Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 217, Issue 1, pp 25–34 | Cite as

An ERP study on the processing of common fractions

  • Li Zhang
  • Ziqiang Xin
  • Fuhong Li
  • Qi Wang
  • Cody DingEmail author
  • Hong LiEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine how adults processed common fractions with common numerators under two distinct conditions. Whereas participants were presented with only common fractions in a “simple” condition, a “complex” condition involved the random presentation of common fractions as well as decimal fractions. In both conditions, participants were required to assess whether various “target” fractions were larger than or smaller than a “standard” common fraction (1/5). Behavioral results indicated that under both conditions, participants mentally processed the fractions componentially in terms of their constituent parts rather than holistically in terms of the numerical value of the fraction as a whole. The data provided by the event-related potentials (ERPs) demonstrated electrophysiological correlates of the componential processing of common fractions in the simple condition, as reflected in the latency and amplitude of P3. However, in contrast to what the behavioral data showed, there was no strong electrophysiological evidence to indicate that common fractions were accessed componentially in the complex condition. In addition, the complex condition was linked to longer latency and more negative amplitude of N2 over the frontal scalp than the simple condition, which could be attributed to the fact that the comparison of fractions in the complex condition involved task switching and thus was more taxing on cognitive control than the simple condition.

Keywords

Common fractions Decimal fractions Distance effect Holistic processing Componential processing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Key Discipline Fund of National 211 Project, China (NSKD08017).

