Neural Basis of Repetition Priming during Mathematical Cognition: Repetition Suppression or Repetition Enhancement?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the neural basis of repetition priming (RP) during mathematical cognition. Previous studies of RP have focused on repetition suppression as the basis of behavioral facilitation, primarily using word and object identification and classification tasks. More recently, researchers have suggested associative stimulus-response learning as an alternate model for behavioral facilitation. We examined the neural basis of RP during mathematical problem solving in the context of these two models of learning. Brain imaging and behavioral data were acquired from 39 adults during novel and repeated presentation of three-operand mathematical equations. Despite wide-spread decreases in activation during repeat, compared with novel trials, there was no direct relation between behavioral facilitation and the degree of repetition suppression in any brain region. Rather, RT improvements were directly correlated with repetition enhancement in the hippocampus and the posteromedial cortex [posterior cingulate cortex, precuneus, and retrosplenial cortex; Brodmann's areas (BAs) 23, 7, and 30, respectively], regions known to support memory formation and retrieval, and in the SMA (BA 6) and the dorsal midcingulate ("motor cingulate") cortex (BA 24d), regions known to be important for motor learning. Furthermore, improvements in RT were also correlated with increased functional connectivity of the hippocampus with both the SMA and the dorsal midcingulate cortex. Our findings provide novel support for the hypothesis that repetition enhancement and associated stimulus-response learning may facilitate behavioral performance during problem solving.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".