Why does a human baby's vision invert?

[teacherman]

Mentor note: Split the thread in two parts, the other part is here: When (and Why) Does a Human Baby's Vision "Flip". This thread discusses the inversion of human vision, "up/down", "left/right" and 180 degree rotations.

Greetings to all,
I realize that there is another "dead thread" about this subject (with a lot of interesting comments) but I think I can add a "new dimension" to the conversation. I have also put this question out on a few other Science Forums...

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.

Teacherman

 

[mfb]

Since gravity determines "up" and "down",

Not relative to the body.
If you are on the ISS and suddenly the image would be inverted, you would realize something is odd in the same way as you do on Earth.

How did they test the perception of babies? You can see if they move their arm in the wrong direction, but directed motion of the arm takes some time to develop on its own.

There are special glasses inverting the vision, tests with adults show that the brain manages to flip it back after a few days of training. Take the glasses off and the brain again needs some time to adapt.
One report here
More tests here
You can even buy those inversion glasses if you want to test it yourself.

 

[teacherman]

Not relative to the body.
If you are on the ISS and suddenly the image would be inverted, you would realize something is odd in the same way as you do on Earth.

How did they test the perception of babies? You can see if they move their arm in the wrong direction, but directed motion of the arm takes some time to develop on its own.

There are special glasses inverting the vision, tests with adults show that the brain manages to flip it back after a few days of training. Take the glasses off and the brain again needs some time to adapt.
One report here
More tests here
You can even buy those inversion glasses if you want to test it yourself.

Thanks for your response, mfb,
Here is the video of the Erismann & Kohler experiments with inversion goggles in 1950. Unfortunately there is no sound and the captions are in German. But it is definitely worth watching to the end. Keep in mind that the glasses are made with mirrors. They invert the image but they do not flip it backwards.
Teacherman

 

[BillTre]

There are special glasses inverting the vision, tests with adults show that the brain manages to flip it back after a few days of training. Take the glasses off and the brain again needs some time to adapt.

I have actually used some similar glasses in a physiological psych lab many years ago. The glasses I used merely offset rather than inverted the images going to the retina. At first it was pretty disorienting, but after 5-10 minutes of of playing around with a ball, I (and others) were able to throw and catch fairly accurately.

It was an interesting experience and to me. It seems to me that it involved coordination between: relating retinal images and eyeball orientations and spatial orientation with respect the body as well as then relating that to the ability to properly coordinate body movements to suit those changes. If the mapping of the images to the space wrt the body was worked out, then the body movements should just follow along without requiring many changes.

One's perception of the space around one's body involves the integration of senses other than just vision. Hearing also maps to that space. At least some of that combining of senses (in at least some amphibians) occurs in the optic tectum (a midbrain structure where visual information goes before getting to the cortex in humans). Orienting reflexes (such as turning toward load noises, to identify threat or whatever) involve the optic tectum.

Changing how the visual information is arrayed in the midbrain would be one way to adapt to this situation, but would probably require regrowing optic axons which would take days at least. Alternatively just changing the controls on eyeball orientation (controlling the eyeball moving muscles (extra-ocular muscles)) could deal with it all fairly rapidly.

Visual inversion, however would be a more drastic change, which would have to be dealt with differently. On the other hand, there is more than one flow of visual information through the brain and some streams might be more easily changed or more easily observed, particularly in poorly communicating babies.

 

[teacherman]

I have actually used some similar glasses in a physiological psych lab many years ago. The glasses I used merely offset rather than inverted the images going to the retina. At first it was pretty disorienting, but after 5-10 minutes of of playing around with a ball, I (and others) were able to throw and catch fairly accurately.

It was an interesting experience and to me. It seems to me that it involved coordination between: relating retinal images and eyeball orientations and spatial orientation with respect the body as well as then relating that to the ability to properly coordinate body movements to suit those changes. If the mapping of the images to the space wrt the body was worked out, then the body movements should just follow along without requiring many changes.

