ILANA WAISMAN, MARK LEIKIN, SHELLEY SHAUL and ROZA LEIKIN

BRAIN ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH TRANSLATION BETWEEN

GRAPHICAL AND SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATIONS
OF FUNCTIONS IN GENERALLY GIFTED AND EXCELLING
IN MATHEMATICS ADOLESCENTS
Received: 30 July 2013; Accepted: 12 January 2014

ABSTRACT. In this study, we examine the impact and the interplay of general giftedness
(G) and excellence in mathematics (EM) on high school students mathematical
performance associated with translations from graphical to symbolic representations of
functions, as reflected in cortical electrical activity (by means of ERPevent-related
potentialsmethodology). We report on findings of comparative data analysis based on
75 right-handed male high school students (1618 years old) divided into four research
groups designed by a combination of EM and G factors. Effects of EM factor appeared at
the behavioral and electrophysiological levels. The fifth group of participants included 9
students with extraordinary mathematical abilities (S-MG: super mathematically gifted).
We found that in EM participants, the G factor has no impact on the performance
associated with translation between representations of the functions. The highest overall
electrical activity is found in excelling in mathematics students who are not identified as
generally gifted (NG-EM students). This increased electrical activity can be an indicator of
increased cognitive load in this group of students. We identified accumulative and unique
characteristics of S-MG at the behavioral and electrophysiological levels. We explain the
findings by the nature of the tasks used in the study. We argue that a combination of the
ERP techniques along with more traditional educational research methods enables
obtaining reliable measures on the mental processing involved in learning mathematics
and mathematical problem solving.

KEY WORDS: event-related potentials (ERP), excellence in mathematics, functions,

giftedness, graphical and symbolic representations

RATIONALE

Technological tools in mathematics education allow students access to

more representations of mathematical objects and to gaining a better
understanding of them (Moreno-Arnella, Hegedus & Kaput, 2008). The
concept of function is central for teaching mathematics in a computer-
based learning environment, while teaching functions with graphing
software are usually associated with translations between symbolic and
graphical representations of function (Kaput, 1998; Yerushalmy &
Shternberg, 2001). The process of translation between representations is

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (2014) 12: 669Y696

# National Science Council, Taiwan 2014
670 WAISMAN ET AL.

not automatic, is rather complicated (Gagatsis & Shiakalli, 2004), and differs in
participants with different levels of mathematical achievement (Leikin, Leikin,
Waisman, & Shaul, 2013). In addition, the effectiveness of mathematics learning
with technology is highly dependent on the type of learners (Yerushalmy, 2006).
Our study focuses on brain activity associated with translation between
symbolic and graphical representations. It constitutes a breakthrough in the
field of event-related potential (ERP) methodology by employing relatively
advanced mathematical tasks. We analyze the relationship between ERP
characteristics associated with solving function-related tasks and levels of
excellence in school mathematics and of general giftedness.

BACKGROUND

Studying Functions in High School

Function is one of the fundamental concepts in mathematics in general
and in school algebra and calculus in particular (Da Ponte, 1992). One of
the central characteristics of the concept of functions that makes it so
central to the learning process is its nature of multiple representations.
Through studying functions, students can make connections between
symbolic (e.g. equations), graphical (e.g. graph of a function), verbal
(descriptive), and numerical (e.g. tables) representations of functions.
Kaput (1998) argued that the sources of mathematical meaning building
are found in translations between representation systems. Translation
between different representations refers to the psychological processes
involved in moving from one mode of representation to another, e.g. from
a graph to an equation (Janvier, 1987). In turn, the ability to translate
from one representation of the concept of function to another highly
correlates with success in problem solving (Gagatsis & Shiakalli, 2004;
Yerushalmy, 2006) while flexible use of representations is part of
cognitive variability, which enables individuals to solve problems quickly
and accurately (Heinze, Star, & Veschaffel, 2009).
Implementation of dynamic graphical tools to teaching functions makes
mathematics, and learning mathematics, more powerful and interesting
(Yerushalmy & Shternberg, 2001) and encourages meaningful relationships
between different representations (Ferrara, Pratt & Robutti, 2006).
This study considers translations between symbolic and graphical
representations of functions through the lens of neurocognitive investi-
gation with attention to brain activity in groups of participants that differ
in general giftedness and excellence in school mathematics.
 SOLVING FUNCTION-BASED PROBLEMS: AN ERP STUDY 671

Gifted and Super Gifted Students

There is no universally accepted definition for mathematical giftedness,
and usually, the concept of mathematical giftedness is connected to high
abilities in mathematics and to the construct of general giftedness (Leikin,
2014).
It is important to note that over the years, this notion of giftedness has
been consistently criticized, as theorists started to broaden the notion of
intelligence (Callahan, 2000). Several complex definitions for giftedness
were proposed. One, for example, integrates general intellectual ability
with creativity and task commitment (Renzulli, 1978), while another
combines three types of intelligence: analytic, synthetic, and practical
(Sternberg, 1997). However, these complex definitions make the
evaluation of giftedness complex and available tools lacking for the
evaluation of giftedness according to those definitions. The literature
distinguishes between general and specific giftedness, whereby
specific giftedness refers to a clear and distinct intellectual ability
in a given area, for example in mathematics (Piirto, 1999). High
mathematical abilities are usually connected to fluent mathematical
processing and flexible problem solving (Krutetskii, 1976; Leikin,
2014). We hypothesize that general giftedness and excellence in
mathematics are two interrelated characteristics that are different in
nature. There are distinctions between levels of giftedness that reflect
the qualitative differences between moderately and highly intellectu-
ally gifted children (Silverman, 2009). Super-gifted (S-G) students are
defined by an IQ score above 145 or at least 3 SD above the mean
(Feldman, 2003). S-G students appear in the population at a ratio of
less than 1:1,000 (Vaivre-Douret, 2011; Silverman, 2009).
Our study suggests differentiating between general giftedness (G) and
excellence in mathematics (EM) and superior mathematical abilities
(super mathematically gifted (S-MG)) (see Research Sample section).

Neurocognitive Research in Mathematics Education

Considerable research has investigated the neural basis of the use of
mathematical cognition. However, mostly number processing and simple
arithmetic were studied in this context. One of the prominent theories
connected to numerical knowledge is the triple code theory that
emphasizes the role of the parietal cortex to number processing and
arithmetic calculations (Dehaene, Piazza, Pinel, & Cohen, 2003). It
pinpoints three regions of the parietal cortex that have been attributed to
the different functions connected to number processing. The horizontal
672 WAISMAN ET AL.

intraparietal sulcus has been found to be involved in calculations; the

posterior superior parietal lobule has been linked with the visuospatial
and attention aspects of number processing (Dehaene et al., 2003); and
the angular gyrus (AG) has been found to be associated with the
verbal processing of numbers and involved in fact retrieval (Grabner,
Ansari, Koschutnig, Reishofer, Ebner, & Neuper, 2009). The parietal
cortex has been found to be involved, too, in more complex
mathematical processing such as word problem solving (Newman,
Willoughby, & Pruce, 2011), algebraic equations (Sohn, Goode,
Koedinger, Stenger, Carter, & Anderson, 2004), and geometry proof
generation (e.g. Anderson, Betts, Ferris, & Fincham, 2011). Imaging
research has identified the frontal cortex, particularly lateral inferior
prefrontal cortex, to be connected to relatively advanced mathematical
problem solving (e.g. Anderson et al., 2011). The same previously
mentioned cortex regions have been found to be associated with
different mental operations. Interestingly, various studies demonstrate
that when complexity of the problems rises, more brain areas
simultaneously support the solving process (Zamarian, Ischebeck,
Delazer, 2009). Research on algebraic problem solving includes a
number of studies performed mostly with adults. For example, Lee,
Lim, Yeong, Ng, Venkatraman, & Chee (2007) compared brain
activation in diagrammatic and equation representations for mathemat-
ical word problems and found that both modes of representation were
associated with the activation of areas linked to working memory and
quantitative processing.
The investigation of the connection between brain correlates and
mathematical competence in tasks requiring the processing of mathemat-
ical representation revealed stronger left AG activity in more competent
individuals (Grabner, Reishofer, Koschutnig & Ebner, 2011). Note,
however, that the neural mechanisms involved in complex mathematics
have not been studied sufficiently, and our study enters this lacuna. De
Smedt & Verschaffel (2010) argued that since there are large individual
differences in mathematics-related cognitive processes, cognitive neuro-
science might help to gain better understanding of these individual
differences in mathematical performance.
Analysis of previous studies on giftedness, in general, and on
mathematical giftedness, in particular, demonstrates that the studies
differ in sampling criteria (if there are any), and that in most cases,
high achievements in school mathematics are taken as an indication
of mathematical giftedness (Dai, Swanson, & Cheng, 2011; Ziegler &
Raul, 2000).
 SOLVING FUNCTION-BASED PROBLEMS: AN ERP STUDY 673

THE STUDY

The Study Goals

Our study had several interrelated goals. We were investigating cortical
activity associated with solving problems that require translation between
symbolic and graphical representations. First, we searched for the
relationship of general giftedness (G factor) and excellence in school
mathematics (EM factor) to problem-solving performance as reflected in
(a) behavioral measures and (b) electrophysiological measures (see
sections Behavioral Measures and Electrophysiological Measures).
Second, we examined specific characteristics of students with superior
mathematical performance (S-MG).

Research Sample
The sampling procedure was aimed at forming groups that differed in EM
and G factors. For this purpose, a research population of 1,200 students
who study mathematics in 10th and 11th grades (1618 years old) was
examined with Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrix Test (Raven,
Raven & Court, 2000) for general intelligence and the Scholastic
Assessment Test in Mathematics (SAT-M) for mathematical excellence.
Although previous studies showed a high correlation between SAT-M
and Raven tests, a high SAT-M score does not necessarily indicate high
intelligence (Frey & Detterman, 2004). We used a shortened Raven test
containing 30 items with a 15-min time limit and a short version of SAT-
M test that contained 35 items with a time limit of 30 min (Zohar, 1990).
G factor. Students for G groups were mainly chosen from classes for
gifted students (identified by a national examination as having IQ9130 in
the third grade). Additionally, we used the Raven test for two purposes:
for the validation of G factor in students from the classes for gifted
students and for inclusion of students from regular classes in the G group.
We used a Raven score of 28 as a lower border for the inclusion in the G
group.
EM factor. Mathematics is a compulsory subject in Israeli high schools,
and students can be placed in one of three levels of mathematics: high,
regular, and low. The level of instruction is determined by students
mathematical achievements in earlier grades. The differences in instruc-
tion at high level (HL) differ from that at regular level (RL) in terms of
the depth of the learning material and the complexity of the mathematical
problem solving involved. All 1,200 students studied mathematics at HL
674 WAISMAN ET AL.

or RL. Students included in the EM group learned HL mathematics with

scores higher than 90. Those achieving an SAT-M score above 26 were
chosen as a control measure for the EM sampling.
Four study groups. Four research groups were designed from a sample
(of 200 students) according to a combination of EM and G factors. We
report herein our findings on 84 out of 200 right-handed male adolescents
for whom the EEG data were collected without excessive noise: G-EM
group, 19 students who are identified as generally gifted and excelling in
mathematics; G-NEM group, 21 students who are identified as being
generally gifted but do not excel in mathematics; NG-EM group, 16
students who are not identified as being generally gifted but are excelling
in mathematics; and NG-NEM group, 19 students who are neither
identified as generally gifted nor excelling in mathematics.
The fifth group included nine S-MG students who were characterized
by mathematics professors as being students with extraordinary mathe-
matical abilities. While learning in high school (10th12th grades), these
students also studied mathematics or computer sciences at a university,
achieving a mean score above 95, or were members of the International
Computer Science Olympiad team. These students can be regarded as
representatives of 1/20,000 of population.
All participants were paid volunteers, native Hebrew speakers, right-
handed, with no history of learning disabilities and/or neurological
disorders, and had normal or corrected to normal vision. All participants
and their parents signed an informed consent form. The study received the
approval of the Helsinki Committee, the Israel Ministry of Education, and
the Ethics Committee of the University of Haifa.
Test and Experimental Procedure
ERP methodology. We used the ERP (event-related brain potentials)
technique, which offers high temporal resolution in the course of problem
solving due to a precise reflection of perceptive and cognitive
mechanisms. ERPs are electrophysiological measures reflecting changes
in the electrical activity of the central nervous system related to external
stimuli or cognitive processes occurring in the brain (Handy, 2005).
These measures provide information about the process in real time, before
the appearance of any external response (Neville, Coffey, Holcomb, &
Tallal, 1993). ERP waves are known as components which are classified
according to four criteria: polarity (positive and negative); wave strength
(amplitude); time of appearance following the stimulus (latency); and
distribution across the scalp (Halgren, 1990). The strength of electrical
activity can be examined by a single measure called global field power
 SOLVING FUNCTION-BASED PROBLEMS: AN ERP STUDY 675

