to the rapid identification of objects in the environment, through the mirror-generalization process, are “repurposed” during childhood to specialize in the visual recognition of letters and words.

In this study, the researchers showed 80 young adults pairs of images, first two letters and then two animals, asking them to determine whether they were identical. The readers consistently spent more time determining that two animal images, when preceded by mirror-image letters, were indeed identical. This increase in response time is called “negative priming”: the readers had to inhibit the mirror-generalization process in order to distinguish letters like b/d or p/q. They then needed a little more time to reactivate this strategy when it became useful again to quickly identify animals.

These results show that even adults need to inhibit the mirror-generalization process to avoid reading errors. Children must therefore learn to inhibit this strategy when learning to read. A failure of cognitive inhibition during the recycling of visual neurons in the brain could thus be a factor in dyslexia— a direction worth exploring, in light of these findings.

(Source: www2.cnrs.fr)