ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Associations of calligraphy practice with executive function and transfer: a cross-sectional comparison of professional calligraphers and beginners.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Calligraphy practice is a complex activity involving visuospatial analysis, fine-motor control, attention, and self-monitoring. This study examined cross-sectional associations among calligraphy-practice experience, executive-function (EF) performance, near- and far-transfer task performance, visuospatial structural processing (VSP), and selfregulation (SR). Methods: We compared 310 professional calligraphers with 310 beginners. Groups were defined using prespecified criteria for training duration, current practice, and professional background; the Calligraphy Proficiency Validation Score (CVS) was used only after grouping as an independent validation measure. After screening, 338 professionals and 312 beginners were eligible. Random subsampling in SPSS 26.0, conducted before outcome analysis and based only on group membership, produced two groups of 310. Adjusted cross-sectional models examined group differences, Practice-EF associations, near- versus fartransfer differences, a bootstrap indirect association through VSP, and a Practice × SR interaction. Results: Professionals had higher adjusted EF ( Discussion: The findings describe cross-sectional associations and conditional statistical patterns rather than directional or causal effects. Longitudinal and intervention studies are needed to establish temporal ordering and causality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.