The research team recruited a cohort of 68 children between the ages of 8 and 10 years, a developmental window in which foundational mathematical competencies are typically consolidating and in which persistent difficulties begin to diverge clearly from ordinary slow starts. Within this group, the researchers compared children diagnosed with developmental dyscalculia to peers who showed more proficient mathematical development. Rather than relying solely on standardized test scores, the investigators designed tasks that probed something more dynamic: how children actually approach and solve math problems in real time, including which strategies they choose, how flexibly they move between strategies, and how their choices adapt as problems become harder or easier.

This focus on strategy use represents an important shift in how learning disorders are studied. Solving a math problem is rarely a single mental act; it typically involves selecting among multiple possible approaches, monitoring progress, and switching tactics when one path proves unproductive. A child might count on their fingers, retrieve a memorized fact, decompose a problem into simpler parts, or estimate before calculating. The efficiency with which a child selects and transitions among these strategies reflects a set of cognitive control processes, including attention, working memory, and metacognition, the capacity to think about one’s own thinking. The Stanford team hypothesized that deficits in these underlying processes, rather than in arithmetic knowledge alone, might be what keeps dyscalculia entrenched in some children.

The behavioral results were striking in their consistency. Children with developmental dyscalculia were less efficient than their peers at using a variety of math problem-solving strategies. They took longer to switch between strategies when a situation demanded a change in approach, a sign of reduced cognitive flexibility. They were also less sensitive to changes in problem difficulty, meaning their strategy choices did not adapt appropriately when problems became more or less demanding. Perhaps most tellingly, they did not improve in selecting ideal strategies over time, suggesting that the learning mechanisms that normally allow children to refine their problem-solving behavior through experience were not operating as effectively in this group.

These findings matter because they paint developmental dyscalculia not as a simple weakness in numerical knowledge but as a broader disruption in how the mind manages problem solving itself. A child who cannot efficiently shift strategies, who fails to register when a problem has become harder, and who does not learn from repeated exposure to select better approaches is at risk of falling further behind with each passing school year. The disorder, in this view, is self-reinforcing: poor strategy use leads to poor outcomes, which in turn deprive the child of the practice and feedback that would normally sharpen those very skills. Understanding the mechanisms behind this persistence is therefore a central goal for researchers hoping to design more effective interventions.

To connect these behavioral patterns to the brain, the researchers recorded neural activity while the children engaged in the problem-solving tasks. Their analyses revealed that activity in a specific brain system was distinguishable between children with developmental dyscalculia and children who were more proficient at math strategies. In other words, the neural signatures of the two groups could be told apart, suggesting that the behavioral differences observed in the task were mirrored by measurable differences in how the brain was functioning during mathematical thinking.

The predictive power of these neural signals was particularly notable. The brain activity the researchers measured could predict how well individual children performed on counting tasks and how effectively they switched between math problem-solving strategies. This means the neural measure was not merely correlated with group membership in an abstract sense; it carried information about the specific cognitive abilities that differed between the children. Such brain-behavior links are exactly what researchers look for when trying to establish that a neural difference is functionally meaningful rather than incidental, and they open the door to using brain-based measures as potential markers of dyscalculia in future research and, eventually, clinical practice.

According to the researchers, the work suggests that persistent childhood struggles with using problem-solving strategies and with controlling attention, thinking, and memory may contribute to the onset of developmental dyscalculia, and it points to altered brain activity that may drive these characteristic behaviors. This framing positions dyscalculia alongside other developmental conditions in which domain-general cognitive control systems interact with domain-specific learning. A child’s ability to allocate attention, hold information in mind, and monitor their own performance is not separate from their ability to learn math; it is woven into every step of the process, from reading a problem to choosing an approach to checking an answer.

One of the most important takeaways from the study, emphasized by Lasnick, is the individual variability observed in dyscalculia. As he noted, the disorder reflects cognitive and neural dysfunction across multiple processes rather than a single unified deficit. This has practical implications: two children with the same diagnosis may struggle for partly different reasons, one primarily through inflexible strategy switching and another through weak sensitivity to task demands. Interventions that treat dyscalculia as a monolithic problem may therefore miss the mark for many children, whereas approaches tailored to a child’s specific cognitive profile could prove more effective. The study’s multi-process framework provides a template for identifying those profiles systematically.