(GFP) (Lehmann & Skrandies, 1984). The ERP technique has useful
applications in language-related research (e.g. Kaan, 2007) and recently
was adapted for the study of creativity, solving of insight-based problems,
and mathematical processing (e.g. Dietrich & Kanso, 2010).
Different ERP components are thought to be related to different
cognitive processes, such as early perceptual stages of stimuli processing
or stimulus evaluation and classification (e.g. Nittono, Nageishi,
Nakajima, & Ullsperger, 1999). The early components are P100
(occurring around 100 ms after stimulus presentation) and P200
(occurring around 200 ms after stimulus presentation). The P100
component is classically associated with the primary visual processing
of the stimulus (Heinze & Mangun, 1995). In turn, the P200
component has been associated mainly with perceptual processing of
stimuli (Doyle, Rugg, & Wells, 1996). The late potentials, which are
observed in time frames starting from 300 ms post-stimulus, may
reflect mental processing associated with problem solving and
increased task demands (Ruchkin, Johnson, Mahaffey, & Sutton,
1988). The most extensively researched component, P300, appears
within the range of 300800 ms following presentation of the target
stimulus. P300 is associated with the activity and updating of
working memory reflects context updating processes (Donchin &
Coles, 1988), and some researchers believe that it reflects higher
cognitive processes, such as stimulus evaluation and classification
(Wilson, Swain, & Ullsperger, 1998).
Experimental design and recording. A computerized test that required of
the participants a translation between symbolic and graphical represen-
tations of function was designed with 60 tasks (trials) using E-Prime
software (Schneider, Eschman, & Zuccolotto, 2002). Scalp voltages were
continuously recorded using a 64-channel BioSemi ActiveTwo system
(BioSemi, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and Active-View recording
software. All tasks were presented visually at the center of the computer
screen and were displayed in black characters on a gray background
within a white 55-cm square. The test lasted 1015 min depending on
students reaction time. The tasks we used in our study are basic items for
the Israeli curriculum and were learned by all study participants in a
similar way.
Each task on each test was presented in two windows with different
stimuli (S1task condition; S2suggested answer) that appeared
consecutively. At S2, each subject had to decide whether the suggested
answer was correct or not by pressing an appropriate button on the
keyboard. The sequence of events and examples of the tasks are presented
676 WAISMAN ET AL.

in Fig. 1. The time periods and sequence of events were determined by a

pilot study that also demonstrated that the presence of a drawing
displayed together with an answer enhances the reaction time (RT) of
students problem-solving performance, but does not improve their
accuracy (Leikin, 2014). Cronbachs alpha was determined by accuracy
criteria and found to be sufficiently high (=0.859).

Data Analysis and Statistics

Both behavioral and electrophysiological analyses were performed in two
steps:
Analysis at step A focused on the similarities and differences in
four major groups of participantsG-EM, NG-EM, G-NEM, and
NG-NEM. Analysis at step B was directed at identification of specific
characteristics of S-MG participants. This analysis was performed for
three groups of students all of whom excel in mathematicsS-MG,
G-EM, and NG-EM.
Trials with correct responses were used for both ERP and behavioral
analysis. It was a one-to-one compatibility of electrophysiological data
with behavior data. Behavioral data of trials excluded from electrophys-
iological analysis by artifact rejection were excluded from the behavioral
analysis.
Statistical analysis. At step A, between-group differences on all measures
(sections Behavioral Measures and Electrophysiological Measures) were
examined with ANOVA for G factor and EM factor with consequent
ANOVAs and pair-wise comparisons (G vs. NG in EM and NEM
groups and EM vs. NEM in G and NG groups separately).
Additionally, reaction time of correct responses (RTc) and accuracy
(Acc) were examined as two interdependent measures (Jensen, 2006)
using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). with consequent
ANOVAs.
At step B, we performed a nonparametric (KruskalWallis) test in
order to examine specific characteristics of S-MG students (as compared

500 ms 2000ms 1000ms 5000ms 1000ms Time

S1 Introducing a situation; S2 Question presentation; + Fixation cross; ISI Inter Stimulus Interval
Fig. 1. The sequence of events and a task example
 SOLVING FUNCTION-BASED PROBLEMS: AN ERP STUDY 677

to G-EM and NG-EM) with consequent MannWhitney tests for pair-

wise comparison between the groups.
For pair-wise comparisons at step A and step B, p values were adjusted
for multiple comparisons according to the Bonferroni adjustment.
Behavioral measures. Step A and step B analyses were applied to Acc
and RTc. Acc was determined by the participants percentage of correct
responses to 60 tasks on the test. RT was calculated as the mean time
spent for verification of an answer (stage S2) in all trials on the test, per
person.
Electrophysiological measures. ERPs were analyzed offline using the
Brain Vision Analyzer software (Brain Products). ERPs were zero
phase shift filtered offline (bandpass 0.5330 Hz) and referenced to
the common average of all electrodes. Epochs with amplitude
changes exceeding 80 V on any channel were rejected. Ocular
artifacts were corrected using the Gratton, Coles & Donchin (1983)
method. The ERP waveforms were time locked to the onset of S1
and to the onset of S2. The averaged epoch for ERP, including a
200-ms pre-stimulus baseline, was 1,200 ms for S1 and 2,200 ms for
S2 (for which only the correct answers were averaged). The resulting
data were baseline corrected, and the grand average waveform was
calculated on average waveforms for all participants. Incorrect
responses were not analyzed due to their insufficient number to form
reliable ERPs. Trials in which the subjects failed to respond within
5,000 ms (i.e. the duration of the display of the answer windowS2)
were also excluded from analysis. Each condition resulted in at least
40 trials.
The electrodes and time frames were determined on the basis of the
preliminary examination of the grand average waveforms on each
electrode and on the observation of ERP topographical maps.
Early components. Step A and step B analyses were performed to
identify between-subject differences. At step A, repeated measures
MANOVA was additionally directed at examining laterality as a within-
subject factor: with amplitudes and latencies of P100 and P200 at
different electrodes (Table 1).
Late Potential Components. We performed the following types of
statistical analysis for the late potentials (Table 1):

1. We investigated the global field power effects by means of root mean

square (RMS) values. RMS is calculated as the square root of the
mean of the squared values of potentialson each of the 64
678 WAISMAN ET AL.

TABLE 1
Electrophysiological data analysis
ERP Time Between-
Stage Within-subject factors Measures
component frame (ms) subject factors

S1: 110-
S1, Step A: Laterality
P100 180 Amplitude and
S2 G factor 3 levels: Left, Middle,
Latency
S2: 90-190 (G vs. NG) Right
P200 S1 180-300
EM factor
(EM vs. NEM) Time
3 levels: 250-500, 500- RMS
300-500,
Late S1, Step B: 700, 700-900 ms
500-700,
potentials S2 S-MG vs. G-EM
700-900 Electrode site
vs. NG-EM
6 levels: AL, AM, AR, Mean amplitude
PL, PM, PR

RMS root mean square, AL anterior left, AM anterior middle, AR anterior right, PL posterior left, PM
posterior middle, PR posterior right

electrodes. RMS was examined at three time frames separately

(300500, 500700, and 700900 ms). Step A and step B
analyses were performed for examination of between-subject
differences. Pair-wise comparison was performed for each time
frame separately. At step A, MANOVA additionally examined
time as a within-subject factor with consequent pair-wise compar-
isons for three time frames.
2. Eighteen electrodes over the anterior and posterior regions of both
hemispheres (including midline) were chosen due to the observation of
the strongest electrical potentials over the course of the experiment.
Six electrode sites were composed from the 18 chosen electrodes as
follows: posterior right site included P4, PO4, and O2 electrodes;
posterior middle (PM) site included Pz, POz, and Oz; posterior left
(PL) site included P3, PO3, and O1; anterior right (AR) site included
AF4, F4, and FC4; anterior middle (AM) site included AFz, Fz, and
FCz; and anterior left (AL) site included AF3, F3, and FC3. The mean
amplitudes were averaged at each of the six electrode sites in each of
the three aforementioned time frames. Step A and step B analyses
were performed as described earlier. Additionally, at step A, repeated
measures MANOVA was performed on the ERP mean amplitude
considering the electrode site as a within-subject factor. Analysis was
 SOLVING FUNCTION-BASED PROBLEMS: AN ERP STUDY 679

done for each of the two stages of a task (S1 and S2). For all analyses,
p value was corrected for deviation from sphericity according to the
GreenhouseGeisser method.