References

  1. Behr MJ, Harel G, Post TR, Lesh R (1992) Rational number, ratio, and proportion. In: Grouws DA (ed) Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Macmillan, New York, pp 296–333Google Scholar
  2. Bonato M, Fabbri S, Umiltà C, Zorzi M (2007) The mental representation of numerical fractions: real or integer? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33:1410–1419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bright GW, Behr MJ, Post TR, Wachsmuth I (1988) Identifying fractions on number lines. J Res Math Educ 19(3):215–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butterworth B (2001) Statistics: what seems natural? Science 292:853–854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cao B, Li F, Li H (2010) Notation-dependent processing of numerical magnitude: electrophysiological evidence from Chinese numerals. Biol Psychol 83(1):47–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen DJ (2010) Evidence for direct retrieval of relative quantity information in a quantity judgment task: decimals, integers, and the role of physical similarity. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 36(6):1389–1398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dehaene S (1996) The organization of brain activations in number comparison: Event-related potentials and the additive-factors method. J Cogn Neurosci 8:47–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dehaene S (1997) The number sense. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Folstein JR, Van Petten C (2008) Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: a review. Psychophysiology 45:152–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gajewski PD, Kleinsorge T, Falkenstein M (2010) Electrophysiological correlates of residual switch costs. Cortex 46(9):1138–1148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U (1999) Overcoming difficulties in Bayesian reasoning: a reply to Lewis and Keren (1999) and Mellers and McGraw (1999). Psychol Rev 106(2):425–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grune K, Mecklinger A, Ullsperger P (1993) Mental comparison: P300 component of the ERP reflects the symbolic distance effect. Neuro Report 4(11):1272–1274Google Scholar
  13. Hecht SA, Vagi KJ, Torgesen JK (2007) Fraction skills and proportional reasoning. In: Berch DB, Mazzocco MMM (eds) Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co, Baltimore, pp 121–132Google Scholar
  14. Hyde DC, Spelke ES (2009) All numbers are not equal: an electrophysiological investigation of small and large number representations. J Cogn Neurosci 21(6):1039–1053PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ischebeck A, Schocke M, Delazer M (2009) The processing and representation of fractions within the brain: an fMRI investigation. Neuro Image 47:403–413PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacob SN, Nieder A (2009) Notation-independent representation of fractions in the human parietal cortex. J Neurosci 29:4652–4657PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jiang T, Qiao S, Li J, Cao Z, Gao X, Song Y, Xue G, Dong Q, Chen C (2010) Effects of symbol type and numerical distance on the human event-related potential. Neuropsychologia 48(1):201–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kallai AY, Tzelgov J (2009) A generalized fraction: the smallest member of the mental number line. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 35(6):1845–1864PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karayanidis F, Coltheart M, Michie PT, Murphy K (2003) Electrophysiological correlates of anticipatory and poststimulus components of task switching. Psychophysiology 40:329–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kok A (2001) On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology 38(3):557–577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kotchoubey B, Wascher E, Verleger R (1997) Shifting attention between global features and small details: an event-related potential study. Biol Psychol 46:25–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kutas M, McCarthy G, Donchin E (1977) Augmenting mental chronometry: the P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. Science 197:792–795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Libertus ME, Woldorff MG, Brannon EM (2007) Electrophysiological evidence for notation independence in numerical processing. Behav Brain Funct 3(1):1–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mack N (1995) Confounding whole-number and fraction concepts when building on informal knowledge. J Res Math Educ 26:422–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meert G, Grégoire J, Noël MP (2009) Rational numbers: componential versus holistic representation of fractions in a magnitude comparison task. Q J Exp Psychol 62(8):1598–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meert G, Grégoire J, Noël MP (2010) Comparing the magnitude of two fractions with common components: which representations are used by 10- and 12-year-olds? J Exp Child Psychol 107:244–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moyer RS, Landauer TK (1967) Time required for judgments of numerical inequality. Nature 215:1519–1520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ni YJ (2001) Semantic domains of rational numbers and the acquisition of fraction equivalence. Contemp Educ Psychol 26:400–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ni YJ, Zhou YD (2005) Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: the origins and implications of whole number bias. Educ Psychologist 40(1):27–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nuerk HC, Willmes K (2005) On the magnitude representations of two-digit numbers. Psychol Sci 47:52–72Google Scholar
  31. Pinel P, Dehaene S, Riviere D, Le Bihan D (2001) Modulation of parietal activation by semantic distance in a number comparison task. Neuro Image 14:1013–1026PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Polich J (2007) Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin Neurophysiol 118:128–2148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ranzini M, Dehaene S, Piazza M, Hubbard EM (2009) Neural mechanisms of attentional shifts due to irrelevant spatial and numerical cues. Neuropsychologia 47(12):2615–2624PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rushworth MF, Passingham RE, Nobre AC (2002) Components of switching intentional set. J Cogn Neurosci 14:1139–1150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schneider M, Siegler RS (2010) Representations of the magnitudes of fractions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36(5):1227–1238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwarz W, Heinze HJ (1998) On the interaction of numerical and size information in digit comparison: a behavioral and event-related potential study. Neuropsychologia 36(11):1167–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith CL, Solomon GEA, Carey S (2005) Never getting to zero: elementary school students’ understanding of the infinite divisibility of number and matter. Cogn Psychol 51(2):101–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Swainson R, Jackson SR, Jackson GM (2006) Using advance information in dynamic cognitive control: an ERP study of task switching. Cogn Brain Res 1105:61–72Google Scholar
  39. Szücs D, Csépe V (2004) Access to numerical information is dependent on the modality of stimulus presentation in mental addition: a combined ERP and behavioral study. Cogn Brain Res 19:10–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Szücs D, Csépe V (2005) The effect of numerical distance and stimulus probability on ERP components elicited by numerical in congruencies in mental addition. Cogn Brain Res 22:282–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Temple E, Posner MI (1998) Brain mechanisms of quantity are similar in 5-year-old children and adults. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:7836–7841PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thompson PW, Saldanha L (2003) Fractions and multiplicative reasoning. In: Kilpatrick J, Martin WG, Schifter D (eds) A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics. Nat Counc Teach Math, Reston, pp 95–113Google Scholar
  43. Tieges Z, Snel J, Kok A, Plat N, Ridderinkhof R (2007) Effects of caffeine on anticipatory control processes: evidence from a cued task-switch paradigm. Psychophysiology 44:561–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Verguts T, De Moor W (2005) Two-digit comparison: decomposed, holistic, or hybrid? Exp Psychol 52:195–200Google Scholar
  45. Wilkinson D, Halligan P (2004) The relevance of behavioural measures for functional-imaging studies of cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci 5(1):67–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Cognition and PersonalityMinistry of EducationChongqingChina
  2. 2.School of PsychologySouthwest UniversityChongqingChina
  3. 3.Department of Psychology, School of Social DevelopmentCentral University of Finance and EconomicsBeijingChina
  4. 4.Division of Educational Psychology, Research, and EvaluationUniversity of Missouri-St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations