naïve与数学和科学中的科学理论之间的干扰:一项比较数学家和非数学家的功能磁共振成像研究

IF 3.4 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Michaela A. Meier, Dennis Wambacher, Stephan E. Vogel, Roland H. Grabner
{"title":"naïve与数学和科学中的科学理论之间的干扰:一项比较数学家和非数学家的功能磁共振成像研究","authors":"Michaela A. Meier,&nbsp;Dennis Wambacher,&nbsp;Stephan E. Vogel,&nbsp;Roland H. Grabner","doi":"10.1016/j.tine.2022.100194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>One frequent learning obstacle in mathematics is conceptual interference. However, the majority of research on conceptual interference has focused on science. In this functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, we examined the conceptual interference effects in both mathematics and science and the moderating influence of mathematical expertise.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Thirty adult mathematicians and 31 gender-, age-, and intelligence-matched non-mathematicians completed a speeded reasoning tasks with statements from mathematics and science. Statements were either congruent (true or false according to both scientifically and naïve theories) or incongruent (differed in their truth value).</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Both groups exhibited more errors and a slower response time when evaluating incongruent compared to congruent statements in the science and mathematics task, but mathematicians were less affected by naïve theories. In mathematics, the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was activated when inhibiting naïve theories, while in science it was the dorsolateral and the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex bilaterally. Mathematical expertise did not moderate the conceptual interference effect at the neural level.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study demonstrates that naïve theories in mathematics are still present in mathematicians, even though they are less affected by them in performance than novices. In addition, the differential brain activation in the mathematics and science task indicates that the extent of inhibitory control processes to resolve conceptual interference depends on the quality of the involved concepts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46228,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Neuroscience and Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211949322000229/pdfft?md5=553966f7a17579ae1253ee4b9f6d0d6a&pid=1-s2.0-S2211949322000229-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interference between naïve and scientific theories in mathematics and science: An fMRI study comparing mathematicians and non-mathematicians\",\"authors\":\"Michaela A. Meier,&nbsp;Dennis Wambacher,&nbsp;Stephan E. Vogel,&nbsp;Roland H. Grabner\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tine.2022.100194\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>One frequent learning obstacle in mathematics is conceptual interference. However, the majority of research on conceptual interference has focused on science. In this functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, we examined the conceptual interference effects in both mathematics and science and the moderating influence of mathematical expertise.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Thirty adult mathematicians and 31 gender-, age-, and intelligence-matched non-mathematicians completed a speeded reasoning tasks with statements from mathematics and science. Statements were either congruent (true or false according to both scientifically and naïve theories) or incongruent (differed in their truth value).</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Both groups exhibited more errors and a slower response time when evaluating incongruent compared to congruent statements in the science and mathematics task, but mathematicians were less affected by naïve theories. In mathematics, the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was activated when inhibiting naïve theories, while in science it was the dorsolateral and the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex bilaterally. Mathematical expertise did not moderate the conceptual interference effect at the neural level.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study demonstrates that naïve theories in mathematics are still present in mathematicians, even though they are less affected by them in performance than novices. In addition, the differential brain activation in the mathematics and science task indicates that the extent of inhibitory control processes to resolve conceptual interference depends on the quality of the involved concepts.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46228,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trends in Neuroscience and Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211949322000229/pdfft?md5=553966f7a17579ae1253ee4b9f6d0d6a&pid=1-s2.0-S2211949322000229-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trends in Neuroscience and Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211949322000229\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Neuroscience and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211949322000229","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

数学学习中常见的障碍是概念干扰。然而,大多数关于概念干扰的研究都集中在科学上。通过功能磁共振成像(fMRI)研究,我们考察了数学和科学的概念干扰效应以及数学专业知识的调节作用。方法30名成年数学家和31名性别、年龄和智力匹配的非数学家完成一项用数学和科学语句进行快速推理的任务。陈述要么是一致的(根据科学和naïve理论为真或为假),要么是不一致的(它们的真值不同)。与科学和数学任务中的一致陈述相比,两组在评估不一致陈述时都表现出更多的错误和更慢的反应时间,但数学家受naïve理论的影响较小。在数学中,当抑制naïve理论时,左背外侧前额叶皮层被激活,而在科学中,它是双侧背外侧和腹外侧前额叶皮层。数学专业知识在神经水平上没有调节概念干扰效应。结论本研究表明naïve数学理论仍然存在于数学家中,尽管他们在表现上受数学理论的影响比新手小。此外,数学和科学任务中的不同脑激活表明,抑制控制过程解决概念干扰的程度取决于所涉及概念的质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interference between naïve and scientific theories in mathematics and science: An fMRI study comparing mathematicians and non-mathematicians

Background

One frequent learning obstacle in mathematics is conceptual interference. However, the majority of research on conceptual interference has focused on science. In this functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, we examined the conceptual interference effects in both mathematics and science and the moderating influence of mathematical expertise.

Methods

Thirty adult mathematicians and 31 gender-, age-, and intelligence-matched non-mathematicians completed a speeded reasoning tasks with statements from mathematics and science. Statements were either congruent (true or false according to both scientifically and naïve theories) or incongruent (differed in their truth value).

Findings

Both groups exhibited more errors and a slower response time when evaluating incongruent compared to congruent statements in the science and mathematics task, but mathematicians were less affected by naïve theories. In mathematics, the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was activated when inhibiting naïve theories, while in science it was the dorsolateral and the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex bilaterally. Mathematical expertise did not moderate the conceptual interference effect at the neural level.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that naïve theories in mathematics are still present in mathematicians, even though they are less affected by them in performance than novices. In addition, the differential brain activation in the mathematics and science task indicates that the extent of inhibitory control processes to resolve conceptual interference depends on the quality of the involved concepts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.10%
发文量
22
审稿时长
65 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信