• Ilana Waisman
  • Mark Leikin
  • Shelley Shaul
  • Roza LeikinEmail author


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 ERP—event-related potentials—methodology). We report on findings of comparative data analysis based on 75 right-handed male high school students (16 – 18 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.


event-related potentials (ERP) excellence in mathematics functions giftedness graphical and symbolic representations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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), 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Callahan, C. M. (2000). Intelligence and giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 159–175). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Da Ponte, J. P. (1992). The history of the concept of function and some educational implications. The Mathematics Educator, 3(2), 3–8.Google Scholar
  4. Dai, D. Y., Swanson, J. A. & Cheng, H. (2011). State of research on giftedness and gifted education: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998–2010. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(2), 126–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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), 1365–1377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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, 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P. & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3–6), 487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dietrich, A. & Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 822–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donchin, E. & Coles, M. G. (1988). Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11(03), 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doyle, M. C., Rugg, M. D. & Wells, T. (1996). A comparison of the electrophysiological effects of formal and repetition priming. Psychophysiology, 33(2), 132–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feldman, D. (2003). A developmental, evolutionary perspective on giftedness. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 9–33). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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. 237–273). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  13. 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), 373–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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), 645–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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), 604–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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), 468–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Handy, T. C. (2005). Basic principles of ERP quantification. In T. C. Handy (Ed.), Event-related potentials: A methods handbook (pp. 33–56). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Heinze, H. J. & Mangun, G. R. (1995). Electrophysiological signs of sustained and transient attention to spatial locations. Neuropsychologia, 33(7), 889–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heinze, A., Star, J. R. & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Flexible and adaptive use of strategies and representations in mathematics education. ZDM, 41(5), 535–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Janvier, C. (1987). Translation processes in mathematics education. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 27–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Jensen, A. R. (2006). Clocking the mind: Mental chronometry and individual differences. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. Kaan, E. (2007). Event‐related potentials and language processing: A brief overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(6), 571–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaput, J. J. (1998). Representations, inscriptions, descriptions, and learning: A kaleidoscope of windows. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. Kutas, M., McCarthy, G. & Donchin, E. (1977). Augmenting mental chronometry: The P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. Science, 197(4305), 792–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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, 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lehmann, D. & Skrandies, W. (1984). Spatial analysis of evoked potentials in man—a review. Progress in Neurobiology, 23(3), 227–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leikin, R. (2014). Giftedness and high ability in mathematics. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education. Springer. Electronic Version.Google Scholar
  31. 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), 1049–1066.Google Scholar
  32. 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. 83–90). Taiwan, Taipei.Google Scholar
  33. 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), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neubauer, A. C. & Fink, A. (2009). Intelligence and neural efficiency. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 33(7), 1004–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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), 235–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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, 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nittono, H., Nageishi, Y., Nakajima, Y. & Ullsberger, P. (1999). Event-related potential correlates of individual differences in working memory capacity. Psychophysiology, 36(06), 745–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Piirto, J. (1999). Talented children and adults: Their development and education (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall/Merrill.Google Scholar
  39. Polich, J. (2012). Neuropsychology of P300. In S. J. Luck & E. Kappenman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components (pp. 159–188). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Raven, J., Raven, J. C. & Court, J. H. (2000). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists.Google Scholar
  41. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamination of a definition. Phi Delta Kappa, 60, 180–184.Google Scholar
  42. Ruchkin, D. S., Johnson, R., Jr., Mahaffey, D. & Sutton, S. (1988). Towards a functional categorization of slow waves. Psychophysiology, 25(3), 339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schneider, W., Eschman, A. & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-prime computer software (version 1.0). Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
  44. 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), 127–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Silverman, L. K. (2009). The measurement of giftedness. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 947–970). Amsterdam: Springer Science and Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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), 1193–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York: Plume.Google Scholar
  48. 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), 607–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vaivre-Douret, L. (2011). Developmental and cognitive characteristics of “high-level potentialities” (highly gifted) children. International Journal of Pediatrics, 2011, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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), 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yerushalmy, M. (2006). Slower algebra students meet faster tools: Solving algebra word problems with graphing software. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(5), 356–387.Google Scholar
  52. 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. 251–267). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  53. Zacks, J. M. (2008). Neuroimaging studies of mental rotation: a meta-analysis and review. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  54. Zamarian, L., Ischebeck, A. & Delazer, M. (2009). Neuroscience of learning arithmetic—Evidence from brain imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 33(6), 909–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ziegler, A. & Raul, T. (2000). Myth and reality: A review of empirical studies on giftedness. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zohar, A. (1990). Mathematical reasoning ability: Its structure, and some aspects of its genetic transmission. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilana Waisman
    • 1
  • Mark Leikin
    • 1
  • Shelley Shaul
    • 1
  • Roza Leikin
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Neuro-cognitive Laboratory - RANGE Center - Interdisciplinary Center for Research and Advancement of Excellence and GiftednessUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations