This article is a commentary on:
Handwriting but not typewriting leads to widespread brain connectivity: a high-density EEG study with implications for the classroom
Svetlana Pinet
Marieke Longcamp- 1Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language, Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain
- 2Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain
- 3Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, CRPN, Marseille, France
A Commentary on
Handwriting but not typewriting leads to widespread brain connectivity: a high-density EEG study with implications for the classroom
by Van der Weel, F. R., and Van der Meer, A. L. H. (2024). Front. Psychol. 14:1219945. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1219945
Introduction
Van Der Weel and Van Der Meer (2024, hereafter VWVM2024) claims that, unlike typing, handwriting generates brain connectivity patterns that promote learning. This result leads the authors to stress “the urge that children, from an early age, must be exposed to handwriting activities in school.” This study had a broad impact in the scientific community and in the media: 84,680 views and 11,150 downloads, relayed by 179 news outlets, and tweeted by 8941 (for reference, other research articles published in the same month averaged 1,000–4,000 views). Despite the relevance of the topic addressed, we point to limitations in the protocol, analysis, and interpretations of the results that cast some doubts about the validity of the conclusions.
Weak evidence for an effect on learning
VWVM2024 states: “As increased connectivity in the brain was observed only when writing by hand and not when simply pressing keys on the keyboard, our findings can be taken as evidence that handwriting promotes learning” (p. 7). Their rationale is that since connectivity during handwriting is “far more elaborate” (p. 1), handwriting facilitates learning and should be practiced from a young age at school. This logical shortcut deserves scrutiny, for two reasons.
First, the protocol did not include any learning. Participants repeatedly wrote well-known words without any requirement for memory encoding, preventing any conclusions in terms of learning. Moreover, VMVW2024 is a lab-based study with an adult population. Translation from well-controlled protocols to educational settings in a child population is not straightforward. The very possibility of using research from fundamental cognitive neuroscience to inform educational practices is debated (Bowers, 2016; Gabrieli, 2016; Horvath and Donoghue, 2016). In sum, drawing conclusions on learning processes in children in a classroom from a lab study carried out on a group of university students that did not include any type of learning seems slippery at best.
Second, the interpretation of increased theta/alpha connectivity as an unequivocal indicator of a brain state favorable to learning and remembering is problematic. While theta and alpha oscillations have been functionally related to a variety of cognitive processes (Bastiaansen et al., 2008; Brier et al., 2010; Cavanagh and Frank, 2014; Michelmann et al., 2022), it has not been clearly established that increased theta/alpha connectivity creates appropriate conditions for learning. Among the studies cited by the authors to support their claim, Solomon et al. (2017) indeed reported increased theta connectivity, but in situations of explicit encoding and retrieval (Andres et al., 1999 for a similar finding in alpha/beta frequency bands). Raghavachari et al. (2001) showed increased theta oscillations in a working memory task. It remains a stretch to use this finding as proof that theta connectivity promotes learning; handwriting might simply require more sustained working memory maintenance because it is generally slower than typing.
Claims unsupported by the results
VWVM2024 makes strong claims such as “Handwriting but not typewriting leads to widespread brain connectivity” (p. 1). However, only the difference between handwriting and typing is reported in the results, not connectivity patterns for each condition separately. While Figure 2 of VWVM2024 displays coherence plots for each condition, statistical analysis was performed exclusively on the difference between handwriting and typing, which precludes any conclusion from being drawn on either condition on its own and puts the validity of the title of the article into question.
Artificial typing conditions
In VWVM2024, participants were instructed to type using only their right index finger, making the typing condition quite different from typical typing. Skilled typing is characterized by the coordination between hands and the use of several fingers (Feit et al., 2016; Logan et al., 2016). Changing habitual typing behavior to conform to the instructions might impact participants' typing performance and associated brain activity through disruption of automatized control (Logan and Crump, 2009). In addition, imposing a unimanual behavior might have led to artificially decreasing connectivity patterns in typing. Bimanual activities such as typing are associated with regulation of activation/inhibition patterns over both hemispheres (Pinet et al., 2015, 2019) and with increases in inter- and intra-hemispheric connectivity (Andres et al., 1999; Swinnen, 2002). Another important difference between VWVM2024's typing and handwriting conditions is the absence of visual feedback on the screen during typing. Removal of visual feedback decreases typing speed and impairs error monitoring processes (Pinet and Nozari, 2021). In contrast, handwriting was performed under typical conditions (although see Guilbert et al., 2019 for disrupted control of handwriting on a tablet surface).