RESULT

In this section, we report on the significant effects and interactions only.

If a particular effect (interaction) is not reported, this indicates that it was
not significant.

Differences in Accuracy and Reaction Time

Differences in Acc and RTc associated with giftedness and excellence in
mathematics. MANOVA demonstrated that excellence in school math-
ematics had a significant effect on solving function-related problems [F(2,
70)=7.738***, Wilks =0.819]. Follow-up ANOVA showed EM factor
effect on the Acc of solving the tasks and marginal effect of G factor on
the Acc (Table 2). Naturally, for tasks that are well studies in school, EM

TABLE 2
RTc and Acc in different groups of participants

Mean (SD)

EM factor
Measure G NG Overall F(1, 71)

Acc EM 82.7 (8.1) 82.5 (9.4) 82.6 (8.6) 15.396***,

NEM 78.3 (7.7) 69.7 (12.2) 74.2 (10.8) p2=.0178
Overall 80.4 (8.1) 75.6 (12.6)
G factor 3.959****
F(1, 71)

RTc EM 1,586.3 (383.1) 1,649.0 (380.8) 1,615.0 (377.7)

NEM 1,868.2 (417.9) 1,665.2 (425.4) 1,771.8 (428.5)
Overall 1,734.3 (421.5) 1,657.8 (399.8)
G factor 2.533
F(1, 71)
Acc accuracy, RTc reaction time for correct responses
*pG0.05, **pG0.01, ***pG0.001, ****p=0.05
680 WAISMAN ET AL.

participants were significantly more accurate than their NEM counter-

parts, while this difference appeared to be significant among NG
participants only [F(1, 71)=8.084, pG0.01, p2 =0.102].
Surprisingly, G-NEM students had the longest RTc among all four
groups of participants with a significant difference in RTc between G-EM
and G-NEM students [F(1, 71)=4.866, pG0.05, p2 =0.064].
We assume that function-related tasks used in this study are basic for
the school mathematical curriculum and thus reflect learning capacity of
students from different groups. Thus, very naturally, excellence in
mathematics reflects learning capacity without the effect of general
giftedness. At the same time, among students who do not excel in school
mathematics, general giftedness raises learning capacity. G-NEM students
attain a level of Acc similar to that of G-EM students by devoting more
time to the solution process (Table 2).
Specific characteristics of S-MG students as reflected in Acc and
RTc. We found that S-MG students were significantly more accurate and
quicker than students in both the G-EM and NG-EM groups (Table 3), while
both G-EM and NG-EM students exhibited similar Acc and RTc. Since, as
noticed earlier, function-related tasks are studied in school and mathematical
performance on these tasks reflects learning capacity, we suggest that S-MG
students possess the highest (special) learning capacity.
In what follows, electrophysiological data provide additional informa-
tion on the main effects of G and EM factors as well as on the
characteristics of S-MG students.

Electrophysiological Findings
Early components. We detected the following early components: P100
component at parieto-occipital electrodes (P, PO, O electrode sites) at S1
and S2 and P200 at frontal and fronto-central electrodes (AF, F, and FC
electrode sites) at S1. The amplitudes and latencies for P100 and for P200
were detected in time frames that are specified in Table 1. These earlier
components are clearly shown in Fig. 2, which depicts the grand average
waveforms for the four groups of participants.
Latencies and amplitudes of P100 appeared to be similar for the
participants from all the major groups in this study at S1 and S2 with no
significant effects of G and EM factors. Only when we examined specific
characteristics of S-MG students did the differences in latencies and
amplitudes of P100 at S1 and S2 appear to be significant at specific
electrodes (Table 4).
 TABLE 3
Differences in Acc and RTc between groups of students who excel in mathematics

Mean (SD) median Pair-wise comparisons (U value)

S-MG vs. S-MG vs. G-EM vs.

Measure S-MG G-EM NG-EM H(2) G-EM NG-EM NG-EM

Acc 90.9 (4.8) 90 82.7 (8.1) 83.3 82.5 (9.4) 83.3 7.617* 13.289* 13.094* 0.196
RTc 1,113.1 (305.6) 1,032.2 1,586.3 (383.1) 1,572.1 1,649.0 (380.8) 1,676.6 10.826** 14.041* 17.090* 3.049
Acc accuracy, RTc reaction time for correct responses, U with Bonferroni adjustment
*pG0.05, **pG0.01
SOLVING FUNCTION-BASED PROBLEMS: AN ERP STUDY
681
682 WAISMAN ET AL.

S1 S2

6 6
RMS (v)

5 5

RMS (v)
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1

-200 0 200 400 600 800 ms 0 500 1000 1500 ms

G-EM NG-EM G-NEM NG-NEM

Fig. 2. Grand average waveforms at two stages of the tasks for G-EM, NG-EM, G-NEM,
and NG-NEM

At S1, the latency of the P100 component at P3 electrode in S-MG is

significantly greater than in NG-EM, while latency of P100 in G-EM
students was nonsignificantly greater than that in NG-EM students. At S2,
amplitudes of the P100 component at electrodes PO4 and O2 were
significantly lower in S-MG than in G-EM and NG-EM students. We
hypothesize that greater latencies of P100 in the S-MG group reflect more
complex mental activity associated with perception of the given mathemat-
ical object at S1. Seemingly, this more careful consideration of the object at
perception stage leads to faster overall processing (RTc), to lower amplitudes
at S2 and the highest Acc.
Late potential components. Starting from 300 ms, the elicited electrical
activity had no obvious components in each task stage. Following visual
inspection of grand average waveforms and appropriate scalp topogra-
phies, we divided the late potential wave into three time frames: 300
500, 500700, and 700900 ms.
Differences in RMS. The analysis of GFP of late potential components
was examined with an RMS measure. The significant effects on the RMS
measure were found only at S1 (Table 5 and Fig. 3). Step A analysis
demonstrated a significant interaction of time with G factor and EM factor
[F(2, 70)=4.147, pG0.05, Wilks =0.94] with significant interaction of
G factor with EM factor (Fig. 3). The RMS measure was similar in NG-
NEM and G-EM participants and much lower than that in NG-EM and G-
NEM students. The RMS measure at S1 was the highest among NG-EM.
A pair-wise comparison of RMS measures demonstrated significant
differences between NG-EM and G-EM and between NG-EM and NG-
NEM at the time frames of 300500 and 500700 ms.
When examining specific characteristics of S-MG students with RMS
measures (as compared to G-EM and NG-EM students), we found
 TABLE 4
Significant results associated with amplitudes and latencies of P100 among students who excel in mathematics

