Search for: All records

Abstract Human populations show large individual differences in math performance and math learning abilities. Early math skill acquisition is critical for providing the foundation for higher quantitative skill acquisition and succeeding in modern society. However, the neural bases underlying individual differences in math competence remain unclear. Modern neuroimaging techniques allow us to not only identify distinct local cortical regions but also investigate large-scale neural networks underlying math competence both structurally and functionally. To gain insights into the neural bases of math competence, this review provides an overview of the structural and functional neural markers for math competence in both typical and atypical populations of children and adults. Although including discussion of arithmetic skills in children, this review primarily focuses on the neural markers associated with complex math skills. Basic number comprehension and number comparison skills are outside the scope of this review. By synthesizing current research findings, we conclude that neural markers related to math competence are not confined to one particular region; rather, they are characterized by a distributed and interconnected network of regions across the brain, primarily focused on frontal and parietal cortices. Given that human brain is a complex network organized to minimize the cost of information processing, an efficient brain is capable of integrating information from different regions and coordinating the activity of various brain regions in a manner that maximizes the overall efficiency of the network to achieve the goal. We end by proposing that frontoparietal network efficiency is critical for math competence, which enables the recruitment of task-relevant neural resources and the engagement of distributed neural circuits in a goal-oriented manner. Thus, it will be important for future studies to not only examine brain activation patterns of discrete regions but also examine distributed network patterns across the brain, both structurally and functionally. 

Parents’ beliefs about the importance of math predicts their math engagement with their children. However, most work focuses on mothers’ math engagement with preschool- and school-aged children, leaving gaps in knowledge about fathers and the experiences of toddlers. We examined differences in mothers’ and fathers’ ( N = 94) engagement in math- and non-math activities with their two-year-old girls and boys. Parents reported their beliefs about the importance of math and literacy for young children and their frequency of home learning activities. Parents of sons did not differ in their engagement in math activities from parents of daughters. Mothers reported engaging more frequently in math activities with their toddlers than fathers did, but the difference reduced when parents endorsed stronger beliefs about the importance of math for children. Even at very early ages, children experience vastly different opportunities to learn math in the home, with math-related experiences being shaped by both parent gender and parents’ beliefs. 

Recent evidence suggests that infants and toddlers may recognize counting as numerically relevant long before they are able to count or understand the cardinal meaning of number words. The Give-N task, which asks children to produce sets of objects in different quantities, is commonly used to test children’s cardinal number knowledge and understanding of exact number words but does not capture children’s preliminary understanding of number words and is difficult to administer remotely. Here, we asked whether toddlers correctly map number words to the referred quantities in a two-alternative forced choice Point-to-X task (e.g., “Which has three?”). Two- to three-year-old toddlers ( N = 100) completed a Give-N task and a Point-to-X task through in-person testing or online via videoconferencing software. Across number-word trials in Point-to-X, toddlers pointed to the correct image more often than predicted by chance, indicating that they had some understanding of the prompted number word that allowed them to rule out incorrect responses, despite limited understanding of exact cardinal values. No differences in Point-to-X performance were seen for children tested in-person versus remotely. Children with better understanding of exact number words as indicated on the Give-N task also answered more trials correctly in Point-to-X. Critically, in-depth analyses of Point-to-X performance for children who were identified as 1- or 2-knowers on Give-N showed that 1-knowers do not show a preliminary understanding of numbers above their knower-level, whereas 2-knowers do. As researchers move to administering assessments remotely, the Point-to-X task promises to be an easy-to-administer alternative to Give-N for measuring children’s emerging number knowledge and capturing nuances in children’s number-word knowledge that Give-N may miss.