Reading upside down [entries|reading|network|archive]
simont

[ userinfo | dreamwidth userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Thu 2007-08-16 14:23
Reading upside down

I've noticed a couple of times recently that about half my brain is naturally able to read upside down without thinking about it, but not the other half.

Yesterday I happened to see a blog post about image processing, which included a sample image apparently scanned from a map the wrong way up. On this image were the capital letters ‘ATH’ (presumably part of a word), upside down. Now when I see them out of the corner of my eye or while my eye scans past them to look at something else, I read ‘HIV’ (because my pattern-recogniser loses the horizontal of the T and the crossbar of the A, and reads what's left the right way up); but the odd thing is that when I look directly at those letters, I instinctively read ‘ATH’, without having to think about it, and can't see them as anything else.

The first time this happened, the blog post in question was scrolling past at high speed on my LJ friends-of-friends page; I was somewhat confused, and I braked to a halt and backpedalled the scroll bar to find out why I'd just seen the letters ‘HIV’ in a post about image processing. I stared directly at the letters ‘ATH’, saw them as ‘ATH’, and assumed I must just have hallucinated. Then the next time I worked the scrollbar, *blinks* there was ‘HIV’ again. It took me several goes before I figured out what was going on, because when I looked at the letters with the top half of my brain I absolutely could not see anything other than ‘ATH’ there.

In the kitchen at work, there's a big box sitting on the floor with ‘Squashes’ written on it. (Presumably it contains bottles of soft drink, rather than unusual vegetables, but I haven't opened it to check.) The orientation of the box is such that when I walk past it I see the word ‘Squashes’ upside down; and usually at first glance I somehow read it as ‘Squashages’. Then I look at it again and can't see why I would have thought that, because obviously it has no g in it and clearly says ‘Squashes’ – but then it happens again the next time I go to the kitchen.

It's taken me a couple of days to figure this one out, but now I think I've got it. The last few letters of ‘Squashes’, when read upside down, look quite like the first few letters of ‘sausages’. So I think what's happening is that my right-way-up reading instinct sees ‘sausa…S’ and assumes the existence of the ‘ge’ in the middle, and then my upside-down instinct starts to kick in and realises that the word starts ‘Sq’, and some overenthusiastic part of my brain's language module has combined the two to synthesise ‘Squashages’ before I manage to notice that it's being silly.

So the conclusion I draw from all this is that there are two largely independent reading subsystems in my brain. One of them can only read the right way up, apparently does so by whole-word pattern recognition, and produces answers extremely quickly; the other one can read upside down as well, has a slightly higher activation threshold (it won't fire at all if I'm not deliberately trying to read something) and takes a fraction of a second longer to give its answer, but once it's working it overrules the other one to the point where I can no longer perceive what it had been telling me.

It certainly doesn't surprise me to find that my brain supports multiple strategies for extracting meaning from the written word. Having a fast word recogniser and a slower but surer letter recogniser seems like an entirely sensible architecture, since the latter can fill in gaps and correct errors in the output of the former. But it does surprise me that they're so independent of one another that they can fight.

LinkReply
[identity profile] isihac.livejournal.comThu 2007-08-16 13:34
Hmm... Are you left or right handed?
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontThu 2007-08-16 13:38
Right. Why, do you think there's a left/right brain issue involved?
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] isihac.livejournal.comThu 2007-08-16 16:33
I thought you might be left-handed from that as I tend to find reading upside-down natural and am 'sinister'. But then, that could be from years of reading children's books upside-down to the rugrats.

There does seem to be a link with backwards rather than forwards, which made me think of it - when someone in a pub asked me the time once I looked at the clock on the wall and responded correctly instantly, not noticing it was a gimmick one and was actually back-to-front.
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] hairyears.livejournal.comThu 2007-08-16 14:36
Another dyslexic who never describes himself thus, because - like me - you read and write fluently?
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontThu 2007-08-16 15:42
You're presumably using some definition of "dyslexic" which describes some non-standard functionality or mechanism, regardless of whether or not it leads to a difficulty or disability?

Wikipedia presents a variety of definitions of dyslexia, but they all seem to have in common the idea that it's a disability or difficulty, and hence it seems clear that none of them is the one you mean. So whatever your definition is, I think I'm going to need it explained in more detail...
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] hairyears.livejournal.comThu 2007-08-16 18:30


they all seem to have in common the idea that it's a disability or difficulty

That is a remarkable insight, and it has ramifications far beyond reading scores and the ability to catch a ball.

My definition of 'Dyslexia' does not appear to tally with the strict 'learning difficulty' definition that is presented by that Wikipedia article in confident tones and strictly-defined terms of one's ability to acquire reading skills at school.

Nor do I recognise much of what I know - or thought I knew - in the 'magnocellular theory' section, which is Wikipedia's only concession to the view that dyslexia is a broader condition which presents a notable symptom - poor reading scores - among other less-obvious differences from the statistical norms of the general population.