Significant pair-wise
Measure M (SD) median comparisons (U value)

S-MG vs.
Stage P100 S-MG G-EM NG-EM H(2) S-MG vs. G-EM NG-EM

S1 Latency at P3 (ms) 160.3 (11.1) 161.1 148.1 (17.8) 148.7 144.8 (13.6) 144.0 6.309* N.S. 12.976*
S2 Amplitude at PO4 (V) 5.8 (1.2) 5.6 8.9 (3.6) 9.4 9.1 (3.9) 8.3 11.180** 15.778** 15.694**
S2 Amplitude at O2 (V) 9.9 (2.6) 10.3 12.2 (4.3) 11.4 14.7 (4.9) 14.0 7.795* N.S. 14.188*
U with Bonferroni adjustment, N.S. not significant
*p0.05, **p0.01
SOLVING FUNCTION-BASED PROBLEMS: AN ERP STUDY
683
684 WAISMAN ET AL.

TABLE 5
Significant results of pair-wise comparisons of RMS measures in different time frames at S1

F(1, 71)
Significant differences Time frame
and interactions 300900 ms p2 (ms) F(1, 71) p2

RMS (G-EM)GRMS (NG-EM) 5.185* 0.068 300500 5.913* 0.077

500700 5.149* 0.068
700900 N.S. N.S.
RMS (NG-NEM)GRMS (NG-EM) 5.082* 0.067 300500 5.806* 0.076
500700 5.659* 0.074
700900 N.S. N.S.
RMS root mean square
*p0.05, **p0.01

significant between-group differences only at S1 at the 300500-ms time

frame [H (2)=6.426, pG0.05]. Figure 4 demonstrates the RMS measure at
S1 at the 300500-ms time frame for S-MG, G-EM, and NG-EM.
It appears that RMS in S-MG students was not different from that of
NG-EM and G-EM. However, the RMS of G-EM was significantly lower
as compared to that of NG-EM [U=10.895, pG0.05] as we obtained in
the previous analysis.
Differences in mean amplitude at selected electrode sites associated with
giftedness and excellence in mathematics. We found that at S1,
significant differences exist between G and NG students only among
EM participants and between EM and NEM students only among NG
participants. Figure 5 depicts ERPs in PM electrode site for these groups
of students.

Fig. 3. RMS measures for late potentials (300900 ms) at each task stage in the four
major groups of participants
 SOLVING FUNCTION-BASED PROBLEMS: AN ERP STUDY 685

Fig. 4. RMS measure at S1 at the 300500-ms time frame for G-EM, NG-EM, and S-MG

We found a multivariate effect of the EM factor at S1 on the overall

mean amplitude over the chosen electrodes [F(3, 69)=3.381, pG0.05,
Wilks =0.872]. The effect of the EM factor on the overall mean
amplitude at the chosen electrodes was significant at the 300500-ms
time frame [F(1, 71)=4.314, pG0.05, p2 =0.053] with a larger mean
amplitude of the late potentials on all the electrode sites in EM students
than that in NEM students (Fig.6). Pair-wise comparisons demonstrated
that the mean amplitude in EM as compared to NEM was significantly
larger among NG students only [F(1, 71)=5.360, pG0.05, p2 =0.070].
Moreover, NG-EM had a higher mean amplitude than that of G-EM but
not significantly so (Fig.6). This finding supports our observation that in
NG students, those who excel in mathematics achieve higher accuracy
with greater high mental effort.
A pair-wise comparison at the PM electrode site at different time
frames revealed significant differences between G and NG students
among EM participants and between EM and NEM students among NG
participants. These differences and topographies of the difference
waveforms are depicted in Fig. 7. Consistently with the previous results,

S1 S2
PM
PM
Mean Amp. (v)

4
Mean Amp. (v)

4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0 ms
0 -200 200 400 600 800
-200 200 400 600 800 ms -1
-1
-2
-2

G-EM NG-EM NG-NEM NG-EM

Fig. 5. ERP measures at S1 in PM electrode site: (a) in the group of EM students: G and
NG, (b) in the group of NG students: EM and NEM
686 WAISMAN ET AL.

Fig. 6. The mean amplitude measured within selected electrode sites in the four
experimental groups at S1 in 300500 ms time frame

the mean amplitude at this site in NG-EM students was the highest among
the four participants groups.
We found significant interactions of the electrode sites with G and EM
factors observed at the 500700-ms time interval [F(1.401, 99.440)=
3.872, pG0.05, p2 =0.052] and 700900-ms time interval [F(1.542,
109.482)=6.954, pG0.01, p2 =0.089]. NG-EM participants had larger
absolute values of electrical potentials at all chosen electrode sites than
both G-EM and NG-NEM students. However, whereas at the posterior
sites they produced larger positivity, at the anterior sites, they produced
larger negativity.
The examination of specific characteristics of S-MG students with
mean amplitude at the selected electrode sites did not lead to statistically
significant findings.
To summarize, the RESULTS section demonstrated:
 Significant effects of EM factor were found at the behavioral and
electrophysiological levels (Table 2 and Fig. 6).
 The accuracy of responses in EM students was significantly higher
than in NEM students among NG participants, while the reaction

Fig. 7. Significant results at PM electrode site at S1 and the topographies of difference waveform
 SOLVING FUNCTION-BASED PROBLEMS: AN ERP STUDY 687

time for correct answers in EM students was significantly shorter

than in NEM students among G participants (Table 2).
 NG-EM students attained a level of accuracy similar to G-EM
students, with a longer reaction time (Table 2).
 S-MG students were significantly more accurate and quicker than
students from the other two groups of excelling in mathematics
students (G-EM and NG-EM) (Table 3).
 Greater latencies in S-MG may reflect more complex mental activity
associated with the perception of a graph (Table 4).
 When solving function-related problems, NG-EM students exhibited
the highest electrical brain activity as compared to the other three
groups, while the G factor led to a neuro-efficiency effect among
excelling in mathematics students at particular time frames (Table 5
and Figs. 6 and 7).

