ArticleNeuropsychopharmacology reports2021
The neural differences of arithmetic verification performance depend on math skill: Evidence from event-related potential.
Article in Neuropsychopharmacology reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Electroencephalography (EEG) Studies Investigating Mathematical Efficiency: Current Insights and Future Directions.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Pooled it
- Temporal-spatial deciphering mental subtraction in the human brain.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2024Article
- Development is in the details: Event-related theta oscillations reveal children and adults verify multiplication facts differently.Psychophysiology · 2023Article
- The neural differences of arithmetic verification performance depend on math skill: Evidence from event-related potential.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimMath skill is a basic need for an individual, as a career prospect. However, little is known about early brain processes of arithmetic between individuals with different math skill. Therefore, we questioned the modulation of the amplitude of an early negative component by math skill level in an arithmetic verification paradigm using event-related potential (ERP).
methodsThirty-six right-handed participants were assigned in two groups of high- and low-performing students. Their electroencephalogram was recorded while they completed an arithmetic verification task. Simple arithmetic operands were made by random digits from 1 to 9. Addition and subtraction operations were equally used in correct and incorrect responses. The accuracy scores, reaction times, and peak amplitude of the negativity in 200-400 ms time window were analyzed.
resultsThe high-performing group showed significantly higher response speeds, and they were more accurate than the low-performing group. The group × region interaction effect was significant. The high-performing group showed a significantly greater negativity, particularly in parietal region, while the low-performing group showed a significantly deeper negativity in frontal and prefrontal region. In the low-performing group, there were significant peak amplitude differences between the anterior and posterior areas. However, such differences were not detected in the high-performing group.
conclusionStudents with different mathematical performance showed distinct patterns in early processing of arithmetic verification, as reflected by differences in negativity at 200-400 ms at anterior and posterior. This suggests that ERPs could be used to differentiate math mastery at neural level which is beneficial in educational and clinical contexts.
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.