standOff. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote shown on the same row, so the borrowing can be checked against the thing borrowed from without leaving this page. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.
Abstract. phenomenonalternativesThis study presents a comprehensive meta-analysis of fMRI data to explore the neural correlates of mathematical creativity, a vital competence in mathematics education. object_of_studylimitationsUtilizing Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) and Meta-Analytic Connectivity Modeling (MACM) techniques, we analyzed studies published up to 2022 to identify brain regions activated during mathematical and creative tasks. contributionclaim_typemechanisms↗concepts↗content_tagsThe findings reveal significant activation in the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) and the left superior frontal gyrus (SFG) during both mathematical and creative tasks, emphasizing their roles in idea generation, working memory, and executive control. concepts↗alternativesconcept_edgescontent_tagsThe MACM analysis further highlights the importance of the frontoparietal network, a key player in cognitive control, for mathematical creativity. mechanisms↗concepts↗concept_edgesThis network’s involvement in attention, working memory, and goal orientation aligns with the demands of mathematical problem-solving. Our results offer valuable insights into the neural mechanisms underlying mathematical creativity, providing a foundation for developing targeted educational strategies to enhance this crucial competence in learners. 1 Introduction Mathematics is a core subject in most countries’ educational systems, and one of the goals of any educational system should be fostering creative people. Creativity plays an important role in the development of individuals and societies and is recognized as one of the key skills necessary for learners in the 21st century, as well as being a core attribute in contemporary economic, social, and educational environments ( Swanzy-Impraim et al., 2022 ). Creativity is also recognized as an essential skill that students must master in higher education due to its direct relationship to the development of content knowledge and skills ( Egan et al., 2017 ; Livingston, 2010 ). concepts↗sensescontent_tags↗content_tags↗Creativity is defined as an ability to interact with cognitive abilities, personal qualities, and environmental factors to produce novel and effective ways of solving problems. Doing meaningful science has been considered a creative act, and the nature of mathematics provides a suitable platform for developing creativity. Hence, the importance of mathematical creativity is apparent and needs no further emphasis, even though the definitions of mathematical creativity are various depending on researchers. limitationsAlthough research on creativity has been a hot topic, unfortunately, there has been not only a dearth of research on mathematical creativity, but even the definition of its concept still lacks a common definition ( Mann, 2006 ; Tubb et al., 2020 ). concepts↗content_tags↗content_tags↗Mathematical creativity is often considered a key component of mathematical ability, which includes flexible thinking, providing valuable and novel solutions to mathematical problems, analyzing mathematical problems in a variety of ways, the ability to perceive mathematical relationships using complex thinking, and generating original and novel mathematical products through identification and selection ( Kattou et al., 2013 ; Sadak et al., 2022 ). Yet the focus on mathematical creativity in mathematics education still never stops, such as the assessment of students’ mathematical creativity, how to better develop students’ mathematical creativity, and the eye-tracking characteristics of mathematical creativity ( Schindler and Lilienthal, 2020 ; Suherman and Vidákovich, 2022 ). concepts↗With the development of educational neuroscience, more and more studies have begun to explore the neural regions and networks of the brain that are related to creativity in an attempt to come up with more scientific educational strategies to improve students’ creativity because traditional educational research methods are difficult to investigate the relationship of mathematics and creativity despite providing some useful information ( Agnoli et al., 2018 ; Sun et al., 2016 ; Zhou, 2018 ). research_questioncontent_tagsMoreover, their relationship has never been explored explicitly in cognitive neuroscience. mechanisms↗transfersCognitive neuroscience can not only examine behavioral changes but also study the correlation of these behavioral changes with brain structure and function. This research approach can provide ample evidence for the effectiveness of educational interventions ( Zhou, 2018 ). sensesalternativesclaim_relationsconcept_edgescontent_tags↗It has been suggested that mathematical creativity is a combination of general domain creativity and domain-specific mathematical ability ( Schoevers et al., 2020 ). Based on this, transfersthis study intends to further investigate which educational strategies can scientifically and effectively promote students’ mathematical creativity based on exploring the cognitive neural basis of creativity and mathematical competence through a cognitive neural meta-analytic approach. Specifically, the research questions are as follows: Which brain regions are activated during doing mathematical tasks and which brain regions are activated during doing creativity tasks? Which brain regions overlap and which brain regions are unique? How is the composition of brain networks related to overall mathematical creativity? 