One's perception of the space around one's body involves the integration of senses other than just vision. Hearing also maps to that space. At least some of that combining of senses (in at least some amphibians) occurs in the optic tectum (a midbrain structure where visual information goes before getting to the cortex in humans). Orienting reflexes (such as turning toward load noises, to identify threat or whatever) involve the optic tectum.

Changing how the visual information is arrayed in the midbrain would be one way to adapt to this situation, but would probably require regrowing optic axons which would take days at least. Alternatively just changing the controls on eyeball orientation (controlling the eyeball moving muscles (extra-ocular muscles)) could deal with it all fairly rapidly.

Visual inversion, however would be a more drastic change, which would have to be dealt with differently. On the other hand, there is more than one flow of visual information through the brain and some streams might be more easily changed or more easily observed, particularly in poorly communicating babies.

Thanks for your response, Bill
Here is another way one could adapt to the problem of inverted vision...

 

[teacherman]

This video by Erismann & Kohler (1950 or so) demonstrates what happens when the images are reversed left to right. At least this video is narrated in English...

 

[BillTre]

Type setters used to learn how to read inverted print they would set before the digital age.
Similar to seeing ambulance printed backwards on the front of ambulances so people could read it in their rear view mirrors.
This seems quite learnable to me.

 

[teacherman]

Surveyors also had to do it with transits - i believe right into the 60's.
Of course, even today, anyone who uses a celestial telescope or microscope has to figure out how to move the instrument exactly opposite what the brain insists it has to do.
Teachers learn to read upside down, too. It makes it easier to read those kids books with illustrations in "circle time" and to see how kids are doing as they move through the classroom.

Thanks for your comments, Bill
Teacherman

 

[teacherman]

I would submit this phenomenon has more to do with your question than anything else. Do cerebral palsy victims who cannot raise their heads until much later in life have upside down vision much later in life? That answer might be a path to understanding.

This popular science version: http://www.pregmed.org/baby-developmental-milestones/when-can-babies-see
indicates there is no research to support 'upside down' vision. That means that to a large extent this discussion is kind of an empty exercise.

How about just letting visually dyslexic kids do what comes natural... and observe.
There are a lot more of them to observe.


...and I believe strongly that this is not an "empty exercise".

 

[Andy Resnick]

Greetings to all,
I realize that there is another "dead thread" about this subject (with a lot of interesting comments) but I think I can add a "new dimension" to the conversation. I have also put this question out on a few other Science Forums...

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?

Teacherman

There was some work done with frogs and newts along this line, but I can't recall any specifics. I found this:
http://www.tutis.ca/Senses/L2VisualCortex/FrogEye.pdf
It mentions that the animals re-learned how to see 'correctly', but no specific details.

 

[BillTre]

There was some work done with frogs and newts along this line, but I can't recall any specifics. I found this:
http://www.tutis.ca/Senses/L2VisualCortex/FrogEye.pdf
It mentions that the animals re-learned how to see 'correctly', but no specific details.

This article is early evidence for a chemical mechanism rather than a learning based mechanism underlying the topological projection of nerve fibers from the retinal (which can be considered a 2D sheet with dorsal-ventral and medial-lateral axes) to the optic tectum (amphibians don't have cortex). A similar pair of axes are thought to be present where the fibers are making contacts with the next set of neurons in the pathway. The chemoaffintiy hypothesis was one of Sperry's big things in his research, along with the split brain experiments (corpus callosum cuts). He got a Nobel prize.

When this was published, I was 3 and there were not any good methods of labeling and tracing axons to find out in detail what was happening anatomically.
Matching dosral-ventral gradients of molecules know to be involved in guiding growing axons to their proper targets have now been found in the retina and optic tectum as well as zebrafish mutants affecting the process.

Here are some fun pictures of the axon projections to the optic tectum.

 

[teacherman]

Randy, I have a feeling that this article (that I have never seen before) Is HUGEly, HUMONGOUSLY, TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT to understanding what I have been researching for the last 10 years! I've read it through once - but will have to do so a few more times to really fully grasp the ramifications of these findings.
Thank you SO MUCH!
Teacherman

 

[teacherman]

I just got done reading it through for the third time...
WOW!
IF (and that's a big if) this is true in humans it could turn the way we teach reading and writing on its head - literally.
You made my day, Bill !
I owe you one...
Teacherman

See the smile on this little girl's face. Multiply that by thousands...

 

[mfb]

What I don't get about the inverted writing: Do they read normally and write inverted? If you just see everything inverted, you'll just learn the inverted letters (the shape of letters is arbitrary anyway, and right-to-left writing systems exist as well), but write them normally to have your writing matching what you see elsewhere. If you write opposite from what you read (so your own writing appears wrong), things get odd.

 

[teacherman]

Along with several other contributors to this thread, I would doubt that. For a start, "most doctors" haven't been able to study this in any depth at all and, in any case, the frame of a casual observer would have more to contribute to any conclusion than any actual effect in the child's vision. More likely there is just confusion in the mapping of the image projected on the retina with the 'World Map' that's established in the brain. When I read statements like the above, I always ask myself "what could be the possible evolutionary advantage in a baby 'seeing things' upside down?"
If there are such advantages in reading and writing 'upside down' then why don't we all do it that way from the start? The direction of writing (left right / up down) varies over the different different languages of the world. Are some inherently better for reading?
The reason that upside down writing works for some kids with a reading problem is most likely because they have developed initial problems or hang ups with the conventional presentation and they benefit from a re-start to the learning process. (Turn it off and turn it on again works for computers)

The fact is that the eye has a lens that inverts an image. That's physics, right??

"I always ask myself "what could be the possible evolutionary advantage in a baby 'seeing things' upside down?"

I think you are asking the wrong question, Sophie.

Shouldn't it be "what could be the possible evolutionary advantage in a baby 'seeing things' right-side-up (based on gravity)? And I would answer that when you live in the modern world, where up and down and left and right are crucial to everything we do (especially reading) then those who can "flip" their inverted vision at an early age have the advantage.

Hence, visual dyslexics are screwed...

Teacherman

 

[teacherman]

What I don't get about the inverted writing: Do they read normally and write inverted? If you just see everything inverted, you'll just learn the inverted letters (the shape of letters is arbitrary anyway, and right-to-left writing systems exist as well), but write them normally to have your writing matching what you see elsewhere. If you write opposite from what you read (so your own writing appears wrong), things get odd.

Thanks for your question, MFB
I think I will let this 74 year old dyslexic reading teacher explain what it was like for her...

 

[mfb]

We split the original baby discussion out, it is now here. This thread is about vision in general, the topic most posts in the thread covered already.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The fact is that the eye has a lens that inverts an image. That's physics, right??

This 'fact' is always overstressed. How is it at all significant? The brain doesn't look at itself like a Design Engineer with a drawing board would do and it is very naive to think that it would. Would you also expect that, in the wiring of the nerves, the areas of the brain structure involved in visual perception that are nearer the top of your head would necessarily deal with information from the 'lower' areas of the retinal surface (or, for that matter, the 'upper' areas)? The very first time a newly born animal gets a visual and physical stimulus which it can associate together, the internal World model starts to associate physical events (touch, heat etc.) that occur in a certain direction with a particular area on the retina, the mapping between vision and other spatial information starts to form and, of course, we can expect much of this to be hard wired in the first place.
In the old days of Polaroid Instant Pictures, did anyone ever stop to consider which way up the picture was, as it was peeled off the back of the camera? Of course not. The picture itself was instantly orientated correctly by the user because of the context of the content of the image. There were times when this 'upside downness' was a problem in everyday life. When you tried to load 35mm colour slides in a projector when the brain / picture interaction was not involved - you then either had to learn about the optics or rely on the spot that someone put on the top right of the slide. That is dealt with on an intellectual level and nothing to do with the internal workings of our vision.

 

[teacherman]

Sorry about the delay...
Here's part 2 of the interview with Mary Frapier, retired reading teacher, who struggled with Inverted Vision most of her life...

 

[teacherman]

This 'fact' is always overstressed. How is it at all significant? The brain doesn't look at itself like a Design Engineer with a drawing board would do and it is very naive to think that it would. Would you also expect that, in the wiring of the nerves, the areas of the brain structure involved in visual perception that are nearer the top of your head would necessarily deal with information from the 'lower' areas of the retinal surface (or, for that matter, the 'upper' areas)? The very first time a newly born animal gets a visual and physical stimulus which it can associate together, the internal World model starts to associate physical events (touch, heat etc.) that occur in a certain direction with a particular area on the retina, the mapping between vision and other spatial information starts to form and, of course, we can expect much of this to be hard wired in the first place.
In the old days of Polaroid Instant Pictures, did anyone ever stop to consider which way up the picture was, as it was peeled off the back of the camera? Of course not. The picture itself was instantly orientated correctly by the user because of the context of the content of the image. There were times when this 'upside downness' was a problem in everyday life. When you tried to load 35mm colour slides in a projector when the brain / picture interaction was not involved - you then either had to learn about the optics or rely on the spot that someone put on the top right of the slide. That is dealt with on an intellectual level and nothing to do with the internal workings of our vision.

Thanks for your response , Sophie
So let's back it up for a second. Forget the whole idea lens inversion and "flipping" of images .
How would you explain this woman's dilemma? I am simply looking for an explanation of a phenomena that turns out to be very common - at least in my experience.

 

[teacherman]

What I don't get about the inverted writing: Do they read normally and write inverted? If you just see everything inverted, you'll just learn the inverted letters (the shape of letters is arbitrary anyway, and right-to-left writing systems exist as well), but write them normally to have your writing matching what you see elsewhere. If you write opposite from what you read (so your own writing appears wrong), things get odd.

Hi MFB,
No, they don't read "normally". The Print Inverted writers that I've worked with read upside-down, too. Somehow they "see" these words upside down and backwards in their heads and have no trouble transferring that image to paper. In the video you heard me say "close your eyes and picture the letter in your head". Nine times out of ten they do it correctly...

This video of Desmond (same guy as in the Spelling Test video) was filmed in the fall of 2012. This word list begins with easy Pre-K words and works it's way up to 5th grade words. Bear in mind that this is the beginning of 2nd grade for Desmond, and up until a few weeks ago he really couldn't read at all. He came to me and said he could read, but only when he looked at the words upside-down. His parents were delighted that he was finally reading! Desmond went from being one of the lowest readers in the class to one of the highest - in just a few weeks...

 

[atyy]

Not relative to the body.
If you are on the ISS and suddenly the image would be inverted, you would realize something is odd in the same way as you do on Earth.

How did they test the perception of babies? You can see if they move their arm in the wrong direction, but directed motion of the arm takes some time to develop on its own.

There are special glasses inverting the vision, tests with adults show that the brain manages to flip it back after a few days of training. Take the glasses off and the brain again needs some time to adapt.
One report here
More tests here
You can even buy those inversion glasses if you want to test it yourself.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10664787
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.294.9093&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Perception. 1999;28(4):469-81.
The myth of upright vision. A psychophysical and functional imaging study of adaptation to inverting spectacles.
Linden DE, Kallenbach U, Heinecke A, Singer W, Goebel R.
The adaptation to inverting prisms and mirror spectacles was studied in four subjects over periods of six to ten days. Subjects showed rapid adaptation of visuomotor functions, but did not report return of upright vision. The persistence of the transformed visual image was confirmed by the subjects' perception of shape from shading. No alteration of the retinotopy of early visual cortical areas was seen in the functional magnetic resonance images. These results are discussed in the context of previous claims of upright vision with inverting prisms and mirror spectacles.

 

[teacherman]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10664787
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.294.9093&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Perception. 1999;28(4):469-81.
The myth of upright vision. A psychophysical and functional imaging study of adaptation to inverting spectacles.
Linden DE, Kallenbach U, Heinecke A, Singer W, Goebel R.
The adaptation to inverting prisms and mirror spectacles was studied in four subjects over periods of six to ten days. Subjects showed rapid adaptation of visuomotor functions, but did not report return of upright vision. The persistence of the transformed visual image was confirmed by the subjects' perception of shape from shading. No alteration of the retinotopy of early visual cortical areas was seen in the functional magnetic resonance images. These results are discussed in the context of previous claims of upright vision with inverting prisms and mirror spectacles.

Hi Atyy,
Thanks for posting this...
I'm very familiar with this study and it proves nothing as far as I'm concerned. I don't even have to go into the abstract to give you proof. The introduction says it all "four subjects over periods of six to ten days."
Six to ten days is not enough! Baby's spent every waking minute for months looking upside down and backwards.
And prisms and mirrors do not do the same thing as a lens. The field of vision is flipped in just one direction - not two. For example, the inversion glasses the prisms flip the world upside down - but left is still left and right is still right.
Even the Kohler experiment lasted a full month. And they have no per-concieved notion of the world hard wired into their brain...
I have spent ten years trying to find a comfortable electronic version of the Stratton glasses that could be worn for an extended period of time but have had no luck.
Any of you interested in doing the experiment correctly. You could become famous...
Teacherman

How about this "study" that was done over 10 years with 100% of the subject's time immersed in a world upside-down and backwards...

 

[sophiecentaur]

I am simply looking for an explanation of a phenomena that turns out to be very common - at least in my experience.

I have no idea about such a complex neurological process - few people have much of clue about how we process our spatial inputs to produce our internal map. It's certainly nothing like a TV channel, despite what popular Science would have us believe.
My point is that it can't be anything to do with the simple fact that a lens produces an inverted image. All those early experiments with inverting glasses show that the 'normal' brain can cope with all sorts of manipulation of what we see. Many people (dentists are a good example) develop the skill of working with mirror image. Every driver in the world can use a rear view mirror (when they can be bothered!) and we can all use a mirror effectively, to deal with a zit. I started using Varifocal glasses a few years ago and was put off by the weird moving distortions of familiar objects. But within a few hours, my brain had sorted all that out and the dining table became rectangular again - moreover, removing the glasses didn't produce any 'inverse distortion'. Switching between the two cases was not a problem. It's clear that the internal map is far from being a 3D 'photo'. We assemble this map on the fly and remember (to varying degrees of precision - as necessary) what we were looking at on our right, whilst we are looking left. Our 'muscle memory' (non-visual) is tied in closely with this image too. Pianists and typists (good ones) just go to the right key without looking for it but will visualise the keyboard if they need to. Part of our spatial map is non-visual; you have a good image of the inside of your mouth, based on what your tongue has told you and there are parts that you have never seen in a mirror.
The above paragraph refers, of course, to people with normal perception. It's a wonder that it works at all (as I tell my Wife when she asks why the WiFi network is down today) and you can't expect to be given any useful explanation for a fault condition until you have a pretty good idea how a system works when there are no faults.
Our consciousness does such a neat and convincing job of stitching together the results of all our separate processes on inputs and memories that it's no good 'believing' what it tells us, on the grounds that 'seeing is believing'. Whatever personal model we may have about our consciousness, you can guarantee that it's much more complicated than that.

 

[teacherman]

Hi Atyy,
Thanks for posting this...
I'm very familiar with this study and it proves nothing as far as I'm concerned. I don't even have to go into the abstract to give you proof. The introduction says it all "four subjects over periods of six to ten days."
Six to ten days is not enough! Baby's spent every waking minute for months looking upside down and backwards.
And prisms and mirrors do not do the same thing as a lens. The field of vision is flipped in just one direction - not two. For example, the inversion glasses the prisms flip the world upside down - but left is still left and right is still right.
Even the Kohler experiment lasted a full month. And they have no per-concieved notion of the world hard wired into their brain...
I have spent ten years trying to find a comfortable electronic version of the Stratton glasses that could be worn for an extended period of time but have had no luck.
Any of you interested in doing the experiment correctly. You could become famous...
Teacherman

How about this "study" that was done over 10 years with 100% of the subject's time immersed in a world upside-down and backwards...