The findings also underscore the value of studying learning disorders at the intersection of behavior and neuroscience. Behavioral testing alone can reveal that children with dyscalculia struggle, but it cannot fully explain why the struggle persists in some children and resolves in others. Neural measures add a second dimension of evidence, revealing which brain systems are engaged differently and whether those differences track the specific cognitive skills that falter. With this study, Lasnick and his colleagues have taken a substantial step toward that integrated understanding, mapping the latent cognitive, metacognitive, and neural bases of problem-solving deficits in children with developmental dyscalculia. The authors declared no competing financial interests, and the work appeared in JNeurosci, the flagship journal of the Society for Neuroscience, on September 21, 2026. For the children and families affected by this under-recognized disorder, the study offers something valuable: a clearer scientific account of what is happening, both in behavior and in the brain, when math remains stubbornly out of reach.

Subject of Research: Cognitive and neural bases of developmental dyscalculia in children

Article Title: Exploring the brain and behavior of children who struggle at math

Article References: Exploring the brain and behavior of children who struggle at math. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: developmental dyscalculia, math problem solving, cognitive flexibility, strategy use, brain activity, children, metacognition, working memory, attention, JNeurosci, Stanford University, learning disorders

The research, conducted by Haniyeh Shakery Chenary, Kolsoum Akbarnataj Bisheh, and Ebrahim Mohammadian Akerdi, recruited 54 students with dyslexia aged 8 to 12 years from learning disorder centers in Babol, a city in northern Iran. The children, both boys and girls, were selected according to inclusion criteria using a convenience sampling method and then randomly assigned to one of three groups of 18 participants each: a cognitive-behavioral play therapy group, a cognitive rehabilitation group, and a control group that received no intervention. The study followed a pre-test, post-test design with a one-month follow-up, allowing the researchers to track not only whether the treatments worked immediately but whether their effects persisted.

To measure executive functions, the team used the Brief Executive Function Behavioral Rating Questionnaire, an instrument designed to capture everyday manifestations of executive control as observed in children’s behavior. Executive functions are typically broken down into core components: inhibitory control, the ability to suppress impulsive responses; working memory, the capacity to hold and manipulate information in mind; and cognitive flexibility, the skill of shifting between tasks or mental sets. In children with dyslexia, deficits in these domains are well documented and are thought to compound the phonological processing difficulties that define the disorder, making reading acquisition and academic performance even harder.

The results were striking in their symmetry. After the interventions, post-test scores for executive functions decreased significantly in both treatment groups—lower scores on this behavioral rating measure indicating fewer executive function problems, and therefore improvement. Statistical analysis using repeated-measures analysis of variance confirmed that these changes were highly significant, with p values below .001, and crucially, the improvements were maintained at the one-month follow-up. The control group, by contrast, showed no comparable change. In practical terms, both therapies appeared to equip children with better self-regulation, attention, and mental control, and those benefits did not evaporate once the sessions stopped.

Perhaps the most intriguing finding, however, was what the researchers did not find. When the two intervention groups were compared head to head, no statistically significant difference emerged between them (p > .05). Cognitive-behavioral play therapy, with its emphasis on emotional expression and behavioral learning through play, proved just as effective as cognitive rehabilitation, a more direct, exercise-based approach to training cognitive skills. This equivalence matters, because it suggests that clinicians and schools may be able to choose the modality that best fits a particular child, setting, or budget without sacrificing therapeutic benefit.

The mechanisms behind the two approaches differ in fascinating ways. Cognitive rehabilitation is grounded in neuropsychology: it involves repeated, structured practice on tasks designed to strengthen specific cognitive operations, much like physical therapy targets particular muscle groups. Modern implementations range from paper-and-pencil exercises to computerized and even virtual reality-based programs, and the approach has been applied across populations from stroke survivors to children with learning disabilities. The underlying premise is neuroplasticity—that targeted, progressive challenge can reshape the efficiency of the neural networks supporting attention and memory.