Lack of behavioral measures
“The writings produced by the participants […] were stored for offline analyses” (p. 2). Yet, behavioral measures are not reported. Establishing a solid behavioral pattern is usually a requirement before interpreting neurophysiological measures. In VWVM2024, differences in connectivity could have occurred because of differences in the timing and accuracy of handwriting and typing. Moreover, participants' typing skills were neither assessed nor controlled. There is a strong variability in typing skills (Pinet et al., 2022), and non-fluent typing is costly in terms of cognitive resources (Bouriga and Olive, 2021; Graham et al., 2000). Devoting resources to motor processes, at least for less skilled participants, is another factor that could influence brain networks connectivity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, handwriting and typing are both complex activities, likely to display as many similarities as differences. VWVM2024 attempted to characterize the brain activity patterns associated with each modality, an undoubtedly challenging endeavor. However, implications of their findings for learning would be more convincing if limitations in the experimental protocol, reporting of the results, and interpretations were addressed.
We wish to stress that putting into question VWVM2024′s conclusions should not be taken as putting into question the importance of handwriting. Previous evidence does support a beneficial role of handwriting training on single letter recognition (James and Engelhardt, 2012; Longcamp et al., 2005), word recall (Mangen et al., 2015) and word reading and writing (Mangen and Velay, 2010), although long-term consequences remain to be evaluated. The substantial media coverage received by VWVM2024 shows the public interest for this topic as part of the timely issue of how technological development shapes learning and education. We fully agree with VWVM2024 on the urge to examine the implications of writing practice for learning and memory, at a time when handwriting is receiving less attention. Studies including basic research, interventional applied research with converging conclusions, and scaling to the classroom are needed to settle this question and eventually inflect educational policies.
Author contributions
SP: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ML: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the grant ANR-23-CE28-0025 managed by the French National Research Agency, by the Basque Government through the BERC 2022-2025 program, and by the Spanish State Research Agency through BCBL Severo Ochoa excellence accreditation CEX2020-001010/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and through project PID2020-113926GB-I00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033. This work was also supported by AMPIRIC–France 2030 in the form of a visiting researcher grant awarded to Svetlana Pinet.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
1. ^According to Frontiers Publication impact at the time of submission (October, 25th 2024).
References
Andres, F. G., Mima, T., Schulman, A. E., Dichgans, J., Hallett, M., and Gerloff, C. (1999). Functional coupling of human cortical sensorimotor areas during bimanual skill acquisition. Brain 122, 855–870. doi: 10.1093/brain/122.5.855
Bastiaansen, M., Oostenveld, R., Jensen, O., and Hagoort, P. (2008). I see what you mean: theta power increases are involved in the retrieval of lexical semantic information. Brain Lang. 106, 15–28. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2007.10.006
Bouriga, S., and Olive, T. (2021). Is typewriting more resources-demanding than handwriting in undergraduate students? Read Writ. 34, 2227–2255. doi: 10.1007/s11145-021-10137-6
Bowers, J. S. (2016). The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience. Psychol Rev. 123, 600–612. doi: 10.1037/rev0000025
Brier, M. R., Ferree, T. C., Maguire, M. J., Moore, P., Spence, J., Tillman, G. D., et al. (2010). Frontal theta and alpha power and coherence changes are modulated by semantic complexity in Go/NoGo tasks. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 78, 215–224. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2010.07.011
Cavanagh, J. F., and Frank, M. J. (2014). Frontal theta as a mechanism for cognitive control. Trends Cogn. Sci. 18, 414–421. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.012
Feit, A. M., Weir, D., and Oulasvirta, A. (2016). “How we type: movement strategies and performance in everyday typing,” in CHI'16: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2016). The promise of educational neuroscience: comment on Bowers (2016). Psychol. Rev. 123, 613–619. doi: 10.1037/rev0000034