So what follows is a purely personal view, a series of anecdotes and a precis of the discussions following a fellow-student's third-year clinical psychology project, twenty years ago.

At that time, clinicians had noted that dyslexic children presented other symptoms: the inability to catch a ball, balance problems or dyspraxia, poor performance judging distances, 'cross-lateral' phenomena, difficulty with names and - frequently - other cognitive or memory-based problems that have a common theme of somehow failing to link things with other things.

When studied more closely, children and dyslexic adults that had been educated in a sufficiently rich environment (not always true of children regarded as 'dull' because of their reading problems) were found to have abilities that challenged the notion of dyslexia being a 'disorder' or 'learning difficulty': visual recall, spatial skills, an innate ability with 3-D visualisation, logical and analytical abilities that are nowadays highly-prized among database developers. Some of it (like my hoover-like appetite for lexicological trivia) grow out of adaptations to the 'words' deficit; others are innate gifts and valuable skills.

As in all psychological diagnoses, the researchers (and clinicians familiar with the work and unencumbered by ideology or mechanistic diagnostic methodologies) saw that there was no 'definitive' case: one person could have one, or some - but rarely all - of the signs and symptoms. Some, like poor distance-judgement, would seem to contradict others - like the exceptional spatial skills observed in a majority of 'dyslexic' teenagers.


Continues...
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] hairyears.livejournal.comThu 2007-08-16 18:40
...Continued


Now for the specifics: I recall being very slow in my reading development until (I think) the age of seven. I plodded on, in unstimulating and repetitive lessons all-too-clearly designed for the dull and the 'difficult', picking up an elementary facility with written English characterised by haphazard spelling and a frequent tendency to write from right to left.

Then I was given an series of books which, while simple in their choice of words, were rich and engaging, and compelling reading for an intelligent seven-year-old. I devoured them and became a speed-reader. I have no idea how (or rather, I have off-the wall ideas that could not be tested well enough to form published research) and now, despite my rather hit-and-miss abilities as a typist, I rarely if ever make a spelling error. So I'm not dyslexic.

Really. Not at all.

Except that the third-year project showed up such a compelling spectrum of dyslexia-related deficits and abilities that no sensible clinician, presented with analogous diagnostic data for some condition (for argument's sake named after one common symptom which is usually present and accompanied by a strongly-correlated set of secondary symptoms) would have any hesitation in applying the correct label to the 'patient'.

That being said, I am very wary of the label 'dyslexic': forty years ago it meant 'too stupid to read' and for the last twenty years or so it meant, in London Schools 'pushy middle-class parents have a truculent and stupid child who is going to get extra resources and the dyslexia tuition budget is the way we do this'.

Names and faces are the crippling deficit of my not-dyslexia. Distance judgement, and my odd 3D perception are an inconvenience. But visual abilities - and reading with the visual cortex, instead of childishly mumbling and subvocalising through the text with the auditory cortex, like 'normal' children - are where I live and work and practice my artistic abilities.

Now picture the second practical in the Department of Human Anatomy, before we do any actual dissection: piles or slotted rows of perspex discs are presented for our perplexed inspection. These disks have shapes or patterns on them, and apparently there is something terribly challenging about all this, requiring lengthy explanations in increasingly-exasperated tones and a lot of pointing. The discs are cross-sections, in sequence, and the lesson is that we can learn to put them together and redraw the original object in 3-D; particularly clever students can even draw out a series of vertical cross-sections if they stare very hard at the longitudinal sequence of perspex slices.

It took me half-an-hour of baffled incomprehension to realise that was the whole idea of the lesson. "Look", I said to the lecturer (the DHA wasn't at that time headed by a professor), who was equally baffled by the notion that someone just looked and knew it: "Is this supposed to be difficult?"

"Give me a hard-boiled egg, and slice it, and I will recreate it just like the models on the rack. Take a hard-boiled egg, or any specimen in this room, and put it on a fork, rotate it while you pass it through a cheesewire at any angle, and spread the slices flat; I will draw it in sequential sections, isometric projection or a cutaway perspective diagram, faster than the C-T scanning programme on the Vax".

I think the thing that convinced him was the reference to tomography, which was at that time space-age science, available to a select few clinicians in hospitals with unimaginable equipment budgets. We had a brief and entertaining chat about CT scanners and the (then) black art of identifying locally-concentrated X-Ray doses when you specify particular types of sequential section.

I think he was terribly disappointed when my academic career ran into the sands of depressive illness and a dyslexic's inability to manage the grinding labour of rote-learned naming and listings that were - and still are - the only way that human anatomy is taught and subsequently examined in preclinical medical schools.

Now does all this rambling help you understand what I mean - and what I think is meant in a broad sense - by the word 'Dyslexia'?

Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] feanelwa.livejournal.comThu 2007-08-16 18:54
What? You're a tomographer! I can witter on about my project at you for hours :D
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
(Anonymous)Fri 2007-08-17 15:33
I am very, very out-of-date!

I never did get to write any tomographic algorithms, so the mathematical core of your work is beyond me.

More to the point, your work appears to be very different from macro-scale tomography, which is all about interpreting multiple views though an object as spatial data for image processing; I think you're doing something closer to X-Ray Crystallography, which is the analysis of patterns thrown off regular structures like crystal planes.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] feanelwa.livejournal.comFri 2007-08-17 15:56
Yes, I am. You have just let yourself in for a whole pile of geeking :D
Link Reply to this | Parent
[personal profile] simontThu 2007-08-16 19:09
Not very clearly, I'm afraid; unless I missed something big in your two comments here, you went straight from "reasons to think there was an overarching theme at work" to "specific examples", without any real definition of the category you're describing.

But I certainly don't see myself in there; the only thing I can remotely recognise in my own childhood was an inability to catch a ball (for which I eventually overcompensated by teaching myself to juggle around age twelve). I was reading fluently from age two or three, and by the time I went to school the teachers simply had to find other things for me to do while they did reading with everyone else. In every other respect you mention, I don't see myself as unusual (in either the inconvenient ways or the potentially useful ones!).
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
(Anonymous)Fri 2007-08-17 15:58
The overarching theme is that cognitive psychology, like clinical pyschiatry, rarely presents neatly-defined single-symptom disorders and conditions.

Instead of the convenient categories and labels so beloved of the press and the education authorities, you get broadly-defined syndromes named after one symptom that are actually complex sets of symptoms, some of which will be present to a lesser or greater degree; and some of which will be absent - including the 'headline' symptom.

This is the point with dyslexia: if clinical practice is to be based on rational diagnostic methodology then we have to accept that children and adults who read well (sometimes exceptionally so) but still present an overlapping set of visual, cognitive and spatial deficits that is heavily correlated with 'dyslexic dyslexics' are people with the same condition.

Or a very, very closely related cognitive abnormality that causes dyslexia in others. And your description of left-eye/right eye differences in image-processing - and outright cognitive dissonance between the two inputs - really rings a bell with anyone who's read about remedial reading tutors trying out coloured spectacles and blanking lenses in the belief that it's a visual disorder.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] hairyears.livejournal.comFri 2007-08-17 16:00
sorry, that was me - session expired.
Link Reply to this | Parent
[personal profile] aldabraThu 2007-08-16 15:32
I'm deeply envious of your capacity for self-analysis at this stage in the week!
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] ceb.livejournal.comThu 2007-08-16 17:14
squashages> reasonably frequently I find my brain's read the beginning or end (or both) or a word and filled in the middle with something ... not quite right. c.f. St. Submarine's College, Cambridge, which I think is my favourite so far.
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontThu 2007-08-16 19:10
That's quite a good one, certainly :-)

Another oddity in my reading instincts seems to be that after spending over a decade on the Internet I'm attuned to the kinds of misspelling which arise naturally out of typos. I can easily misread "auction" as "suction", for example, or "war" as "ear".
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] fluffyrichard.livejournal.comThu 2007-08-16 17:15
I don't have quite the same problem as you, but my brain is quite capable of reading things upside down, without bothering to inform me that they're upside down. This makes markings written on the road surface for oncoming traffic which say things like "No Entry" most confusing - I've often started braking due to them before I realise that they're not intended for me.
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontThu 2007-08-16 17:59
I think I've had the No Entry problem as well, now you mention it.

Someone on Mono mentioned a similar case, involving "PUSH" being written on one side of a glass door. He fails to notice that it's written backwards from his point of view, and so pushes rather than pulling. I don't think I can remember that happening to me, but perhaps I just haven't seen any such door.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] feanelwa.livejournal.comThu 2007-08-16 18:56
I was driving through a village that may have been Dry Drayton today and there were signs with 40 in a circle on the road. In other villages there are signs that say 30, and so when I saw the first one I slowed down to 30, read it and went back up to sensible 40 again. Then on the next one I went down to 30 but it didn't say anything new, only 40 again. The same was true of the next five. I am a little worried about the residents of that village.
Link Reply to this | Parent
[personal profile] sparrowsionFri 2007-08-17 09:27
I've done the reading "PUSH" from the wrong side of a glass door thing and not realising thing. (I've also tried to walk through a glass door I didn't realise was there, but that's another story.)
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] feanelwa.livejournal.comThu 2007-08-16 17:43
Squashages is the best word ever. Things that have been squashed. You have just cheered me up, anyway!
Link Reply to this
(Anonymous)Fri 2007-08-17 09:32
words & letters
Word recognition & letter recognition are normally dealing with consistent data (nearly all the time we see letters in upright orientation) so these processes work nicely in tandem most of the time. Therefore those unusual occasions when they do not coincide (or more correctly, when they converge on different solutions) can be very disruptive.
The same is true of other mental processes requiring integration of information from different sources (where there is a highly regular mapping between sources in normal experience). The "McGurk effect" is one of the easiest to demonstrate:
www.media.uio.no/personer/arntm/McGurk_english.html

Link Reply to this
navigation
[ go | Previous Entry | Next Entry ]
[ add | to Memories ]