teacherman9000

This article, entitled Patterns of Inverted Reading and Subgroups in Dyslexia, appeared in The Annals of Dyslexia (a peer reviewed scientific journal) in the mid 80's. Below you will find a summation of the study which I did a few years ago - but I'm not a scientist. Could someone read the article and tell me if my conclusions are correct. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02663620 Here's what I came up with: The study, which was conducted in Denmark by Larsen and Parlenvi and published in the Orton Dyslexia Society’s Annals of Dyslexia in 1984, was originally intended to determine the significance of the direction in which reading is carried out. In other words, would readers do just as well (or just as poorly) if they had to read text from right-to-left rather than from left to right? And guess how the researchers reversed the print direction to test its effect... You guessed it! They simply turned the text upside down! The study is entitled “Patterns of Inverted Reading and Subgroups in Dyslexia” and it is available on the web from Springerlink.com for a cost of $34.00. But I think I can pretty much describe how the experiment was done and sum up their highly enlightening findings at no cost to you. The subjects of the experiment were 66 second grade students drawn from public schools in the Gothenburg area of Denmark. The experimental group consisted of 46 struggling readers, 19 girls and 27 boys. Although the write-up says these students were at least one standard deviation below the Swedish standard, there is no way to know the full range of dysfunction. I think it’s safe to assume that there were a number of non-readers in the group, as well as many who had minimal reading skills. The control group was made up of 12 boys and 8 girls who were at, or above, second grade reading level as determined by a standard reading test. Again, there is no way of knowing how high these student’s scores reached, but I think it is safe to assume that some were well above grade level. There were two separate experiments done with these kids. In the first experiment, a list of 153 words was presented to the students for them to read – first in the “normal” way, and then upside down. The number of errors, error types and WPM were recorded each time. In addition, the students were asked to recall as many of the words as possible and scored appropriately. The results showed that the poor readers, as a group, made significantly less errors when they read upside down. What’s really interesting is that when the good readers read upside down, 95% of their errors were reversals, but when the poor readers read upside down, less than 2% of their errors were reversals. Not only that, but 16 of the poor readers actually read faster when the list was upside down than when it was right-side-up. The second experiment was administered in the same way, but instead of a word list, Larsen and Parlenvi used a meaningful 10-word sentence. Eye movements were recorded as the sentences were read both inverted and right-side-up. As you might expect, all of the good readers read much faster in the upright position, but for the poor readers it was a different story. Close to 60% of the poor readers read faster upside down than right-side-up! The experimenters conclude, and I quote, “the directional aspect of the reading process is of great importance to poor readers. At least 28% of the poor readers proved to be clearly better readers while reading from right to left.” Whether or not you agree that directionality was the reason the poor readers did better reading upside down, the fact remains: A significant percentage of struggling readers perform much better when allowed to hold the text inverted rather than in the “normal” way.

Simple question: What do Penicillin, Velcro, Viagra and PI (Print Inversion, not the number) all have in common?

My original question was: "Suppose I were to say that I believe there is a significant number of individuals who are "able to learn to live with the discrepancy in head movement and visual movement" and that I have accumulated a significant amount of evidence to justify my belief. Would you be willing to look at that evidence?" Here's some more proof, Function, but it is not A1-published and peer reviewed. This article appeared in JET Magazine in 1969 https://books.google.com/books?id=jDgDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=marietta+Everett+upside+down&source=bl&ots=qPu8dhgSu6&sig=F-BtlXfCGDNI1--qhTHoMv97gGI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=H6UFT4aOLaLW0QHx_uT0DQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=marietta%20Everett%20upside%20down&f=false Here's another article about Marietta 20 years later. I spoke to her several years ago and she's still alive and kicking in Alabama.... https://books.google.com/books?id=368DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=marietta+everett&source=bl&ots=t-gnA8aF7e&sig=fuMtXMbINO1ZXqZwvisf6tHXFMM&hl=en&ei=JOk6TKSNHYH98AazjfWmBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=marietta%20&f=false

So easy (and fun) when the child can read and write in the way that is best for her....

