From Counting to Retrieving: Neural Networks Underlying Alphabet Arithmetic Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This fMRI study aimed at unraveling the neural basis of learning alphabet arithmetic facts, as a proxy of the transition from slow and effortful procedural counting-based processing to fast and effortless processing as it occurs in learning addition arithmetic facts. Neural changes were tracked while participants solved alphabet arithmetic problems in a verification task (e.g., F + 4 = J). Problems were repeated across four learning blocks. Two neural networks with opposed learning-related changes were identified. Activity in a network consisting of basal ganglia and parieto-frontal areas decreased with learning, which is in line with a reduction of the involvement of procedure-based processing. Conversely, activity in a network involving the left angular gyrus and, to a lesser extent, the hippocampus gradually increases with learning, evidencing the gradual involvement of retrieval-based processing. Connectivity analyses gave insight in the functional relationship between the two networks. Despite the opposing learning-related trajectories, it was found that both networks become more integrated. Taking alphabet arithmetic as a proxy for learning arithmetic, the present results have implications for current theories of learning arithmetic facts and can give direction to future developments.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".