2 Materials and methods 2.1 Literature and methods Potential articles were identified by searching empirical papers published by Web of Science, PLOS, APA through 2022. The research for articles related to mathematics keywords such as “mathematics,” “arithmetic,” “problem solving,” “addition,” “subtraction,” “division,” “multiplication,” “mental math,” and “numeral” were combined with technical terms such as “neuroimaging,” “brain imaging,” “cerebral correlates,” “neural correlates,” “functional magnetic resonance imaging” and its abbreviation. sensesThe research for articles related to creativity keywords such as “creativity,” “divergent thinking,” “creative idea generation,” “insight,” “metaphor,” “improvisation,” “aha,” “original idea,” “remote associates,” “heuristic prototype,” “creative thinking” AND “neuroimaging,” “brain imaging,” “cerebral correlates” “functional magnetic resonance imaging” and its abbreviation. We complemented these results with PubMed and NeuroQuery. limitationscontent_tags↗Studies were eligible for the present meta-analysis included: (1) whole brain analysis had to be used and ROI studies were excluded, (2) MNI or Talairach coordinates had to be provided, (3) tasks were limited to mathematics and creativity, and (4) subjects had to be healthy and right-handed. A PRISMA flow chart of the selection process is illustrated below. content_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagsA total of 44 papers on mathematics and 56 papers on creativity were included in the final meta-analysis (see Table 1 ; Figure 1 ). Table 1 Summary of studies included in the meta-analysis. 1st Author (year) Subjects Male Age Mathematical task Ansari (2006) 9 6 9.1–11.1 Nonsymbolic magnitude Ashkenazi (2012) 17 6 7.0–9.0 Simple/complex addition Ashkenazi (2022) 18 6 22.8 Estimation comparison Ashkenazi (2022) 24 14 23.6 Estimation comparison Baker (2015) 16 11 8.0–19.0 Relational calculation, reasoning Caron (2020) 23 18 8.0–11.0 Binary/decimal learning Chang (2018) 26 12 22.25 Arithmetic/nonarithmetic word Cho (2011) 103 49 7.0–9.9 Univariate/multivariate addition Davis (2009) 27 13 8.1 Exact calculation Davis (2009) 24 12 8.2 Exact/approximate calculation Declercq (2022) 26 13 10.4 Single/double digits Dedovic (2009) 20 20 23 Experimental/control math Du (2013) 39 19 10.1–11.3 Exact/approximate addition Emerson (2012) 24 - 4.3–11.9 Formal/free matching Grabner (2007) 25 25 25.38 Multiplication Heidekum (2019) 46 17 23.6 Lexico-semantic/arithmetic interference Holloway (2010) 19 7 6.8–9.3 Symbolic/nonsymbolic magnitude Houde (2010) 88 - 8.1–12.5 Calculation Houde (2011) 32 14 5.9–10.2 Number/color Houde (2011) 16 6 5.2–7.2 Number/color Isaacs (2001) 12 - - Calculation Kawashima (2004) 8 4 9.0–14.0 Arithmetic Kucian (2008) 20 10 9.2–12.0 Approximate/exact calculation Li (2013) 34 16 9.6–11.3 Digits/beads/abacus Libertus (2009) 15 8 8.0–9.0 Digit/letter and space Matejko (2021) 38 21 7.7–10.4 Arithmetic/visuospatial working memory McCaskey (2018) 11 6 9.1 Numerical order Meintjes (2010) 16 6 8–12 Exact addition/proximity judgment Michael (2010) 10 5 20 Linear/quadratic graph Mondt (2011) 8 5 9.7 Simple/complex addition Mussolin (2010) 15 9 10.9 Number/color comparison Newman (2020) 43 22 7.5–9.1 Structured/free block play Peters (2016) 23 12 9.0–12.0 Words/dots digits Polspoel (2019) 20 15 9.79 Custom multiplication Rosenberg-Lee (2011) 90 51 7.7–8.7 Arithmetic Rosenberg-Lee (2018) 19 8 8.5 Arithmetic Schwartz (2017) 17 10 8.2–13.7 Validity/likelihood trials Skagenholt (2021) 44 20 23.69 Arabic/verbal/nonsymbolic magnitude Soylu (2018) 24 12 8.4 Arithmetic Vatansever (2020) 15 7 11.8 Number perception Wakefield (2019) 20 8 7.0–9.0 Mathematical equivalence problems Wang (2015) 29 15 7.4–8.6 Bead/picture match Wilkey (2017) 36 22 18 Nonsymbolic number comparison Zhou (2018) 24 11 21.5 Number/word/geometry Abdul Hamid (2019) 50 - - Alternative use Abraham (2012) 19 8 19–29 Alternative use Abraham (2014) 28 14 22.8 Alternative use Abraham (2014) 28 14 22.79 Alternative use Abraham (2018) 43 - - Alternative use Addis (2011) 15 8 18–33 Specific/general past/future events Ahrens (2007) 8 8 21.0 Metaphor Amir (2016) 22 19 20–47 Generate caption Bambini (2011) 9 5 25 Metaphor Beaty (2015) 25 12 18–30 Alternative use Beaty (2017) 35 13 20.77 Metaphor Benedek (2014) 35 11 18–29 Alternative use Benedek (2016) 32 13 28.3 Sentence generation Benedek (2018) 42 17 19–36 Alternative use Berkowitz (2008) 12 - 21.9 Make up melodies/play patterns Dandan (2013) 16 7 20–27 Related/unrelated prototypes Darsaud (2011) 36 19 22.0 Number reduction Edward (2021) 1 1(F) 12.0 Music improvisation Ellamil (2012) 15 6 22.14 Designed book cover illustrations Erhard (2014) 48 26 - Brainstorming/creative writing Eslinger (2009) 16 11 12.8 Cognitive activation Fink (2010) 31 13 19–29 Alternative use Fink (2012) 24 10 21–30 Alternative use Frega (2013) 24 9 21.0 One word (listen, create, repeat) Green (2009) 23 12 22.2 Analogy trials Green (2012) 23 12 22.2 Analogical reasoning Hahm (2017) 25 11 19.9 12 line drawing Heinonen (2016) 16 4 19–49 Alternative use Howard-Jones (2005) 8 1 19–28 Generate story Huang (2013) 26 11 22 Visual imagination Huang (2018) 20 9 21–26 Novelty/appropriateness of answer Ivancovsky (2018) 36 - 28.93 Alternative use Kaiser (2013) 19 7 21–34 Option generation Kizilirmak (2016) 26 15 18–32 Alternative use Kleibeuker (2017) 32 18 15–16 Alternative use Kleibeuker (2017) 20 11 16.1 Matchstick problem Kleibeuker (2017) 32 18 15–16 Alternative use Kowatari (2009) 20 8 20–28 Designing new pens Kuehn (2009) 25 - 17.3 Paired and single analogy Luo (2003) 10 - 20–25 Semantic judgment Luo (2003) 10 - 20–25 Music imaginary/performance Madore (2019) 27 - - Alternative use Mashal (2007) 15 8 21–31 Metaphor Perchtold (2018) 45 14 18–34 Alternative use Qiu (2010) 16 8 22.6 World riddle Rapp (2004) 15 9 15.3 Metaphor Rutter (2012) 18 9 22.78 Metaphor Sakaki (2011) 10 21.71 Riddles Shibata (2007) 13 8 21–29 Metaphor Tian (2017) 24 13 18–25 Humorous/nonhumorous pictures Villarreal (2013) 24 9 21.9 Create/repeat Watson (2013) 23 9 18–27 Analogy Wendelken (2008) 20 11 18–28 Analogical reasoning Zhang (2014) 18 8 17–23 Generation of inventive conceptions Zhao (2013) 18 7 23.6 ‘chengyu’ riddle Figure 1 Brain regions activated during mathematical tasks or creative tasks. 