An ERP study on the processing of common fractions
- 386 Downloads
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.
KeywordsCommon fractions Decimal fractions Distance effect Holistic processing Componential processing
This study was supported by Key Discipline Fund of National 211 Project, China (NSKD08017).
- 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
- Dehaene S (1997) The number sense. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Nuerk HC, Willmes K (2005) On the magnitude representations of two-digit numbers. Psychol Sci 47:52–72Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Verguts T, De Moor W (2005) Two-digit comparison: decomposed, holistic, or hybrid? Exp Psychol 52:195–200Google Scholar