I his own words...

 

[teacherman]

I have no idea about such a complex neurological process - few people have much of clue about how we process our spatial inputs to produce our internal map. It's certainly nothing like a TV channel, despite what popular Science would have us believe.
My point is that it can't be anything to do with the simple fact that a lens produces an inverted image. All those early experiments with inverting glasses show that the 'normal' brain can cope with all sorts of manipulation of what we see. Many people (dentists are a good example) develop the skill of working with mirror image. Every driver in the world can use a rear view mirror (when they can be bothered!) and we can all use a mirror effectively, to deal with a zit. I started using Varifocal glasses a few years ago and was put off by the weird moving distortions of familiar objects. But within a few hours, my brain had sorted all that out and the dining table became rectangular again - moreover, removing the glasses didn't produce any 'inverse distortion'. Switching between the two cases was not a problem. It's clear that the internal map is far from being a 3D 'photo'. We assemble this map on the fly and remember (to varying degrees of precision - as necessary) what we were looking at on our right, whilst we are looking left. Our 'muscle memory' (non-visual) is tied in closely with this image too. Pianists and typists (good ones) just go to the right key without looking for it but will visualise the keyboard if they need to. Part of our spatial map is non-visual; you have a good image of the inside of your mouth, based on what your tongue has told you and there are parts that you have never seen in a mirror.
The above paragraph refers, of course, to people with normal perception. It's a wonder that it works at all (as I tell my Wife when she asks why the WiFi network is down today) and you can't expect to be given any useful explanation for a fault condition until you have a pretty good idea how a system works when there are no faults.
Our consciousness does such a neat and convincing job of stitching together the results of all our separate processes on inputs and memories that it's no good 'believing' what it tells us, on the grounds that 'seeing is believing'. Whatever personal model we may have about our consciousness, you can guarantee that it's much more complicated than that.

Thanks for your input, Sophie,
I'll agree with that last sentence - it is much more complicated than that !

Teacherman

 

[sophiecentaur]

If you are on the ISS and suddenly the image would be inverted, you would realize something is odd in the same way as you do on Earth.

Yes. The clue would be in the fact that you do the 'does it make sense?' test on the picture you see. It may not bother someone who hasn't ever looked out of a space station window before - they would just accept that it's confusing. (And it's just possible that someone rolled the ship whilst you weren't watching.) It's a common problem in home astronomy when you are star hopping, using binoculars (or a guide scope) and an astronomical telescope (switching between the two). This isn't helped by the fact that you are probably standing to one side of the scope and that you may or may not be using a 'star diagonal' eyepiece. It's fiendishly hard for the beginner to deal with. Left can be up or down and up can be down AAAArrghhh!

 

[teacherman]

Yes. The clue would be in the fact that you do the 'does it make sense?' test on the picture you see. It may not bother someone who hasn't ever looked out of a space station window before - they would just accept that it's confusing. (And it's just possible that someone rolled the ship whilst you weren't watching.) It's a common problem in home astronomy when you are star hopping, using binoculars (or a guide scope) and an astronomical telescope (switching between the two). This isn't helped by the fact that you are probably standing to one side of the scope and that you may or may not be using a 'star diagonal' eyepiece. It's fiendishly hard for the beginner to deal with. Left can be up or down and up can be down AAAArrghhh!

Thanks for your continued interest Sophie, but try to put yourself in this little boy's shoes.



As a first grade teacher I was expected to administer the "DIBELS" Screening tool during the first week of school. The first time I administered this test this young man failed it miserably. In fact, he was the lowest performer in the whole class. I simply flipped the test over and this is how he did...
And notice that in addition to having him name the letters (the point of the test) I had him say the sounds, too.
Instead of being labeled severely deficient he should have been labeled severely proficient.

Is my frustration beginning to show?
I apologize,
Teacherman

 

[sophiecentaur]

Thanks for your continued interest Sophie, but try to put yourself in this little boy's shoes.

