Hygienic Assessment of Digital Writing: A Bio-Cybernetic Approach. Report I

Background: Introduction of digital technologies into the educational process involves the widespread use of keyboard typing and spending less time handwriting. At the same time, studies in the field of physiology and hygiene of handwriting show its importance for the development and formation of brain functions in children in the learning process. Potential risks for child development associated with regular typing and rare handwriting require proper hygienic assessment of the former. Yet, the lack of a scientifically based methodological approach is a strong limitation for such studies.

Objective: To develop a methodological approach and conduct a pilot study on hygienic assessment of digital writing based on a bio-cybernetic analysis of the bioelectrical activity of the brain.

Materials and methods: To arrange and conduct the research, we developed an algorithm based on a comparative analysis of the bioelectrical activity of the brain during typing and handwriting. Scalp electrodes were applied according to the International 10–20 system. EEG registration was carried out using a Neuro-KM computer-aided electroencephalograph by Statokin, Russia, with a Brainsys the intrahemispheric and interhemispheric coherence of the alpha rhythm.

Results: We established that the power of vibrations in the alpha range during digital and handwriting decreased compared to the resting state. Such a decrease reflecting activation of the cortex was noted in a more extensive area during handwriting. Typing decreased alpha waves only in the motor and sensorimotor areas of the brain. Compared to the resting state, handwriting significantly increased interaction between all areas of the cortex inside both hemispheres while typing did that in one hemisphere only.

Conclusion: Our findings indicate that handwriting is provided by a more complex system of activation and interaction of areas of the cerebral cortex than typing. The developed algorithm can be used for further research on digital writing.

1. Kondakov AM, Sergeev IS. Comprehensive methodology for designing general education in the context of digital transformation. Pedagogika. 2021;85(1):5–24. (In Russ.)

2. Bayborodova LV, Tamarskaya NV. Transformation of didactic principles in the conditions of digitalization of education. Pedagogika. 2020;84(7):22–30. (In Russ.)

3. Aleksandrova IE. Hygienic optimization of educational process at school involving massive use of electronic learning devices. Health Risk Analysis. 2020;(2):47–54. (In Russ.) doi: 10.21668/health.risk/2020.2.05.eng

4. Ayzyatova MV Aleksandrova IE, Mirskaya NB, Isaakovа NV, Vershinina MG, Fisenko AP. The impact of using interactive panels in the learning process on the main parameters of the indoor school environment. Zdorov’e Naseleniya i Sreda Obitaniya. 2021;(2(335)):15–21. (In Russ.) doi: 10.35627/2219-5238/2021-335-2-15-21

5. Aberšek M, Aberšek B, Flogie A. Writing versus typing during science teaching: case study in Slovenia. J Balt Sci Educ. 2018;17(1):84–96. doi: 10.33225/jbse/18.17.84

6. Aragón-Mendizábal E, Delgado-Casas C, Navarro-Guzmán J, Menacho-Jiménez I, Romero-Oliva MF. A comparative study of handwriting and computer typing in note-taking by university students. Comunicar. 2016;24(48):101–110. doi: 10.3916/C48-2016-10

7. Kiefer M, Schuler S, Mayer C, Trumpp NM, Hille K, Sachse S. Handwriting or typewriting? The influence of pen or keyboard-based writing training on reading and writing performance in preschool children. Adv Cogn Psychol. 2015;11(4):136–146. doi: 10.5709/acp0178-7

8. Mayer C, Wallner S, Budde-Spengler N, Braunert S, Arndt PA, Kiefer M. Literacy training of kindergarten children with pencil, keyboard or tablet stylus: The influence of the writing tool on reading and writing performance at the letter and word level. Front Psychol. 2020;10:3054. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03054

9. Guilbert J, Alamargot D, Morin M-F. Handwriting on a tablet screen: Role of visual and proprioceptive feedback in the control of movement by children and adults. Hum Mov Sci. 2019;65:S0167-9457(18)30093–9. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2018.09.001

10. Li JX, James KH. Handwriting generates variable visual output to facilitate symbol learning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2016;145(3):298–313. doi: 10.1037/xge0000134

11. Longcamp M, Boucard C, Gilhodes J-C, et al. Learning through hand- or typewriting influences visual recognition of new graphic shapes: behavioral and functional imaging evidence. J Cogn Neurosci. 2008;20(5):802–815. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20504

12. Palmis S, Danna J, Velay J-L, Longcamp M. Motor control of handwriting in the developing brain: A review. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2017;34(3–4):187–204. doi: 10.1080/02643294.2017.1367654

13. Planton S, Jucla M, Roux F-E, Démonet JF. The “handwriting brain”: a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies of motor versus orthographic processes. Cortex. 2013;49(10):2772–2787. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2013.05.011

14. Bernstein NA. [On Construction of Movements.] Moscow: Kniga po Trebovaniyu Publ.; 2012. (In Russ.)

15. Alamargot D, Morin M-F. Does handwriting on a tablet screen affect students’ graphomotor execution? A comparison between Grades Two and Nine. Hum Mov Sci. 2015;44:32–41. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2015.08.011

16. Frangou S-M, Ruokamo H, Parviainen T, Wikgren J. Can you put your finger on it? The effects of writing modality on Finnish students’ recollection. Writ Syst Res. 2018;10(2):82–94. doi: 10.1080/17586801.2018.1536015

17. Kim JH, Aulck L, Bartha MC, Harper CA, Johnson PW. Differences in typing forces, muscle activity, comfort, and typing performance among virtual, notebook, and desktop keyboards. Appl Ergon. 2014;45(6):1406–1413. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.04.001

18. Umejima K, Ibaraki T, Yamazaki T, Sakai KL. Paper notebooks vs. mobile devices: brain activation differences during memory retrieval. Front Behav Neurosci. 2021;15:634158. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2021.634158

19. Van der Meer ALH, Van der Weel FRR. Only three fingers write, but the whole brain works: a high-density EEG study showing advantages of drawing over typing for learning. Front Psychol. 2017;8:706. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00706

20. Mueller PA, Oppenheimer DM. The pen is mightier than the keyboard: advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychol Sci. 2014;25(6):1159–1168. doi: 10.1177/0956797614524581

21. Longcamp M, Boucard C, Gilhodes J-C, Velay J-L. Remembering the orientation of newly learned characters depends on the associated writing knowledge: a comparison between handwriting and typing. Hum Mov Sci. 2006;25(4-5):646–656. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2006.07.007

22. James KH. Sensori-motor experience leads to changes in visual processing in the developing brain. Dev Sci. 2010;13(2):279–288. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00883.x

23. James KH, Engelhardt L. The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development in pre-literate children. Trends Neurosci Educ. 2012;1(1):32–42. doi: 10.1016/j.tine.2012.08.001

24. Mangen A. The disappearing trace and the abstraction of inscription in digital writing. In: Pytash KE, Ferdig RE, eds. Exploring Technology for Writing and Writing Instruction. 2013:100–113. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-4341-3.ch006

25. Mangen A. Modes of writing in a digital age: The good, the bad and the unknown. First Monday. 2018;23(10):1–9. doi: 10.5210/fm.v23i10.9419

26. Park S, Baron NS. Space, context, and mobility: Different experiences of writing on mobile phones, laptops, and paper. In: Vincent J, Haddon L, eds. Smartphone Cultures. London: Routledge; 2017:150–162.