Cognitive-behavioral play therapy, by contrast, marries the principles of cognitive-behavioral therapy with the natural language of childhood: play. Rather than asking an 8-year-old to sit through abstract discussions of thoughts and feelings, the therapist embeds cognitive and behavioral strategies in games, stories, and imaginative scenarios. Through play, children rehearse self-control, practice problem-solving, learn to tolerate frustration, and internalize coping strategies. For children with dyslexia, who frequently experience academic failure, shame, and anxiety around reading, this format may address both the cognitive deficits and the emotional fallout that accompany them. Previous research has linked poor reading to elevated rates of internalizing problems such as anxiety and depression, and to diminished self-concept, making an intervention that works through an enjoyable, low-pressure medium particularly appealing.

The study’s authors frame their findings against a sobering backdrop. Many children with dyslexia face poor academic and career outcomes, and their difficulties extend beyond phonological processing to attention and executive functions. Executive dysfunction in dyslexia has been documented in neuropsychological studies across multiple countries, and deficits in working memory have been shown to correlate with reading performance. Because executive functions also predict broader academic achievement and classroom learning behaviors, improving them may yield dividends that go well beyond reading itself—better task completion, stronger self-regulation, and greater capacity to benefit from reading instruction.

The quasi-experimental design, while robust for a clinical field study, does carry limitations worth noting. The sample was drawn from learning disorder centers in a single city using convenience sampling, which may limit how broadly the findings generalize. The outcome measure relied on a behavioral rating questionnaire rather than direct neuropsychological testing, and the follow-up period was one month, leaving open the question of whether benefits persist over longer horizons. Still, the randomized assignment to groups, the inclusion of a control condition, and the follow-up assessment give the findings a credibility that many small clinical studies lack. The researchers also report that the study protocol and ethics code were approved by the Ethics Committee of Islamic Azad University, Sari Branch, and that caregiver consent and child assent were obtained before data collection.

For clinicians, educators, and parents, the takeaway is refreshingly practical: two effective, accessible, and fundamentally different treatments can improve the executive functions of children with dyslexia, and neither holds a decisive advantage. Cognitive rehabilitation offers a targeted, skills-drilling route for settings equipped with structured programs, while cognitive-behavioral play therapy offers a developmentally sensitive, emotionally attuned alternative that children may find inherently motivating. The authors conclude that both can be used as effective and accessible therapeutic approaches for treating students with dyslexia. In a field where families often face long waiting lists and expensive specialized services, evidence that two distinct pathways lead to the same destination is genuinely good news—and a reminder that the developing brain, given the right kind of support, can be nudged toward stronger self-regulation and control.

Subject of Research: Comparing cognitive-behavioral play therapy and cognitive rehabilitation for improving executive functions in students with dyslexia

Article Title: The Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral Play Therapy and Cognitive Rehabilitation on Executive Functions in Students With Dyslexia

Article References: Shakery Chenary, H., Akbarnataj Bisheh, K., & Mohammadian Akerdi, E. (2026). The Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral Play Therapy and Cognitive Rehabilitation on Executive Functions in Students With Dyslexia. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-026-07548-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s10803-026-07548-1

Keywords: dyslexia, executive functions, cognitive-behavioral play therapy, cognitive rehabilitation, working memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, learning disorders, child psychology, intervention study, neuropsychology, academic outcomes

The research team designed THInkPen around a deceptively simple requirement: the pen must behave like any ordinary pen. Children hold it, move it and write with it exactly as they would with a standard ballpoint, producing real ink on real paper. This is a substantial departure from many digital screening tools, most notably tablets, which require children to write on a glass surface with a stylus and can subtly alter the mechanics of handwriting. By preserving the natural writing experience, the researchers argue, THInkPen captures a more authentic picture of a child’s writing process rather than an artifact of the measurement technology itself.

Underneath that familiar exterior, however, sits a sophisticated array of sensors. As the children wrote, the pen continuously sampled signals describing the pressure applied to the paper, the fluency and smoothness of movement, the inclination of the pen, and the frequency of the signals transmitted to the device. From these raw measurements, the team computed a set of digital indicators covering different dimensions of the writing process. Rather than judging only the final written product, as conventional tests do, the device records the entire dynamic journey from the first stroke to the last letter.

To validate the device, the researchers asked study participants to complete two tasks from the BVSCO-3, the Battery for the Clinical Assessment of Writing and Orthographic Skills. This battery is the most widely used clinical test in Italy for assessing writing difficulties, dysgraphia and dysorthography, which makes it a rigorous benchmark against which any new screening technology must prove itself. The digital indicators gathered by the pen were then analyzed in three ways: the team examined their correlation with clinical scores, modeled how they progress across school grades, and tested their usefulness in detecting writing difficulties using artificial intelligence algorithms developed specifically for the task.

