The language of arithmetic across the hemispheres: An event-related potential investigation

Abstract

Arithmetic expressions, like verbal sentences, incrementally lead readers to anticipate potential appropriate completions. Existing work in the language domain has helped us understand how the two hemispheres differently participate in and contribute to the cognitive process of sentence reading, but comparatively little work has been done with mathematical equation processing. In this study, we address this gap by examining the ERP response to provided answers to simple multiplication problems, which varied both in levels of correctness (given an equation context) and in visual field of presentation (joint attention in central presentation, or biased processing to the left or right hemisphere through contralateral visual field presentation). When answers were presented to any of the visual fields (hemispheres), there was an effect of correctness prior to the traditional N400 timewindow, which we interpret as a P300 in response to a detected target item (the correct answer). In addition to this response, equation answers also elicited a late positive complex (LPC) for incorrect answers. Notably, this LPC effect was most prominent in the left visual field (right hemisphere), and it was also sensitive to the confusability of the wrong answer – incorrect answers that were closely related to the correct answer elicited a smaller LPC. This suggests a special, prolonged role for the right hemisphere during answer evaluation.

Meaning to multiply: Electrophysiological evidence that children and adults treat multiplication facts differently

“…5 ) revealed the typical sensory components (P1-N1-P2) in both tasks after the onset of either the solution or the drawing. In the digit task, a subsequent P300 response is visible for correct solutions consistent with Dickson et al (2018) ; Dickson and Federmeier (2017) ; Dickson and Wicha (2019) , and Jasinski and Coch (2012) . In contrast, in the word-picture task an N400 is visible for both match and mismatch trials peaking around 400 ms after picture onset.…”

“…However, some behavioral researchers have argued that the developmental transition between calculation and retrieval may happen more gradually ( LeFevre et al, 1996 ; Siegler, 1996 ). Moreover, recent neuroimaging studies with adults have reinterpreted the ERP response observed to mathematical fact expressions, implying that children might not process arithmetic like adults do ( Dickson et al, 2018 ; Dickson and Federmeier, 2017 ; Jasinski and Coch, 2012 ). The current study adds critical new evidence to the limited literature on the neurocognitive basis of arithmetic in elementary school children and tests whether a slower developmental trajectory toward adult-like processing has indeed been overlooked.…”

“…Research using ERPs to study how arithmetic is processed has revealed robust brain responses to proposed solutions in both children and adults. This research has been dominated by studies that include adult populations ( Dickson et al, 2018 ; Dickson and Federmeier, 2017 ; Jasinski and Coch, 2012 ; Jost et al, 2003 ; Martinez-Lincoln et al, 2015 ; Niedeggen et al, 1999 ; Núñez-Peña et al, 2006 ; Salillas and Wicha, 2012 ), with a smaller group of studies that have compared child and adult brain responses ( Moore et al, 2014 ; Prieto-Corona et al, 2010 ; Xuan et al, 2007 ; Zhou et al, 2011 ). The methods used in these studies have varied, with some using verification tasks and others production, or different operations (addition vs multiplication, etc.).…”

“…Initial research therefore implied that both children and adults construct meaning-level representations for simple multiplication problems. However, as alluded to above, more recent studies from multiple labs have reexamined the nature of this arithmetic correctness effect in adults and came to the same independent conclusion that the adult brain response was functionally and morphologically different than the N400 ( Dickson et al, 2018 ; Dickson and Federmeier, 2017 ; Dickson and Wicha, 2019 ; Jasinski and Coch, 2012 ; Wicha et al, 2018 ). Essentially, what was originally interpreted as an N400 modulation, with larger amplitude for incorrect solutions, was more in-line with a modulation of the P300, with larger amplitude for correct solutions (see Dickson and Wicha, 2019 for a more in-depth discussion of this reexamination of the adult correctness effect).…”

Do we access meaning when we name Arabic digits? Electrophysiological evidence

“…In contrast, when the ERP pattern was considered, an attenuation of the N400 component was obtained for related results in comparison with unrelated results. Hence, the authors observed a dissociation between decision times and ERP measures where behavioural interference was accompanied by an attenuation of the N400 amplitude (although see Dickson & Federmeier, ; and Jasinski & Coch, , for an interpretation of this N400 effect as a P300 in response to a detected target associated with a correct answer). A similar pattern of results was reported by Megías and Macizo with an addition verification task.…”