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., and Fink, B. (2000). Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. J. Educat. Psychol. 92, 620–633. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.620
Guilbert, J., Alamargot, D., and Morin, M.-F. (2019). Handwriting on a tablet screen: role of visual and proprioceptive feedback in the control of movement by children and adults. Hum. Mov. Sci. 65, 30–41. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2018.09.001
Horvath, J. C., and Donoghue, G. M. (2016). A bridge too far – revisited: reframing bruer's neuroeducation argument for modern science of learning practitioners. Front. Psychol. 7:377. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00377
James, K. H., and Engelhardt, L. (2012). The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development in pre-literate children. Trends Neurosci. Educat. 1, 32–42. doi: 10.1016/j.tine.2012.08.001
Logan, G. D., and Crump, M. J. C. (2009). The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Psychol. Sci. 20, 1296–1300. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02442.x
Logan, G. D., Ulrich, J. E., and Lindsey, D. R. B. (2016). Different (key)strokes for different folks: how standard and nonstandard typists balance Fitts' law and Hick's law. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 42, 2084–2102. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000272
Longcamp, M., Zerbato-Poudou, M.-T., and Velay, J.-L. (2005). The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in preschool children: a comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta Psychol. 119, 67–79. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.10.019
Mangen, A., Anda, L. G., Oxborough, G. H., and Brønnick, K. (2015). Handwriting versus keyboard writing: effect on word recall. J. Writ. Res. 7, 227–247. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.1
Mangen, A., and Velay, J.-L. (2010). “Digitizing literacy: reflections on the haptics of writing,” in Advances in Haptics, ed. M. Hosseini (Nappanee, IN: InTech), 385–402.
Michelmann, S., Griffiths, B., and Hanslmayr, S. (2022). “The role of alpha and beta oscillations in the human EEG during perception and memory processes,” in The Oxford Handbook of EEG Frequency, 1st Edn, eds. P. A. Gable, M. W. Miller, and E. M. Bernat (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 202–219.
Pinet, S., Dell, G. S., and Alario, F.-X. (2019). Tracking keystroke sequences at the cortical level reveals the dynamics of serial order production. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 31, 1030–1043. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_01401
Pinet, S., Hamamé, C. M., Longcamp, M., Vidal, F., and Alario, F.-X. (2015). Response planning in word typing: evidence for inhibition. Psychophysiology 52, 524–531. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12373
Pinet, S., and Nozari, N. (2021). The role of visual feedback in detecting and correcting typing errors: a signal detection approach. J. Mem. Lang. 117:104193. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2020.104193
Pinet, S., Zielinski, C., Alario, F.-X., and Longcamp, M. (2022). Typing expertise in a large student population. Cogn. Res. Principl. Implicat. 7:77. doi: 10.1186/s41235-022-00424-3
Raghavachari, S., Kahana, M. J., Rizzuto, D. S., Caplan, J. B., Kirschen, M. P., Bourgeois, B., et al. (2001). Gating of human theta oscillations by a working memory task. J. Neurosci. 21, 3175–3183. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-09-03175.2001
Solomon, E. A., Kragel, J. E., Sperling, M. R., Sharan, A., Worrell, G., Kucewicz, M., et al. (2017). Widespread theta synchrony and high-frequency desynchronization underlies enhanced cognition. Nat. Commun. 8:1704. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01763-2
Swinnen, S. P. (2002). Intermanual coordination: from behavioural principles to neural-network interactions. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3, 348–359. doi: 10.1038/nrn807
Keywords: learning, typing, handwriting, theta/alpha oscillations, EEG
Citation: Pinet S and Longcamp M (2025) Commentary: Handwriting but not typewriting leads to widespread brain connectivity: a high-density EEG study with implications for the classroom. Front. Psychol. 15:1517235. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1517235
Received: 25 October 2024; Accepted: 20 December 2024;
Published: 08 January 2025.
Edited by:
Douglas F. Kauffman, Consultant, Greater Boston Area, United StatesReviewed by:
Omid Khatin-Zadeh, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, ChinaCopyright © 2025 Pinet and Longcamp. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Svetlana Pinet, cy5waW5ldEBiY2JsLmV1