The results were striking. The analysis revealed significant and consistent relationships between the digital indicators and the clinical scores, confirming that the sensor-derived measures reliably reflect the performance characteristics that clinicians assess by hand. In other words, the pen’s invisible record of pressure, rhythm and fluency tracks closely with the judgments that trained specialists make when they score a child’s handwriting on paper. This correspondence is precisely what any screening tool must demonstrate before it can be trusted in schools.

Artificial intelligence then took the analysis a step further. Binary classification models trained on the pen data successfully distinguished students with writing difficulties, identified on the basis of their BVSCO-3 results, from the other students. Crucially, the researchers did not stop at a correct-or-incorrect verdict. They applied Explainable Artificial Intelligence, or XAI, techniques to open up the model’s reasoning and identify the reasons underlying below-average performance. Instead of a black-box flag that a child may have a problem, teachers and clinicians could receive an interpretable account of which aspects of the writing process deviate from the norm, paving the way for targeted interventions matched to each child’s specific profile.

The statistical analysis across school grades added another layer of validation. It showed that the digital indicators faithfully reproduced the well-established pattern of improvement in writing that occurs from one grade to the next, demonstrating their sensitivity in capturing the development of graphomotor skills over time. A measurement tool that cannot detect developmental change would be of limited use in a school setting, where the goal is not only to identify current difficulties but to monitor progress as children grow. THInkPen’s ability to mirror this trajectory suggests the device could serve as a longitudinal companion to routine education.

The study stems from the PRIN research project e-School 2.0, coordinated by the Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering at Politecnico di Milano in collaboration with the University of Insubria. Simona Ferrante, professor at the department and coordinator of the Politecnico di Milano research team, explains that using THInkPen to analyze not only the final written product but the entire writing process could support the early identification of writing difficulties in schools, thus facilitating the timely and effective activation of clinical services. The distinction matters because timing is often decisive: writing difficulties that are recognized early can be addressed before they compound into broader academic struggles and loss of confidence.

The clinical context gives the work particular urgency. Cristiano Termine, professor of Child Neuropsychiatry at the University of Insubria, notes that the aspect is particularly relevant in light of the growing demand that Child and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry services face on a daily basis, and the resulting long waiting lists. School difficulties are one of the main reasons children are referred for assessment by these services, but not all the difficulties experienced by students necessarily require specialist clinical evaluation. Termine argues that it therefore becomes essential to have reliable observation and screening tools that can help schools better understand the nature of these difficulties and identify at an earlier stage those situations that genuinely require referral to Child and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry services. A tool like THInkPen could act as a filter, easing pressure on overloaded services while ensuring that children who do need specialist attention are not left waiting behind those who do not.

The pen itself has a longer history than its current application might suggest. The THInkPen project, patented by Politecnico di Milano together with the University of Milan in collaboration with professor Alberto Borghese, was initially conceived for the screening of neurodegenerative diseases and was subsequently developed for neurodevelopmental assessment. Linda Greta Dui, a researcher at the Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering and recipient of the Tecnovisionaria 2025 Award on this topic, also contributed to this development. The latest publication additionally involved Cesare Cornoldi, professor emeritus at the University of Padua and one of the developers of the BVSCO-3, along with ASST Sette Laghi and the Neuroscience Centre of Los Madroños Hospital in Madrid. Taken together, the study points toward a future in which the same device used for a routine classroom writing exercise can double as a sensitive diagnostic instrument, screening hundreds of children non-invasively, at low cost and without disrupting the natural act of writing, while giving clinicians the quantitative evidence they need to prioritize care where it is most needed.

Subject of Research: Early screening of dysgraphia and writing difficulties in schoolchildren using a sensorized ink pen

Article Title: THInkPen, a “smart” pen for early screening of dysgraphia: study by Politecnico di Milano and the University of Insubria published

Article References: THInkPen, a “smart” pen for early screening of dysgraphia: study by Politecnico di Milano and the University of Insubria published. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: dysgraphia, THInkPen, sensorized pen, handwriting, learning disorders, screening, BVSCO-3, artificial intelligence, explainable AI, child neuropsychiatry, graphomotor skills, Politecnico di Milano