But I'm not trying to 'explain' anything to this little boy. I am pointing out that there is no 'simple' explanation for the condition. The technical content of what I have written is appropriate to PF discussions. Yes, it's distressing that people can have this sort of disorder but what sort of response could one expect when a question is asked on a Physics discussion group?

Absolutely no need for an apology. If there is, then it's probably due from me.

 

[teacherman]

How about this little 1st grade girl who is really beginning to love reading and writing. She is at the top of the class and doing everything upside down (including her spelling tests) . Her mom is ecstatic.


She's happy...
Her parents are happy...
I'm happy...
My principal is happy...

Then the administration called me down to the office to tell me my methods were "not approved" and that I had to cease and desist in allowing the kids to do this. In fact, I had to force them not to do it or lose my job.

 

[sophiecentaur]

How about this little 1st grade girl who is really beginning to love reading and writing. She is at the top of the class and doing everything upside down (including her spelling tests) . Her mom is ecstatic.


She's happy...
Her parents are happy...
I'm happy...
My principal is happy...

Then the administration called me down to the office to tell me my methods were "not approved" and that I had to cease and desist in allowing the kids to do this. In fact, I had to force them not to do it or lose my job.

Your School management are clearly useless. Tell the parents to kick up a big fuss and to take it further. They can't sack the parents.
PS I wonder who does not 'approve' of your method. Is your School Administration answerable to a higher authority or are they autonomous?

 

[teacherman]

But I'm not trying to 'explain' anything to this little boy. I am pointing out that there is no 'simple' explanation for the condition. The technical content of what I have written is appropriate to PF discussions. Yes, it's distressing that people can have this sort of disorder but what sort of response could one expect when a question is asked on a Physics discussion group?

Absolutely no need for an apology. If there is, then it's probably due from me.

Sophie,
This discussion group has been great and I'm glad I'm getting some answers.
You all may be "scientists" but you are all real human beings. I am appealing for help here - not only to figure out the "why" but to get people to realize that just because there are no "peer reviewed research papers" on PI, you can't simply ignore it. Simply allowing and encouraging these kids to do what comes natural could change thousands of lives.
Sorry for ranting...
Steve

 

[teacherman]

Your School management are clearly useless. Tell the parents to kick up a big fuss and to take it further. They can't sack the parents.
PS I wonder who does not 'approve' of your method. Is your School Administration answerable to a higher authority or are they autonomous?

Too late...

 

[teacherman]

There's a story that goes with

Too late...

There's a long story that goes with this. I'll try to shorten it up...
The day that this video was uploaded it went viral. The local news (see below) came to my house and did a story on my resignation Arrangements twere made o come straight to the school where I tutored to do a story on my methods of working with dyslexic kids.Then...

Picture this...
The next day we are at the school with reporters and photographers . The principal is interviewed, the kids are interviewed, I'm interviewed again and the filming is going on all around us.
Suddenly all the reporters cell phones start going off. The next thing I know everybody is packing up and leaving.
Something more important had just come up... the Newtown School Massacre.

My "viral" video slowed to a trickle. People lost interest and moved on... And thousands of kids go on struggling with reading acquisition simply because they are not allowed to hold their books differently.

Sad

 

[sophiecentaur]

There's a story that goes withThere's a long story that goes with this. I'll try to shorten it up...
The day that this video was uploaded it went viral. The local news (see below) came to my house and did a story on my resignation Arrangements twere made o come straight to the school where I tutored to do a story on my methods of working with dyslexic kids.Then...

Picture this...
The next day we are at the school with reporters and photographers . The principal is interviewed, the kids are interviewed, I'm interviewed again and the filming is going on all around us.
Suddenly all the reporters cell phones start going off. The next thing I know everybody is packing up and leaving.
Something more important had just come up... the Newtown School Massacre.

My "viral" video slowed to a trickle. People lost interest and moved on... And thousands of kids go on struggling with reading acquisition simply because they are not allowed to hold their books differently.

Sad

Yet again, the lunatic gun laws in the US appear to have caused suffering - but in an unexpected extra way.