Common and distinct brain regions in both parietal and frontal cortex support symbolic and nonsymbolic number processing in humans: A functional neuroimaging meta-analysis, NeuroImage, http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.neuroimage.2016.10.028 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. analyses demonstrated anatomically distinct fronto-parietal activation for symbolic and non-symbolic processing. Therefore, symbolic and non-symbolic numbers are subserved by format-dependent and abstract neural systems. Moreover, the present results suggest that regions across the parietal cortex, not just the intraparietal sulcus, are engaged in both symbolic and non-symbolic number processing, challenging the notion that the 2 intraparietal sulcus is the key region for abstract number processing. Additionally, our analyses indicate that the frontal cortex subserve magnitude representations rather than non-numerical cognitive processes associated with number tasks, thereby highlighting the importance of considering both frontal and parietal regions as important for number processing.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Math anxiety is widely considered a potential barrier to success in STEM. Current thinking holds that math anxiety is directly linked to avoidance of and underperformance in STEM domains. However, past evidence supporting these claims is limited in important ways. Perhaps most crucially, it is possible that math anxiety predicts STEM outcomes merely as a proxy for poor math skills. Here, we tested the link between math anxiety and subsequent STEM outcomes by measuring math anxiety, math ability, and several covariates in 183 first-semester university students. We then tracked students’ STEM avoidance and achievement through four years at university via official academic transcripts. Results showed that math anxiety predicted both a reduction in how many STEM courses students took and, separately (i.e., controlling for one another), lower STEM grades. Crucially, these associations held after controlling for math ability (and other covariates). That math anxiety predicts math-related academic achievement independently of Math Ability suggests that, contrary to current thinking, math anxiety’s effects on academic performance likely operate via mechanisms other than negatively affecting math ability. Beyond this, we show evidence that math anxiety can account for associations between math ability and STEM outcomes, suggesting that past links between math ability and real-world outcomes may, in fact, be at least partially explainable by attitudes toward math. These findings provide clear impetus for developing and testing interventions that target math anxiety specifically and suggest that focusing on math ability without additional attention to math anxiety may fail to optimally boost STEM outcomes.