DISCUSSION

In the present study, we investigated the relationships between cortical

activity when solving function-related tasks that involve translation
between graphical and symbolic representations. We searched for the
relationship between G and EM factors and problem-solving perfor-
mance as reflected in behavioral measures and electrophysiological
measures identified with the ERP procedure. We were also interested
in examining specific characteristics of students with superior
mathematical performance.
The studys rationale is rooted in several observations. First, the choice of
tasks was influenced by the observation of increasing use of technological
tools in the teaching and learning of mathematics, which require translations
between different function representations. Second, we encountered a lack of
empirical research on the connections between different levels of mathe-
matical abilities and brain processing involved in solving mathematical
tasks. Third, little is known about specific characteristics of school students
with high potential for becoming research mathematicians. Thus, our
research addressed this lacuna in mathematics education research.
This study sample included five groups of students. Four major groups
differed in their levels of general giftedness (G) and excellence in school
mathematics (EM) and were designed according to varying combinations
of these two factors (G-EM, NG-EM, G-NEM, NG-NEM; See Research
Sample section). We report herein our findings on 75 right-handed males
688 WAISMAN ET AL.

from these four groups. The fifth group included nine students who were
recommended by mathematics professors as having extremely high
mathematical abilities (S-MG), based on their achievements in advanced
mathematics while learning in school.
We used the ERP (event-related brain potentials) technique and
followed changes in the cortical electrical activity related to cognitive
processes associated with external stimuli (i.e., mathematical problem).
We analyzed the following measures: (a) behavioral measures: Acc and
RTc, and (b) electrophysiological measures: amplitudes, latencies, and
scalp topographies of brain activity identified with the ERP procedure.
The study presented in this paper is a small part of a larger study in
which we applied different types of mathematical tests with similar
research procedures (e.g. Leikin, Waisman, Shaul & Leikin, 2012). Based
on the findings of the present study, and by comparing them with findings
received by means of other tests, our study leads to the following insights,
which we consider to be a research hypothesis for future studies:
Excellence in mathematics and general giftedness are interrelated but
different in nature. To excel in mathematics, students do not have to be
generally gifted, although excellence in mathematics is related to and
enhanced by general giftedness. Students with superior performance in
mathematics have specific characteristics that are not present in students
from the four other groups of participants. Some of the specific qualities
of S-MG students accumulate with the level of general giftedness and
excellence in advanced mathematics.
The discussion reflects our findings with specific attention to the task
dependency of the revealed differences and electrophysiological measures
that support these arguments.

Accuracy and Reaction Time and the Nature of the Mathematical Task
The results for both accuracy and reaction time for correct answers
demonstrate that on average, EM individuals outperformed their N-EM
counterparts. EM participants demonstrated higher accuracy independent
of their level of general giftedness, while in NEM students, general
giftedness raised accuracy along with the increase in time devoted to
providing a correct response. When comparing findings of the study
presented in this paper to findings related to solving insight-based
problems (Leikin et al., 2012), we argue that the findings are strongly
related to the nature of tasks presented to the students. Function-related
tasks used in this study are basic and simple for school mathematics; they
reflect students learning capacity but do not require insight or a high
 SOLVING FUNCTION-BASED PROBLEMS: AN ERP STUDY 689

level of problem-solving expertise in school mathematics (which usually

characterize excelling students). Correspondingly to the nature of the task,
there was no difference between G and NG among EM students. In
contrast, due to the simplicity of the tasks, G-NEM students exhibited
higher accuracy (than NG-NEM) with the highest reaction time for
correct responses among all groups of participants.
Interestingly, S-MG students exhibited the most unique character of
performancethe highest accuracy accompanied with the shortest reaction
time for correct responseswhich may be used for classification of this
group. The low RTc in S-MG is in line with other studies that emphasize the
effect of high processing speed on cognitive problem-solving tasks in the
discussed population (e.g. Vaivre-Douret, 2011).
It should be noted that behavioral examination did not shed light on the
distinctions between G-EM and NG-EM, while electrophysiological
measures provided us with important information about the distinctions
between these two groups of participants.

Electrophysiological Evidence for the Different Nature of General

Giftedness and Excellence in Mathematics
NG-EM individuals displayed the highest overall electrical activity as
compared to all other groups of students. This fact is consistent with
findings attained when performing a similar examination with insight-
based and geometry problems (Authors, 2012). It introduces a more
precise view on the relationship between expertise in problem solving and
cognitive load. Previous studies argued that prior expertise in solving
these tasks lowers the mental load imposed by that task (Shiffrin &
Schneider, 1977). Our study demonstrates that only a combination of
general giftedness and problem-solving expertise (in our case excellence
in school mathematics) leads to lower cortical potentials that reflect lower
cognitive load. G-EM students produced the lowest mean amplitude as
compared to the other groups. This finding is in line with the results of the
studies reporting negative correlations between brain activity and
intelligence (e.g. Neubauer & Fink, 2009). These results suggest that
individuals with high intelligence exhibit a neural efficiency effect during
problem solving as compared to individuals with average intellectual
abilities. Probably such efficiency in brain functioning may be derived
from a more focused use of brain areas that are relevant for proficient task
performance. Based on the findings of our study, we argue that the neuro-
efficiency effect does not characterize brain activity in all experts in
problem solving. We hypothesize that problem-solving expertise
690 WAISMAN ET AL.

developed by students without general giftedness is achieved by means

of high cognitive effort.
All between-group differences related to electrophysiological measures
were found for the stage of introduction (S1) of the given function in
graphical representation. No differences were found between electrophys-
iological measures in the four major groups of participants at the stage of
verification of the function equation. The enhanced electrical potentials
related to the first stage of the problem presentation may be an indicator
of increased mental activity imposed by graphic representation on
excelling in mathematics students who are not identified as generally
gifted. Interestingly, in spite of the longer reaction time, G-NEM students
produced a mean amplitude similar to that of G-EM students. Thus, it
seems that gifted individuals produce electrical activity of similar strength
in processing the graph representation and the symbolic representation
independently of their excellence in school mathematics. Additionally,
since there were no between-subject differences at the verification stage
of the function equation, we hypothesize that participants started to solve
the problem already at the stage of graph presentation.
Pair-wise comparison of the global field power effect (RMS measures)
demonstrated significant differences between G and NG students among
EM participants as well as between EM and NEM students among NG
participants at the time frames of 300500 and 500700 ms of late
potentials. These findings support our hypothesis that general giftedness
and excellence in mathematics are of a different nature. Additional
support for this suggestion can be seen in the interaction between
giftedness and excellence in mathematics and expressed in RMS
measures for late potentials (300900 ms) at S1.
The between-group differences associated with G and EM factors were
considered within selected electrode sites at anterior and posterior parts of
the scalp. Such an examination revealed a significant effect of excellence
in mathematics on the mean amplitude during 300500 ms at S1. EM
students demonstrated a larger mean amplitude compared to their NG-EM
counterparts. However, consistently with other findings, the significant
difference between mean amplitude in EM and NEM students was found
only among NG study participants, while NG-EM students produced a
larger mean amplitude as compared to participants from all other groups.
Examination of mean amplitudes for six selected electrode sites
demonstrated the most prominent difference between gifted and non-
gifted excelling in mathematics students within the posterior middle
electrode site. Whereas P300 was not identified in our study when
observing the grand average waveforms, we assume that the P300 ERP
 SOLVING FUNCTION-BASED PROBLEMS: AN ERP STUDY 691

