Conclusions and Future Directions for the Neuroscience of Mathematical Cognitive Development

  • Rhonda Douglas Brown


In this chapter, I call attention to progress that has been made over the past 20 years in children’s mathematics achievement and in using neuroscience to understand mathematical cognitive development. Evidence supporting the triple-code model of numerical processing is mounting and we are beginning to understand how domain-specific and domain-general cognitive processes related to mathematics are instantiated in the brain and how they change with age and experience. I note that there is a great deal of work ahead in studying and applying the results of neuroscience research on mathematical cognitive development. Future studies should focus on longitudinal changes for the various components of numerical processing and how they interact in children with and without mathematical difficulties and on the effects of intervention and instructional approaches using a pre-/post-design.


National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Mathematical learning disabilities (MLD) Symbolic Mathematics Language Literacy (SMaLL) 


  1. Coch, D., Michlovitz, S. A., Ansari, D., & Baird, A. (2009). Building mind, brain, and education connections: The view from the upper valley. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3(1), 27–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dehaene, S. (1992). Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition, 44(1–2), 1–42. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Dehaene, S. (2011). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (1995). Towards an anatomical and functional model of number processing. Mathematical Cognition, 1, 83–120.Google Scholar
  5. Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (1997). Cerebral pathways for calculation: Double dissociation between rote verbal and quantitative knowledge of arithmetic. Cortex, 33(2), 219–250. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3–6), 487–506. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Headley, M. G. (2016). What is symbolic mathematics language literacy? A concurrent mixed methods study of adolescents in a middle school (Order No. 10308492). Available from Dissertations & Theses, University of Cincinnati (1865328066). Retrieved from
  8. Katzir, T., & Paré-Blagoev, J. (2006). Applying cognitive neuroscience research to education: The case of literacy. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 53–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 international results in mathematics. Retrieved March 5, 2017, from
  10. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Loveless, T. (2016). 20 years of TIMSS: International Trends in Mathematics and Science achievement, curriculum, and instruction. Retrieved March 5, 2017, from
  11. Swanson, H. L. (2008). Neuroscience and RTI: A complementary role. In E. Fletcher-Janzen & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 28–53). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  12. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Science, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (2015). 2015 mathematics and reading at grade 12. Retrieved March 5, 2017, from

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rhonda Douglas Brown
    • 1
  1. 1.Developmental & Learning Sciences Research CenterSchool of Education, University of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations