The interdisciplinary research field of educational neuroscience—linking neuroscience, psychology, and education—has witnessed a tremendous growth in the past five to ten years. By combining behavioral and neuroscientific methods, its general aim is to achieve a broader understanding of the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying learning and to support the development of effective instruction. It has been repeatedly questioned whether the obtained neuroscientific evidence has implications for education (including research and practice) or whether the connection between neuroscience and education is a bridge too far (e.g., Bowers, 2016; Verschaffel, Lehtinen, & Van Dooren, 2016). Has the inclusion of the neuroscientific level of analysis furthered our understanding of successful mathematics learning and how to support it? The aim of this discussion group was to bring together neuroscientists, psychologists, and math educators, and to discuss the chances and limitations of educational neuroscience research on selected topics of mathematics education.

The session began with brief statements by each of the three presenters about their view on the emerging research field of educational neuroscience. These statements were followed by an initial discussion with the audience, in which controversial arguments from different perspectives were raised.

After that, each of the presenters introduced a more specific research area of educational neuroscience. Michael von Aster focused on children with severe numerical difficulties. Neuroscience research was able to show that brain activation patterns in these children differ from those of typically developing children. Based on such findings, von Aster presented a computer game that was developed specifically to enhance dyscalculic children’s understanding of numerical magnitudes.

Hans-Christoph Nuerk presented studies on typical early mathematical development. Brain imaging studies found that there is a neural link between number representations and finger gnosis, suggesting that finger-based numerical representations are beneficial for numerical development. This finding has potential implications for mathematics education, where many researchers and teachers do not support children in using their fingers to solve arithmetic problems.

Roza Leikin presented research on the cognitive mechanisms of higher mathematics. Using different types of complex mathematical problems, she explored the brain activation patterns in students with distinct mathematical abilities and in generally gifted students. The results seem to support the neural efficiency hypothesis, stating that efficient problem solving is related to a general decrease rather than increase of brain activation.

The discussion group ended with a general discussion of the potentials and limitations of integrating neuroscience into mathematics education research. In conclusion, while the aim of neuroscience is not to provide immediate suggestions for classroom practice, neuroscience might help in better understanding the cognitive mechanisms that underlie mathematical problem solving, as the presentations in this discussion group have shown.