Formal mathematical reasoning provides an illuminating test case for understanding how humans can think about things that they did not evolve to comprehend. People engage in algebraic reasoning by (1) creating new assemblies of perception and action routines that evolved originally for other purposes (reuse), (2) adapting those routines to better fit the formal requirements of mathematics (adaptation), and (3) designing cultural tools that mesh well with our perception-action routines to create cognitive systems capable of mathematical reasoning (invention). We describe evidence that a major component of proficiency at algebraic reasoning is Rigged Up Perception-Action Systems (RUPAS), via which originally demanding, strategically controlled cognitive tasks are converted into learned, automatically executed perception and action routines. Informed by RUPAS, we have designed, implemented, and partially assessed a computer-based algebra tutoring system called Graspable Math with an aim toward training learners to develop perception-action routines that are intuitive, efficient, and mathematically valid.
AndersonJ. R. (2007). (See References). A comprehensive neural, cognitive, and computational theory of how people are able to reason mathematically.
2.
GoldstoneR. L.BarsalouL. (1998). Reuniting perception and conception. Cognition, 65, 231–262. A theoretical review of some of the ways in which perceptual routines support high-level reasoning.
3.
LakoffG.NunezR. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York, NY: Basic Books. An embodied account of mathematics and mathematical reasoning.
4.
AmalricM.DehaeneS. (2016). Origins of the brain networks for advanced mathematics in expert mathematicians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 113, 4909–4917.
5.
AndersonJ. R. (2007). How can the human mind occur in the physical universe?New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
6.
AndersonM. L. (2015). After phrenology: Neural reuse and the interactive brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
BaroodyA. J.FeilY.JohnsonA. R. (2007). An alternative reconceptualization of procedural and conceptual knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 115–131.
8.
BraithwaiteD. W.GoldstoneR. L.van der MaasH. L. J.LandyD. H. (2016). Informal mechanisms in mathematical cognitive development: The case of arithmetic. Cognition, 149, 40–55.
9.
CajoriF. (1928). A history of mathematical notations. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
10.
ChangiziM. A.ShimojoS. (2005). Character complexity and redundancy in writing systems over human history. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, 272, 267–275.
11.
DehaeneS.CohenL. (2011). The unique role of the visual word form area in reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 254–262.
12.
DehaeneS.PegadoF.BragaL. W.VenturaP.Nunes FilhoG.JobertA.. . . CohenL. (2010). How learning to read changes the cortical networks for vision and language. Science, 330, 1359–1364.
13.
GibsonE. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
14.
GoldstoneR. L.BarsalouL. (1998). Reuniting perception and conception. Cognition, 65, 231–262.
15.
GoldstoneR. L.de LeeuwJ. R.LandyD. H. (2015). Fitting perception in and to cognition. Cognition, 135, 24–29.
16.
GoldstoneR. L.LandyD. H.SonJ. Y. (2010). The education of perception. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 265–284.
17.
HutchinsE. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
JiangM. J.CooperJ. L.AlibaliM. W. (2014). Spatial factors influence arithmetic performance: The case of the minus sign. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1626–1642.
19.
KellmanP. J.MasseyC. M. (2013). Perceptual learning, cognition, and expertise. In RossB. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 58, pp. 117–165). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
20.
KellmanP. J.MasseyC. M.SonJ. (2010). Perceptual learning modules in mathematics: Enhancing students’ pattern recognition, structure extraction, and fluency. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 285–305.
21.
LandyD.AllenC.ZednikC. (2014). A perceptual account of symbolic reasoning. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 275. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00275
22.
LandyD.GoldstoneR. L. (2007a). Formal notations are diagrams: Evidence from a production task. Memory & Cognition, 35, 2033–2040.
23.
LandyD.GoldstoneR. L. (2007b). How abstract is symbolic thought?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 720–733.
24.
LandyD. H.GoldstoneR. L. (2010). Proximity and precedence in arithmetic. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1953–1968.
25.
LandyD. H.JonesM. N.GoldstoneR. L. (2008). How the appearance of an operator affects its formal precedence. In LoveB. C.McRaeK.SloutskyV. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2109–2114). Washington, DC: Cognitive Science Society.
26.
MarghetisT.LandyD.GoldstoneR. L. (2016). Mastering algebra retrains the visual system to perceive hierarchical structure in equations. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1(25), 1–10. doi:10.1186/s41235-016-0020-9
27.
MettlerE.KellmanP. J. (2014). Adaptive response-time-based category sequencing in perceptual learning. Vision Research, 99, 111–123.
28.
OttmarE. R.LandyD. (2017). Concreteness fading of algebraic instruction: Effects on learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26, 51–78.
29.
OttmarE. R.LandyD.GoldstoneR. L.WeitnauerE. (2015). Getting from here to there: Testing the effectiveness of an interactive mathematics intervention embedding perceptual learning. In NoelleD. C.DaleR.WarlaumontA. S.YoshimiJ.MatlockT.JenningsC. D.MaglioP. P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1793–1798). Pasadena, CA: Cognitive Science Society.
30.
OttmarE. R.LandyD.WeitnauerE.GoldstoneR. (2015). Graspable mathematics: Using perceptual learning technology to discover algebraic notation. In Meletiou-MavrotherisM.MavrouK.PaparistodemouE. (Eds.), Integrating touch-enabled and mobile devices into contemporary mathematics education (pp. 24–28). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
31.
QuineW. V. (1977). Natural kinds. In SchwartzS. P. (Ed.), Naming, necessity, and natural kinds (pp. 155–175). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
32.
ReinerL.De VolderA. G.RauscheckerJ. P. (2014). Cortical plasticity and preserved function in early blindness. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 41, 53–63.
33.
Rittle-JohnsonB.SchneiderM.StarJ. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 587–597.
34.
RiveraJ.GarriganP. (2016). Persistent perceptual grouping effects in the evaluation of simple arithmetic expressions. Memory & Cognition, 44, 750–761.
35.
ShumJ.HermesD.FosterB. L.DastjerdiM.RangarajanV.WinawerJ.. . . ParviziJ. (2013). A brain area for visual numerals. Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 6709–6715.
36.
ZemelR. S.BehrmannM.MozerM. C.BavelierD. (2002). Experience-dependent perceptual grouping and object-based attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 202–217.