component is embedded in the mean amplitude during the time period of

300900 ms (Donchin & Coles, 1988; Kutas, McCarthy & Donchin,
1977). Usually, P300 is linked to working memory updating, encoding, or
retrieval from the long-term memory (Donchin & Coles, 1988; Kutas et
al., 1977) and is sensitive to the amount of attention resources allocated to
a stimulus, with larger amplitudes reflecting greater amounts of attention
(e.g. Polich, 2012). Accordingly, it may be suggested that the largest
mean amplitude in non-gifted excelling in mathematics participants
indicates that they allocate more mental resources for devoting their
attention to the graph, to classify stimuli features and to retrieve relevant
information (symbolic equation) from memory.
Previous studies have suggested that parietal areas associated with
number processing and arithmetic calculations were also involved in
processing algebraic equations (e.g. Danker & Anderson, 2007) as well as
in the processing of mathematical functions in both graphical and
algebraic representations (Thomas, Wilson, Corballis, Lim & Yoon,
2010). Moreover, the posterior parietal cortex is known to be activated
when mental representations are manipulated (Zacks, 2008). Hence, the
larger mean amplitude in posterior middle sites may indicate that non-
gifted excelling in mathematics students activate the area appropriate to
the task in a more intensive way.

Extending the Excellence Continuum

The group of students with high mathematical abilities (S-MG) enabled
us to analyze an extended continuum of excellence in mathematics and to
obtain a more comprehensive picture of the mutual influence of the
highest mathematical competence and general giftedness. Through
comparative analysis of the three groups of excelling in mathematics
students, we identified two types of specific characteristics: accumulative
characteristics of S-MG students and characteristics unique to S-MG
students. Accumulative characteristics are those in which nonsignificant
differences are revealed in G-EM and NG-EM students as well as in G-
EM and S-MG students. These differences become significant when
comparing the S-MG group to the NG-EM group. Unique characteristics
are those that reveal significant differences when comparing these
characteristics in S-MG and G-EM as well as in S-MG and NG-EM
students, while G-EM and NG-EM students exhibit very similar values on
these measures. Table 6 summarizes the different types of characteristics
of the S-MG group.
The highest level of accuracy and lowest reaction time can be
considered as unique characteristics of S-MG students. Another special
692 WAISMAN ET AL.

TABLE 6
Different types of characteristics of the S-MG group

Type of
Measure Group differences characteristic

Behavioral measures Acc Acc (S-MG)9Acc (NG-EM) Unique

Acc (S-MG)9Acc (G-EM)
RTc RTc (S-MG)GRTc (NG-EM)
RTc (S-MG)GRTc (G-EM)
Early components Latency of P100 L (S-MG)9L (NG-EM) Accumulative
at P3 (S1 only)
Amplitude of P100 Amp (S-MG)GAmp (NG-EM) Unique
at PO4 (S2 only) Amp (S-MG)GAmp (G-EM)
Amplitude of P100 Amp (S-MG)GAmp (NG-EM) Accumulative
at O2 (S2 only)

attribute of S-MG was found at the electrophysiological level analyzing

the amplitude of P100 component at S1. The amplitude of S-MG was
significantly smaller at the PO4 electrode as compared to G-EM and NG-
EM students.
The accumulative effect was detected only at the electrophysiological
level. Analysis of early ERP components demonstrated that S-MG had
prolonged latency of P100 and suppressed amplitude of P100 at S1 as
compared to NG-EM students. P100 and P200 components reflect
sensory and early attention processes (Heinze & Mangun, 1995; Doyle
et al., 1996). So, it may be suggested that S-MG individuals devote more
time to the early steps of the mathematical object identification (graphical
representation of a function).

Concluding Note
Existing behavioral and subjective self-report methods include observa-
tions, questionnaires, interviews, and so on. The limitations of these
methods highlight the problem of using behavioral information to
speculate about the cognitive activity that is occurring. Functional brain
 SOLVING FUNCTION-BASED PROBLEMS: AN ERP STUDY 693

imaging techniques offer a complement to the existing methods. One of

these techniques is the ERP methodology.
We believe that by using the ERP technique along with more
traditional educational research methods of learning environments, we
can obtain reliable measures on the mental processing involved in
learning mathematics and mathematical problem solving. However, the
electrophysiological measures are not feasible for classroom-based studies
due to their methodological constraints such as group-based design in a
controlled laboratory setting.
Our research clearly demonstrates that some information that may be
missing from the research is based on behavioral measures only. Our
findings relating to non-gifted students who excel in school mathematics
sends an important message to the mathematics educational community:
Students who are not identified as generally gifted can attain a high level
of mathematical performance, and excellence in mathematics does not
necessarily serve as an indicator of general giftedness. These students can
develop a high level of mathematical expertise in school mathematics.
However, these achievements require from them a greater cognitive
effort. We could not provide this information based on analysis of
accuracy of students responses; ERP measures were essential for this
insight.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was made possible through the support of a grant from the
John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
John Templeton Foundation. We are grateful to the University of Haifa
for the generous support it has provided for this study.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. R., Betts, S., Ferris, J. L. & Fincham, J. M. (2011). Cognitive and
metacognitive activity in mathematical problem solving: Prefrontal and parietal patterns.
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 11(1), 5267.
Callahan, C. M. (2000). Intelligence and giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of intelligence (pp. 159175). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
694 WAISMAN ET AL.

Da Ponte, J. P. (1992). The history of the concept of function and some educational
implications. The Mathematics Educator, 3(2), 38.
Dai, D. Y., Swanson, J. A. & Cheng, H. (2011). State of research on giftedness and gifted
education: A survey of empirical studies published during 19982010. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 55(2), 126138.
Danker, J. F. & Anderson, J. R. (2007). The roles of prefrontal and posterior parietal
cortex in algebra problem solving: A case of using cognitive modelling to inform
neuroimaging data. NeuroImage, 35(3), 13651377.
De Smedt, B. & Verschaffel, L. (2010). Travelling down the road from cognitive
neuroscience to education.... and back. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics
Education, 42, 4965.
Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P. & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number
processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(36), 487506.
Dietrich, A. & Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of
creativity and insight. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 822848.
Donchin, E. & Coles, M. G. (1988). Is the P300 component a manifestation of context
updating? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11(03), 357374.
Doyle, M. C., Rugg, M. D. & Wells, T. (1996). A comparison of the electrophysiological
effects of formal and repetition priming. Psychophysiology, 33(2), 132147.
Feldman, D. (2003). A developmental, evolutionary perspective on giftedness. In J. H. Borland
(Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 933). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Ferrara, F., Pratt, D. & Robutti, O. (2006). The role and uses of technologies for the
teaching of algebra and calculus. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of
research on the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 237273). Rotterdam: Sense.
Frey, M. C. & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship
between the scholastic assessment test and general cognitive ability. Psychological
Science, 15(6), 373378.
Gagatsis, A. & Shiakalli, M. (2004). Ability to translate from one representation of the
concept of function to another and mathematical problem solving. Educational
Psychology, 24(5), 645657.
Grabner, R. H., Ansari, D., Koschutnig, K., Reishofer, G., Ebner, F. & Neuper, C. (2009).
To retrieve or to calculate? Left angular gyrus mediates the retrieval of arithmetic facts
during problem solving. Neuropsychologia, 47(2), 604608.
Grabner, R. H., Reishofer, G., Koschutnig, K. & Ebner, F. (2011). Brain correlates of
mathematical competence in processing mathematical representations. Frontiers in
Human Neuroscience, 5, 130. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00130.
Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H. & Donchin, E. (1983). A new method for off-line removal of
ocular artifact. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 55(4), 468484.
Halgren, E. (1990). Insights from evoked potentials into the neuropsychological
mechanisms of reading. In A. B. Scheibel & A. F. Wechsler (Eds.), Neurobiology of
higher cognitive function. NY: Guilford Press.
Handy, T. C. (2005). Basic principles of ERP quantification. In T. C. Handy (Ed.), Event-
related potentials: A methods handbook (pp. 3356). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Heinze, H. J. & Mangun, G. R. (1995). Electrophysiological signs of sustained and
transient attention to spatial locations. Neuropsychologia, 33(7), 889908.
Heinze, A., Star, J. R. & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Flexible and adaptive use of strategies
and representations in mathematics education. ZDM, 41(5), 535540.
 SOLVING FUNCTION-BASED PROBLEMS: AN ERP STUDY 695