2.2 ALE meta-analysis concepts↗content_tags↗content_tags↗content_tags↗As a coordinate-based meta-analysis ALE focuses on finding consistency in spatial location by counting the coordinate values reported in the article. mechanisms↗claim_relationscontent_tags↗content_tags↗The basic principle of ALE meta-analysis of coordinate information is to fit the activation points in each experiment to a probability distribution, that is, the magnitude of the probability that the activation points fall on each voxel of the brain ( Eickhoff et al., 2009 ). content_tags↗content_tags↗Significant activation of brain regions associated with mathematical creativity was detected using the ALE (Activation Likelihood Estimation) approach. method↗content_tagsA meta-analysis of mathematical tasks of a total of 958 foci reported in 44 experiments and creative tasks of a total of 1,177 foci reported in 56 was conducted using the ALE approach with GingerALE 3.0.2 software. 1 Activation foci reported in Talairach space were converted to MNI space before being put into GingerALE. controlscontent_tags↗content_tagsALE-maps of single analyses were constructed using 1,000 permutations and a cluster level of FWE of p < 0.05 with a cluster forming a voxel level threshold of p < 0.001. content_tags↗content_tagsALE maps of contrast analyses were constructed using 5,000 permutations at p < 0.001 and a minimum volume of 50 mm 3 ( Müller et al., 2018 ). Each ALE map was visualized using the Mango 4.0.1 software. 2 2.3 MACM analysis Based on the brain regions derived from the findings of the ALE meta-analysis, and to explore the cognitive neural mechanisms of mathematical creativity, content_tags↗we performed a MACM analysis to detect synergistic activation patterns in these regions of interest. It allows for ALE analysis of BrainMap database (see Footnote 1) co-activation foci, which further reveals other important brain regions co-activated with the ROI through the functional connectivity of the task. MACM collects data from a variety of neural databases (e.g., Brain map) and utilizes meta-analysis algorithms, such as ALE, to assess or examine which brain regions are co-activated with a given seed region. content_tags↗The basic principle of MACM is that if two brain regions are functionally related, they are more likely to be activated by the same task ( Kotkowski et al., 2018 ; Langner and Camilleri, 2021 ). content_tagsFor the MACM analysis, we first selected the 9 regions derived from the ALE analysis described above as ROIs, including left precuneus, left inferior parietal lobule (IPL), right superior parietal lobule (SPL), left superior frontal gyrus (SFG), right insula, left insula, left precentral gyrus, left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), left middle occipital gyrus (MOG), where the left inferior parietal lobule (IPL) and left superior frontal gyrus (SFG) is the region where creativity and mathematical ability are co-activated. Each ROI contains experiments, participants, and foci information as shown in Table 2 . MACM map was visualized using the BrainNet Viewer software 3 ( Xia et al., 2013 ). Table 2 Information from 9 ROIs selected from the Sleuth database. Node Region Experiments Participants Foci M1 Left Precuneus 25 416 355 M1:2C4 Left Inferior Parietal Lobule 109 1,504 1,544 M2 Right Superior Parietal Lobule 36 625 508 M3C2 Left Superior Frontal Gyrus 59 1,128 836 M4 Right Insula 91 1,243 1,123 M5 Left Insula 111 1,467 1,632 M6 Left Precentral Gyrus 86 1,109 1,240 C1 Left Inferior Frontal Gyrus 46 592 681 C3 Left Middle Occipital Gyrus 26 380 504 3 Results 3.1 Subsection content_tagsThe ALE meta-analysis on 44 studies for mathematics revealed 6 clusters of significant activation, including the bilateral inferior parietal lobule, the left superior parietal lobule, the left superior frontal gyrus, the right medial frontal gyrus, the left me-dial frontal gyrus, the bilateral insula, the left precentral gyrus (see Table 3 ; Figure 2 ). Table 3 Regions of activations resulting from the meta-analysis of mathematics. Cluster Vol (mm 3 ) Region H * BA* MNI coordinates ALE x y z 1 7,568 Precuneus L 19 −30 −64 46 0.0513 Inferior Parietal Lobule L 40 −40 −42 46 0.0480 Angular Gyrus L 39 −32 −54 44 0.0407 2 5,808 Superior Parietal Lobule R 7 32 −56 48 0.0455 Inferior Parietal Lobule R 40 40 −42 44 0.0416 Precuneus R 7 32 −60 36 0.0400 Superior Parietal Lobule R 7 32 −70 52 0.0254 3 5,096 Superior Frontal Gyrus L 6 0 16 50 0.0369 Medial Frontal Gyrus R 8 4 26 42 0.0364 Superior Frontal Gyrus L 6 −2 12 50 0.0360 Cingulate Gyrus R 32 8 24 38 0.0336 Medial Frontal Gyrus L 6 −2 0 58 0.0283 4 3,440 Insula R 13 34 24 2 0.0544 Claustrum R * 32 20 12 0.0347 5 2,920 Insula L 13 −32 18 6 0.0512 6 1728 Precentral Gyrus L 6 −44 2 32 0.0395 Figure 2 Displayed are significant results from the meta-analysis of mathematics. content_tagsThe ALE meta-analysis on 56 studies in creativity resulted in 4 significant clusters of activation, including the left inferior frontal gyrus, the left middle frontal gyrus, the left superior frontal gyrus, the left middle occipital gyrus, the left middle temporal gyrus, the left inferior parietal lobule (see Table 4 ; Figure 3 ). Table 4 Regions of activations resulting from the meta-analysis of creativity. Cluster Vol (mm 3 ) Region H * BA* MNI coordinates ALE x y z 1 6,456 Inferior Frontal Gyrus L 9 −46 12 30 0.0453 Middle Frontal Gyrus L 46 −48 38 12 0.0413 Middle Frontal Gyrus L 46 −42 28 18 0.0303 Inferior Frontal Gyrus L 9 −44 4 20 0.0292 Middle Frontal Gyrus L 9 −52 22 30 0.0290 2 1,552 Superior Frontal Gyrus L 6 −4 18 48 0.0410 3 1,480 Middle Occipital Gyrus L 19 −50 −60 −8 0.0290 Middle Temporal Gyrus L * −50 −66 2 0.0280 Middle Temporal Gyrus L 39 −56 −56 10 0.0248 Middle Temporal Gyrus L 37 −50 −60 8 0.0221 4 1,352 Inferior Parietal Lobule L 40 −58 −30 40 0.0426 Figure 3 Displayed are significant results from the meta-analysis of creativity. 3.2 ALE meta-analysis The contrast analysis for increased activation during mathematics compared to creativity with a total of 5 clusters, including the bilateral precuneus, the bilateral claustrum, the right superior parietal lobule, the right angular gyrus, the right insula, and the right inferior parietal lobule. Creativity revealed 3 clusters of significant activation compared to mathematics. The left inferior frontal gyrus, the left inferior parietal lobule, and the left middle frontal gyrus are included. content_tagsThe common brain regions activated by both mathematical and creative tasks were the left inferior frontal gyrus and the left superior frontal gyrus (see Table 5 ; Figure 4 ). Table 5 Regions of activations resulting from the contrast analysis of the conditions “mathematics” and “creativity.” Cluster Vol (mm 3 ) Region H * BA* MNI coordinates ALE x y z Mathematics > Creativity 1 2,128 Precuneus R 7 28 −61.5 45 3.7190 Precuneus R 7 28 −58 38 3.7190 Precuneus R 7 28 −70 46 3.4316 Angular Gyrus R 39 34 −56 36 3.3527 Precuneus R 7 28 −61 33 2.9888 Superior Parietal Lobule R 30 −72 54 2.3697 2 1832 Claustrum R 34 16 −4 3.8905 Insula R 13 32 30 6 3.4316 Claustrum R 34 16 2 3.2388 Insula R 13 35 22 3 2.7821 3 1,504 Precuneus L 7 −25.7 −60.8 41.9 3.8905 4 1,464 Claustrum L −29.6 18.4 3.8 3.8905 5 272 Superior Parietal Lobule R 7 34 −48 42 2.6874 Inferior Parietal Lobule R 40 38 −48 42 2.5758 Inferior Parietal Lobule R 40 38 −48 48 2.3534 Mathematics < Creativity 1 976 Inferior Frontal Gyrus L 9 −49.5 10.7 20.4 3.8905 2 976 Inferior Parietal Lobule L 40 −59.6 −29.3 40.2 3.3527 3 800 Middle Frontal Gyrus L 46 −42.7 33.3 12 3.8905 Inferior Frontal Gyrus L 46 −52 34 12 3.1946 Figure 4 Displayed are significant results from the meta-analysis common of mathematics and creativity. 3.3 MACM analysis The focus of this study is on the cognitive neural mechanisms of mathematical creativity, so the results of the MACM analyses of the left inferior parietal lobule (IPL) and the left superior frontal gyrus (SFG), the regions where mathematical ability and creativity are co-activated, will be analyzed specifically. Results related to other regions can be viewed in the Appendix. Co-activation maps for the left inferior parietal lobule were significant for the right inferior parietal lobule (BA 40), the bilateral medial frontal gyrus (BA 6), the right sub-gyral (BA 6), the left middle frontal gyrus (BA 6), the left insula (BA 13, 47), the right claustrum, the left inferior frontal (BA 9), the right superior temporal gyrus (BA 41, 22) (see Table 5 ; Figure 5 ). For the left superior frontal gyrus significant co-activation was observed in the right angular gyrus (BA 39), the left middle frontal gyrus (BA 9), the left precuneus (BA 19), the left inferior parietal lobule (BA 40), the left sub-gyrus (BA 6), the bilateral middle frontal gyrus (BA 6), and the left insula (BA 13) (see Tables 6 , 7 ; Figure 5 ). Figure 5 Co-activation network among 9 ROIs related to mathematical creativity region. Table 6 MACA results: regions of functional coactivation associated with left Inferior Parietal Lobule. Cluster Vol (mm 3 ) Region H * BA* MNI coordinates ALE x y z 1 12,584 Inferior Parietal Lobule L 40 −40 −44 44 0.0809 Inferior Parietal Lobule L 40 −48 −52 48 0.0417 Precuneus L 7 −26 −64 46 0.0372 Postcentral Gyrus‑ L 3 −36 −26 52 0.0231 2 4,696 Inferior Parietal Lobule R 40 36 −52 46 0.0494 Inferior Parietal Lobule R 40 48 −38 48 0.0244 3 3,744 Medial Frontal Gyrus L 6 −4 12 54 0.0548 Medial Frontal Gyrus L 6 −2 0 58 0.0221 Medial Frontal Gyrus R 6 8 12 50 0.0199 4 2,960 Sub-Gyral R 6 30 2 56 0.0397 Precentral Gyrus R 6 40 −8 48 0.0295 5 2,848 Middle Frontal Gyrus L 6 −26 −4 52 0.0332 Sub-Gyral L 6 −28 4 56 0.0319 Sub-Gyral L 6 −16 0 56 0.0241 Middle Frontal Gyrus L 6 −22 4 64 0.0227 6 2,672 Insula L 13 −32 20 4 0.0619 Insula L 47 −30 22 −10 0.0252 7 2,544 Claustrum R * 34 20 4 0.0543 8 2,512 Inferior Frontal Gyrus L 9 −50 8 20 0.0291 Middle Frontal Gyrus L 9 −52 10 36 0.0286 Precentral Gyrus L 6 −44 4 30 0.0233 Inferior Frontal Gyrus L 9 −54 12 26 0.0229 9 1,208 Superior Temporal Gyrus R 41 62 −22 4 0.0289 1,208 Superior Temporal Gyrus R 22 56 −12 8 0.0226 Table 7 MACA results: regions of functional coactivation associated with left Superior Frontal Gyrus. Cluster Vol (mm 3 ) Region H * BA* MNI coordinates ALE x y z 1 3,312 Superior Frontal Gyrus L 6 −4 14 52 0.0579 Superior Frontal Gyrus L 6 −6 26 62 0.0163 2 1,480 Angular Gyrus R 39 34 −56 44 0.0292 3 1,432 Middle Frontal Gyrus L 9 −42 26 30 0.0269 Inferior Frontal Gyrus L 9 −42 10 26 0.0227 4 1,192 Precuneus L 19 −28 −70 42 0.0308 5 1,152 Inferior Parietal Lobule L 40 −36 −48 44 0.0272 6 1,144 Sub-Gyral L 6 −28 4 56 0.0241 Middle Frontal Gyrus L 6 −28 −2 62 0.0189 Middle Frontal Gyrus L 6 −22 4 66 0.0173 7 1,096 Middle Frontal Gyrus R 6 32 4 60 0.0273 8 1,040 Insula L 13 −34 20 2 0.0269 4 Discussion 4.1 ALE meta-analysis The results of the ALE for creative thinking showed that the activated brain regions were mainly concentrated in the left hemisphere, which included the inferior frontal gyrus (BA 9, 46), the superior frontal gyrus (BA 6), the middle occipital gyrus (BA 19), and the inferior parietal lobule (BA 40) regions. mechanisms↗It has been shown that the IFG generates creative ideas through the retrieval of loosely related semantic concepts, the screening of creative ideas, and the evaluation of originality ( Cogdell-Brooke et al., 2020 ). Numerous previous meta-analyses of creative thinking have also found this region to be activated because it involves integrating semantic concepts and ideas in new ways ( Boccia et al., 2015 ; Wu et al., 2015 ). The SFG has also been shown to be activated in numerous meta-analyses, and existing meta-analyses suggest that this region may be activated in different creative tasks because of its need to flexibly manipulate semantic information, so that the generation of many original ideas is associated with this region ( Cogdell-Brooke et al., 2020 ). The SFG plays an important role in cognitive functions such as working memory, mental manipulation, and spatial orientation processing, and there is a stable correlation between this region and creative thinking skills, especially with insight ( Lin et al., 2018 ). The MOG is primarily associated with mental imagery, which plays an important role in creative thinking ( Beaty et al., 2018 ). The IPL is an important region for semantic processing and has been shown to play a key role in situational memory retrieval, and cognitive operations that facilitate situational retrieval can be effective in promoting creative thinking ( Madore et al., 2016 ). Also, this region has been shown to promote divergent thinking ( Kuang et al., 2022 ). These activation regions suggest that prefrontal regions are critical in creativity. And the importance of this region has been repeatedly demonstrated in individuals with prefrontal damage, where creativity is also impaired to some extent ( Khalil and Moustafa, 2022 ; Ovando-Tellez et al., 2019 ). The results of the ALE for mathematics cognition revealed that the activated brain regions were predominantly located in the bilateral inferior parietal lobule (IPL) (BA 40), the left superior parietal lobule (SPL) (BA 32), the left superior frontal gyrus (SFG) (BA 6), the right medial frontal gyrus (MFG) (BA 8), the left medial frontal gyrus (MFG) (BA 6), the bilateral insula, and the left precentral gyrus. claim_relationsThe meta-analysis of mathematical brain region associations in the present study indicated that the frontal–parietal region plays a key role in mathematical ability, which is generally consistent with the results of the prior meta-analysis ( Istomina and Arsalidou, 2024 ). The IPL, particularly in its bilateral manifestation, is crucial for numerical processing and arithmetic reasoning. This region is known to be involved in the manipulation and representation of numerical quantities, as well as in spatial attention and number sense ( Hubbard et al., 2005 ). The SPL, especially on the left side, plays a significant role in visuospatial processing and the integration of sensory information, which are essential in understanding and solving mathematical problems ( Friedman and Miyake, 2017 ). The SFG, located in the left hemisphere, is associated with higher cognitive functions such as working memory and executive control, both of which are integral to complex mathematical problem-solving and abstract reasoning ( Christoff et al., 2009 ). The MFG, particularly in the right hemisphere, contributes to decision-making and cognitive control, which are vital in tasks requiring logical reasoning and the application of mathematical principles ( Arsalidou and Taylor, 2011 ). On the contrary, the left MFG is implicated in processes related to calculation and mathematical operations, reflecting its role in more structured and rule-based aspects of mathematics. The bilateral insula is involved in risk and uncertainty assessment, which can be crucial in mathematical decision-making and problem-solving scenarios ( Preuschoff et al., 2008 ). The left precentral gyrus plays a role in motor planning and execution, and its involvement in mathematical cognition might be related to the mental manipulation of numbers and symbols, a process often metaphorically described as ‘mental gymnastics’ ( Andres et al., 2008 ). These activation regions emphasize the multifaceted nature of mathematical cognition, involving a network of brain areas responsible for numerical processing, spatial reasoning, working memory, decision-making, and symbolic manipulation. This complex interplay of cognitive functions highlights the integral role of these regions in the understanding and application of mathematics. The results of the ALE for both mathematics and creativity indicated that the activated brain regions were crucially located in the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) and the superior frontal gyrus (SFG). The IFG plays a key role in generating creative mathematical ideas by retrieving and integrating diverse mathematical concepts, thereby fostering innovative problem-solving approaches ( Beaty et al., 2016 ). Its ability to manipulate and recombine existing mathematical knowledge is essential for producing original and effective solutions. Meanwhile, the SFG is vital for higher cognitive functions like working memory and executive control, which are integral to mathematics and creativity. It helps maintain and manipulate complex mathematical information, enabling the exploration of various problem-solving strategies and their evaluation ( Dietrich and Kanso, 2010 ). The SFG is particularly important in abstract mathematical reasoning and in shifting between different problem-solving methods. In addition, the SFG’s role in attentional control is important in maintaining focus on complex mathematical tasks, thus facilitating deeper engagement and persistence in finding creative solutions ( Zabelina and Robinson, 2010 ). The combined functions of the IFG and SFG highlight the intricate cognitive processes involved in both the generation of novel ideas and the sustained manipulation and evaluation of these ideas. These activated brain regions associated with creativity and math are largely similar to previous meta-analysis results, but this study not only explored the brain regions, but also further explored the brain networks associated with math creativity through the MACM method. 4.2 MACM analysis content_tagsThe results of the MACM analysis indicate that the frontoparietal network has a key role in mathematical creativity. This region is a core network for cognitive control and plays an important role in the processes of goal orientation, working memory, inhibitory switching, attention, cognitive control, and other cognitive abilities ( Uddin et al., 2019 ). It has been shown that the frontoparietal network is the core network for creative performance and that stimulation of the frontoparietal network can effectively promote the enhancement of an individual’s creative ability ( Lifshitz-Ben-Basat and Mashal, 2021 ; Tabatabaeian and Jennings, 2023 ). In addition, greater activation of this region also occurred when individuals solved math problems. Intervention training for children with math deficits has also shown that increased activation in the frontal–parietal region was found in these children after two weeks of numeracy training ( Liang, 2022 ; Soltanlou et al., 2022 ). Recent research suggests that functional connectivity within the frontoparietal network plays a key role in mathematical ability and that individuals with high levels of mathematical ability may rely on this network for effective neural communication and information processing ( Ren and Libertus, 2023 ). It can be seen that the frontoparietal network not only plays an important role in mathematics and creativity skills but also has a role in mathematical creativity that cannot be ignored. 5 Conclusion Findings from the current meta-analysis on mathematical creativity provide valuable insights into the neural mechanisms underlying this complex cognitive process. Specifically, we focused on exploring brain regions associated with mathematical creativity using the ALE and MACM analytic approaches. Based on the ALE meta-analysis, we identified key brain regions activated during mathematical and creative tasks, with a particular focus on the left IFG and SFG. These findings were further substantiated by an MACM analysis, which highlighted the frontoparietal network’s critical role in mathematical creativity. These results demonstrate that the left IFG and SFG are essential in both mathematical reasoning and creative thinking. mechanisms↗The IFG facilitates the generation of innovative mathematical ideas through the integration of diverse concepts, while the SFG supports higher cognitive functions such as working memory and executive control, essential for complex problem-solving in mathematics. The overlap in these regions during tasks requiring mathematical and creative cognition underscores their importance in the cognitive processes that underlie mathematical creativity. content_tagsCompared to creativity tasks, mathematical tasks show increased concordance in the precuneus, claustrum, and superior parietal lobule. content_tagsOn the other hand, creativity tasks show increased concordance in the inferior frontal gyrus, inferior parietal lobule, and middle frontal gyrus. Moreover, the frontoparietal network, identified as a core network for cognitive control, was found to be significantly activated in tasks involving mathematical creativity. mechanisms↗This network’s involvement in goal orientation, working memory, and cognitive control suggests its integral role in both domain-specific mathematical abilities and general creative performance. To foster mathematical creativity, teachers can be suggested to use students’ episodic knowledge about the problem-solving process, an abacus, diagrams, gestures, graphs, symbols, etc., as visualization while explaining mathematical contents, and speech with gesture strategy when students solve the problems. In addition, not only focused on cognitive aspects, teachers help students build intrinsic motivation and affective goals to cause their effort in attention and complex processing. Our study contributes to the ongoing efforts to understand and enhance creativity in educational settings, particularly within the domain of mathematics. Our findings may shed light on potential avenues for the development of effective educational strategies to promote students’ mathematical creativity.