Thanks for your question, String I think for most people the brain's spatial orientation is in sync with the direction of gravity. But what happens if it isn't? Reading, which is normally top-to-bottom and left-to-right becomes something else..... Hello again, Function Just re-reading your post and it makes so much sense. "Why would the brain even want to put effort in correcting the image if the baby is able to learn to live with the discrepancy in head movement and visual movement." I totally agree. Even when arm and leg movements came into play there should still be no problem. But what happens when the baby begins to hold her head upright in relation to gravity and, later on, begins to try to stand? Now there is a huge discrepancy in what her eyes are telling her and the world around her. Wouldn't it make more sense for her brain to "flip" the image into sync with the world around her at this point? I think for the majority of people it does. But does it have to flip? I would say no - and for some people I don't think it does. The problem comes in when the child has to learn to read top-to-bottom and left-to-right. Even that can be overcome if the child is allowed to position the book differently. This video demonstrates what I mean.....

If anyone is interested there is a similar conversation going on right now on the Physics Forum. Here's the link: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/when-and-why-does-a-human-babys-vision-flip.906170/

Another vision inversion experiment but, again, this does not do exactly what the lens of the eye does. The eye produces an image that is both upside-down and backwards. Enjoy, Teacherman

A translation would be great, Char!! As for "perception is a highly active and integrative process and can be readily modified by learning and/or habituation" I think this video demonstrates that idea remarkably well.... Here's another one...

Thank you so much for this link, Char. I have read about the Erisman and Kohler experiments but have never seen this particular film. I'm just making it easier for forum members to view the YouTube video. Too bad it's not in English.... George Stratton was the first to do this type of experiment in the late 1800's and came the closest to duplicating the upside down and backwards effect of the lens in the eye. He actually used glass lenses. In the Erisman and Kohler experiment above, mirrors were used, so the image was simply upside-down. Today there are lots of people experimenting with inversion goggles constructed with prisms, but again, the image is just upside down. Left is still left and right is right. With today's technology someone should be able to come up with inversion goggles similar to virtual reality glasses that could flip the world in real time and be worn comfortably and continuously for a month or two. I volunteer to wear them. Teacherman

Thanks Func (still haven't settled on a nickname) for your response, You said: "One could argue that "why would the brain even want to put effort in correcting the image", if the baby is able to learn to live with the discrepancy in head movement and visual movement. However, stating this would also undermine the original theorem about inverted vision in newborn babies: they could perfectly learn to live with it. That's why I think gravity isn't the main argument for our brains to invert a potentially pre-inverted image, but rather a discrepancy between head movement and visual movement. Imagine that everyone would be born with inverted sight that were never to be corrected. We would have learnt to live with it and we would be having the discussion from the other side of the table and we'd be asking ourselves things such as "why are things falling up and why isn't our brain correcting that image?" Suppose I were to say that I believe there is a significant number of individuals who are "able to learn to live with the discrepancy in head movement and visual movement" and that I have accumulated a significant amount of evidence to justify my belief. Would you be willing to look at that evidence? Teacherman PS What did you think of the "upside-down woman" video? Also, here is an explanation of the function of the retina and how vision is inverted by a "retinal expert". http://www.retinaeyedoctor.com/2010/03/eye-images-reversed-on-retina/ Here's another one from a site called Vision Web that claims the image is sent to the brain inverted and it's up to the brain to make sense of it: http://www.visionweb.com/content/consumers/dev_consumerarticles.jsp?RID=35 I'm taking this as just another opinion. My mind remains open......

So does the optic nerve have separate wiring inside it that goes to the upper and lower areas of the retina. The diagram above shows the area where the nerve enters the brain. Very interesting and thanks again.... Teacherman My guess is that gravity determines what is perceived as up and down (and later on, left and right). If that's true, then what would happen if a human infant were born in 0-G??? In space there really is no "up" and "down". Teacherman

Thanks so much for this, Fun. I have never seen or heard of it before. It sure does give me a lot more to think about. What do you think about the woman who sees upside down? I have several more examples of people with this issue if you'd like to see them. Teacherman

Greetings to all, Just joined this forum today. Perhaps someone can help me answer a question that I've been pondering for more than a decade. Here it is: The human eye is much like the lens of a camera, telescope or microscope. An image, as it passes through the lens, is projected onto the retina upside down and backwards. It is the brain's job to sort out and make sense of the image entering through the eye. Most doctors agree that newborn babies see everything upside down for a "period of time" - but no one really knows for how long. Since gravity determines "up" and "down", wouldn't the baby have to be able to at least hold it's head up to begin to sort things out? And wouldn't left and right logically follow after that? Here's an explanation from Bill Nye the Science Guy: Teacherman