4.5 Article

Acquired mirror writing and reading: evidence for reflected graphemic representations

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
卷 41, 期 1, 页码 96-107

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00130-6

关键词

reading; dysgraphia; dyslexia; traumatic brain injury

资金

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [DC 04817] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS 37539] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS037539] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DEAFNESS AND OTHER COMMUNICATION DISORDERS [R01DC004817] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mirror writing occurs when individual letters and whole word strings are produced in reverse direction. By analogy, mirror reading refers to the preference to read mirror reversed over normally written words. These phenomena appear rarely after brain damage and offer insight into the nervous system's organization of visual-spatial and visual-motor representations. We present the case of a 51-year-old patient with persistent mirror writing and reading following traumatic brain injury. She preferred to write in the mirror direction with either hand. She drew asymmetric pictures with the same directional bias as normal right-handed subjects, and she did not exhibit left-right confusion regarding other pictures. By contrast, on picture-word matching and lexical decision tasks, she was faster and more accurate with mirrored than normally written words. This pattern of performance suggests that her behavior was not accounted for by reflected motor programs, or by the mirroring of visual-spatial representations in general. Rather, we suggest that her behavior was produced by privileged access to mirrored graphemes. Furthermore, because she seemed better able to read irregular words in mirrored than in normal formats, we suggest that mirrored representations may exist at the whole word level and not simply at the letter level. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据