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 3 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | Which brain regions are common to mathematical tasks and to creative tasks, and what that says about mathematical creativity. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | Mathematics and creativity have each been imaged extensively, but never against each other - where do they overlap in the brain and where are they distinct? | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | Left inferior and superior frontal gyri activate for both task types, and the frontoparietal network is implicated in mathematical creativity specifically. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | existence | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | mathematical creativity | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | meta-analysis also in: meta-analysis | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[6] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The central construct has no agreed definition, which the paper states plainly while proceeding to localise it. what this limits: every localisation claim in the meta-analysis: THERE HAS BEEN NOT ONLY A DEARTH OF RESEARCH ON MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY, BUT EVEN THE DEFINITION OF ITS CONCEPT STILL LACKS A COMMON DEFINITION | limitations[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Mathematical creativity is never imaged directly - it is inferred from the overlap of separate mathematics tasks and separate creativity tasks. what this limits: every claim about the neural basis of mathematical creativity: it is identified by ALE and MACM over STUDIES ... ACTIVATED DURING MATHEMATICAL AND CREATI[ve tasks] - an overlap of two literatures rather than a direct measurement of the construct | limitations[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Inclusion is restricted to whole-brain studies with reported coordinates in healthy right-handed subjects, so the pool is narrower than the literature. what this limits: the study population the result covers: WHOLE BRAIN ANALYSIS HAD TO BE USED AND ROI STUDIES WERE EXCLUDED, MNI OR TALAIRACH COORDINATES HAD TO BE PROVIDED, TASKS WERE LIMITED TO MATHEMATICS AND CREATIVITY, and subjects had to be healthy and right-handed | limitations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the paper imports the neuroimaging meta-analytic apparatus (coordinate-based ALE and MACM on fMRI data) into mathematics-education research in order to derive teaching strategies | transfers[0] | the tagger's words | |
| transfers | coordinate-based meta-analysis of fMRI activation, imported into education research to adjudicate a question behavioural methods could not settle | transfers[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| controls | cluster-level family-wise error correction at p < 0.05 with a voxel-forming threshold of p < 0.001 eliminates: false positives accumulated across every voxel tested - the same act as a look-elsewhere correction, converting a local significance into one that accounts for how many places were examined · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | mathematical creativity also in: mathematical creativity | concepts[0] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | creativity also in: creativity | concepts[1] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | working memory also in: working memory | concepts[2] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | frontoparietal network also in: frontoparietal network | concepts[3] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | inferior frontal gyrus also in: inferior frontal gyrus | concepts[4] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Activation Likelihood Estimation also in: Activation Likelihood Estimation | concepts[5] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | educational neuroscience also in: educational neuroscience | concepts[6] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| senses | creativity - general-domain: an ability that interacts with personality and environment to produce novel solutions to any problem | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | creativity - domain-specific: mathematical creativity as general creativity combined with mathematical ability, and therefore not the same object | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | creativity - as operationalised in the imaging literature: alternative-use, metaphor, riddle and improvisation tasks standing in for the construct | senses[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: existence a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: existence — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.claim_type | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | method: meta-analysis a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: meta-analysis — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.method | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | phenomenon: shared neural substrate of mathematical and creative task performance a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: mathematical creativity — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.phenomenon | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | replicates → Istomina and Arsalidou (2024), prior meta-analysis of mathematical brain regions | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Eickhoff et al. (2009), the ALE method | claim_relations[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Schoevers et al. (2020), mathematical creativity as general creativity plus domain ability | claim_relations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | RETRACTED (DIRECTION REVERSED BY ITS OWN SPAN, AND THE NAME IS WHY) · creativity —part-of→ mathematical creativity RETRACTED: DIRECTION REVERSED BY ITS OWN SPAN, AND THE NAME IS WHY. The compound name 'mathematical creativity' ending in 'creativity' suggests a subtype inside a wider class. The sentence says the opposite: mathematical creativity IS A COMBINATION OF general creativity plus mathematical ability, so general creativity is the part. THE MORPHOLOGY POINTED ONE WAY AND THE SENTENCE POINTS THE OTHER. — strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but it 'HAS BEEN SUGGESTED' that mathematical creativity combines general creativity and domain ability; part-of is hedged. also in: creativity · mathematical creativity | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | frontoparietal network —causes→ mathematical creativity strength of the relation: 0.9