Janvier, C. (1987). Translation processes in mathematics education. In C. Janvier (Ed.),

Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 2732).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jensen, A. R. (2006). Clocking the mind: Mental chronometry and individual differences.
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
Kaan, E. (2007). Eventrelated potentials and language processing: A brief overview.
Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(6), 571591.
Kaput, J. J. (1998). Representations, inscriptions, descriptions, and learning: A
kaleidoscope of windows. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 265281.
Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren.
(Translated from Russian by Teller, J.; Edited by Kilpatrick J. & Wirszup). Chicago, IL:
The University of Chicago Press.
Kutas, M., McCarthy, G. & Donchin, E. (1977). Augmenting mental chronometry: The
P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. Science, 197(4305), 792795.
Lee, K., Lim, Z. Y., Yeong, S. H., Ng, S. F., Venkatraman, V. & Chee, M. W. (2007).
Strategic differences in algebraic problem solving: Neuroanatomical correlates. Brain
Research, 1155, 163171.
Lehmann, D. & Skrandies, W. (1984). Spatial analysis of evoked potentials in mana
review. Progress in Neurobiology, 23(3), 227250.
Leikin, R. (2014). Giftedness and high ability in mathematics. In S. Lerman (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education. Springer. Electronic Version.
Leikin, R., Leikin, M., Waisman, I., & Shaul, S. (2013). Effect of the presence of external
representations on accuracy and reaction time in solving mathematical double-choice
problems by students of different levels of instruction. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education, 11(5), 10491066.
Leikin, R., Waisman, I., Shaul, S. & Leikin, M. (2012). An ERP study with gifted and
excelling male adolescents: Solving short Insight-based problems. In T. Y. Tso (Ed.)
The Proceedings of the 36th International Conference for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education (v. 3, pp. 8390). Taiwan, Taipei.
Moreno-Armella, L., Hegedus, S. J. & Kaput, J. J. (2008). From static to dynamic
mathematics: Historical and representational perspectives. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 68(2), 99111.
Neubauer, A. C. & Fink, A. (2009). Intelligence and neural efficiency. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, 33(7), 10041023.
Neville, H. J., Coffey, S. A., Holcomb, P. J. & Tallal, P. (1993). The neurobiology of
sensory and language processing in language-impaired children. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 5(2), 235253.
Newman, S. D., Willoughby, G. & Pruce, B. (2011). The effect of problem structure on
problem-solving: An fMRI study of word versus number problems. Brain Research,
1410, 7788.
Nittono, H., Nageishi, Y., Nakajima, Y. & Ullsberger, P. (1999). Event-related potential
correlates of individual differences in working memory capacity. Psychophysiology,
36(06), 745754.
Piirto, J. (1999). Talented children and adults: Their development and education (2nd ed.).
Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall/Merrill.
Polich, J. (2012). Neuropsychology of P300. In S. J. Luck & E. Kappenman (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of event-related potential components (pp. 159188). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
696 WAISMAN ET AL.

Raven, J., Raven, J. C. & Court, J. H. (2000). Manual for Ravens progressive matrices
and vocabulary scales. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamination of a definition. Phi Delta
Kappa, 60, 180184.
Ruchkin, D. S., Johnson, R., Jr., Mahaffey, D. & Sutton, S. (1988). Towards a functional
categorization of slow waves. Psychophysiology, 25(3), 339353.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A. & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-prime computer software
(version 1.0). Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
Shiffrin, R. M. & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information
processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 127190.
Silverman, L. K. (2009). The measurement of giftedness. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International
handbook on giftedness (pp. 947970). Amsterdam: Springer Science and Business Media.
Sohn, M. H., Goode, A., Koedinger, K. R., Stenger, V. A., Carter, C. S. & Anderson, J. R.
(2004). Behavioral equivalence does not necessarily imply neural equivalence:
Evidence in mathematical problem solving. Nature Neuroscience, 7(11), 11931194.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York: Plume.
Thomas, M. O., Wilson, A. J., Corballis, M. C., Lim, V. K. & Yoon, C. (2010). Evidence
from cognitive neuroscience for the role of graphical and algebraic representations in
understanding function. ZDM, 42(6), 607619.
Vaivre-Douret, L. (2011). Developmental and cognitive characteristics of high-level
potentialities (highly gifted) children. International Journal of Pediatrics, 2011, 114.
Wilson, G. F., Swain, C. R. & Ullsperger, P. (1998). ERP components elicited in response to
warning stimuli: The influence of task difficulty. Biological Psychology, 47(2), 137158.
Yerushalmy, M. (2006). Slower algebra students meet faster tools: Solving algebra word
problems with graphing software. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
37(5), 356387.
Yerushalmy, M. & Shternberg, B. (2001). Charting a visual course to the concept of
function. In A. A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of representation in school
mathematics (pp. 251267). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Zacks, J. M. (2008). Neuroimaging studies of mental rotation: a meta-analysis and review.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(1), 119.
Zamarian, L., Ischebeck, A. & Delazer, M. (2009). Neuroscience of learning
arithmeticEvidence from brain imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral
Reviews, 33(6), 909925.
Ziegler, A. & Raul, T. (2000). Myth and reality: A review of empirical studies on
giftedness. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 113136.
Zohar, A. (1990). Mathematical reasoning ability: Its structure, and some aspects of its
genetic transmission. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Faculty of Education, Neuro-cognitive Laboratory - RANGE Center - Interdisciplinary

Center for Research and Advancement of Excellence and Giftedness
University of Haifa
Haifa, 31905, Israel