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the analysis 'highlights the IMPORTANCE of' the frontoparietal network for mathematical creativity; causes is loose. also in: frontoparietal network · mathematical creativity | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | frontoparietal network —causes→ working memory strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the network is INVOLVED in working memory; causes overstates involvement. also in: frontoparietal network · working memory | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | coordinate-based meta-analysis also in: coordinate-based meta-analysis | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | activation likelihood estimation also in: activation likelihood estimation | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | permutation test with family-wise error cluster correction | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | contrast analysis (permutation-based) | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | meta-analytic connectivity modeling also in: meta-analytic connectivity modeling | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | meta-analysis also in: meta-analysis | content_tags.statistics[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | probability-distribution also in: probability-distribution | content_tags.statistics[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Mathematical tasks and creative tasks converge on two shared regions: the left inferior frontal gyrus and the left superior frontal gyrus. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Across 44 mathematics studies the ALE meta-analysis found consistent activation in bilateral inferior parietal lobule, left superior parietal lobule, left superior frontal gyrus, right and left medial frontal gyrus, bilateral insula and left precentral gyrus. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Across 56 creativity studies the consistent activations were left-lateralized: inferior frontal gyrus, middle frontal gyrus, superior frontal gyrus, middle occipital gyrus, middle temporal gyrus and inferior parietal lobule. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Mathematics tasks exceeded creativity tasks specifically in the precuneus, claustrum and superior parietal lobule. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Creativity tasks exceeded mathematics tasks specifically in the inferior frontal gyrus, inferior parietal lobule and middle frontal gyrus. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Meta-analytic connectivity modelling of the overlap regions showed that the frontoparietal network is the network implicated in mathematical creativity. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Left IFG and left SFG are active in both mathematical and creative tasks - the overlap the study was looking for. | content_tags.findings[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Connectivity modelling points to the frontoparietal network as the system behind mathematical creativity. | content_tags.findings[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The relationship between mathematics and creativity had not been examined explicitly in cognitive neuroscience before this. | content_tags.findings[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The evidence base pooled is 100 studies: 44 on mathematics, 56 on creativity. | content_tags.findings[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | creativity also in: creativity | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mathematical creativity also in: mathematical creativity | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Meta-Analytic Connectivity Modeling (MACM) | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mathematical creativity also in: mathematical creativity | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | creativity also in: creativity | content_tags.definitions[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | mathematical creativity also in: mathematical creativity | content_tags.definitions[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Activation Likelihood Estimation also in: Activation Likelihood Estimation | content_tags.definitions[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | activation likelihood also in: activation likelihood | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | whole brain analysis also in: whole brain analysis | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 44 papers on mathematics and 56 papers on creativity — number of primary fMRI studies entering the meta-analysis | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 958 foci ... 1,177 foci — activation coordinates pooled from the mathematics experiments and from the creativity experiments | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 1,000 permutations; FWE p < 0.05; voxel p < 0.001 — significance thresholds used for the single-domain ALE maps | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 5,000 permutations at p < 0.001 and a minimum volume of 50 mm 3 — thresholds used for the mathematics-versus-creativity contrast maps | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 9 regions — number of ALE-derived regions of interest carried forward as seeds into the MACM analysis | content_tags.quantities[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 44 mathematics papers, 56 creativity papers — size of the pooled evidence base | content_tags.quantities[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.