Recieved: 08/16/2016
Accepted: 09/02/2016
Published: 11/30/2016
p.: 98-114
DOI: 10.11621/npj.2016.0313
Keywords: brain asymmetry; mathematical ability; intermodal interaction; differential neuropsychology; lateralization
Available online: 30.11.2016
Kovyazina, M.S. , Khokhlov, N.A.. Lateral signs and their interaction as a factor in the severity of mathematical abilities in adolescence. // National Psychological Journal 2016. 3. p.98-114. doi: 10.11621/npj.2016.0313
Copied to Clipboard
CopyThe paper studies the connection of the lateral features in the manual, auditory, visual fields, and their interaction with the mathematical abilities in adolescence. The research involved 92 healthy people including 17 males and 75 females aged 15 to 25 years (18,7 ± 2,2), who do not major in mathematics. To measure the components of mathematical ability the standardized math test MAAGS-2015 to reveal arithmetic, algebraic, geometric abilities was used. Diagnosis of hemispherical asymmetry was performed using self-reports of manual asymmetry, M.Annette standardized questionnaire modification, samples of «Interlocking fingers,» «Napoleon’s Pose», «Applause», «Aiming», Rosenbach’s test and dichotic listening. When comparing the features with lateral components of mathematical ability to incorporate asymmetries possible interaction of different analyzers was considered.
The research results reveal that different lateral characteristics are significant predictors for the different components of mathematical abilities; some lateral symptoms are not related to mathematical ability. The greatest predictive power belongs to sensory asymmetries and their interaction. In general, the highest mathematical abilities are observed in patients with right and bilateral signs, left-sided symptoms often reveal negative predictors. The interaction asymmetries between different analyzers manifested in unequal due to the mathematical abilities indicators lateralization in the same field in different versions of lateralization in the other. Cross-lateralization in most cases is a negative predictor of mathematical abilities. The models based on the interaction between the lateral features allow to explain more than a quarter of the variability of the components of mathematical abilities. The predictive ability of these models is significantly higher than that of models with individual predictors.
Table. 1. Descriptive statistics of measured variables
№ |
Variable |
Type of Variable |
Descriptive Statistics |
N |
1 |
Self-Report |
categorical |
Right – 89.1%; Ambidextrous– 4.3%; Left – 6.5% |
92 |
2 |
M.Annette Questionnaire (modification) |
Metric (standardization) |
15.6±10.9 (-0.2682±0.8424) |
61 |
3 |
Interlocking fingers |
categorical |
Right – 40.6%; Left – 59.4% |
64 |
4 |
Napoleon's Pose |
categorical |
Right – 42.2%; Left – 57.8% |
64 |
5 |
Applause |
categorical |
Right – 60.9%; Ambidextrous –12.5%; Left – 26.6% |
64 |
6 |
Aiming |
categorical |
Right – 40.6%; Ambidextrous – 10.9%; Left – 48.4% |
64 |
7 |
Rosenbach’s Test |
categorical |
Right – 51.1%; Ambidextrous – 29.5%; Left – 19.3% |
88 |
8 |
REC (total) |
metric |
2.5±18.9 |
44 |
9 |
REC (1st series) |
metric |
4.5±30.8 |
38 |
10 |
REC (2nd series) |
metric |
0.4±20.4 |
38 |
11 |
EC-R (total) |
metric |
49.8±17.9 |
38 |
12 |
EC-R (1st series) |
metric |
50.3±20.9 |
38 |
13 |
EC-R (2nd series) |
metric |
49.4±17.3 |
38 |
14 |
EC-L (total) |
metric |
46.6±17 |
38 |
15 |
EC-L (1st series) |
metric |
45.1±18.8 |
38 |
16 |
EC-L (2nd series) |
metric |
48±18.4 |
38 |
17 |
Arithmetic Scale MAAGS-2015 Test |
Metric (standardization) |
4.2±1.8 (0.0868±0.9299) |
92 |
18 |
Algebra Scale MAAGS-2015 Test |
Metric (standardization) |
5.5±2.3 -0.0088±0.8547 |
92 |
19 |
Geometry Scale MAAGS-2015 Test |
Metric (standardization) |
3.8±1.8 -0.0327±0.9480 |
92 |
20 |
Mathematics Scale MAAGS-2015 Test |
Metric (standardization) |
13.5±4.7 0.0201±0.8710 |
92 |
21 |
Attention Scale MAAGS-2015 Test |
Metric (standardization) |
9.1±1.4 (-0.0386±0.8226) |
92 |
Table 2. Correlation of algebraic abilities to the Napoleon's Pose test results
Napoleon's Pose |
Value |
Standard Error |
t |
p |
Left |
-0.0378 |
0.1374 |
-0.275 |
0.784 |
Right |
0.3607 |
0.2115 |
1.705 |
0.0931 |
Multiple R2: 0.0448. adjusted R2: 0.0294. F (1. 62) = 2.909. p = 0.0931 |
Table 3. Correlation of algebraic abilities to the Rosenbach’s Test results
Rosenbach’s Test |
Value |
Standard Error |
t |
p |
Ambidextrous |
0.1329 |
0.168 |
0.791 |
0.431 |
Left |
-0.5136 |
0.2672 |
-1.922 |
0.058 |
Right |
-0.0934 |
0.2111 |
-0.442 |
0.659 |
Multiple R2: 0.0455. adjusted R2: 0.0231. F (2. 85) = 2.027. p = 0.138 |
Table 4. Correlation of geometric abilities to the Rosenbach’s Test results
Rosenbach’s Test |
Value |
Standard Error |
t |
p |
Ambidextrous |
-0.194 |
0.1813 |
-1.07 |
0.2877 |
Left |
-0.1468 |
0.2884 |
-0.509 |
0.612 |
Right |
0.39 |
0.2278 |
1.712 |
0.0905 |
Multiple R2: 0.06. adjusted R2: 0.0378. F (2. 85) = 2.711. p = 0.0723 |
Table 5. Correlation of attention performance to the Rosenbach’s Test results
Rosenbach’s Test |
Value |
Standard Error |
t |
p |
Ambidextrous |
0.2017 |
0.1575 |
1.281 |
0.2038 |
Left |
-0.6225 |
0.2505 |
-2.485 |
0.0149 |
Right |
-0.2975 |
0.1979 |
-1.503 |
0.1364 |
Multiple R2: 0.0686. adjusted R2: 0.0467. F (2. 85) = 3.132. p = 0.0487 |
Table 6. Correlation of the Napoleon's Pose Test results and the REC 1st series of dichotic listening (including interactions) with algebraic skills
Lateral Signs |
Value |
Standard Error |
t |
p |
Napoleon's Pose – Left REC (1st series) = 0 |
-0.0851 |
0.1725 |
-0.493 |
0.625 |
Napoleon's Pose – Right |
0.4527 |
0.2615 |
1.731 |
0.0925 |
REC (1st series) |
0.0103 |
0.0043 |
2.424 |
0.0208 |
Multiple R2: 0.21. adjusted R2: 0.1636. F (2. 34) = 4.52. p = 0.0182 |
Table 7. Correlation of the Napoleon's Pose Test results and the EC-R (total) (including interactions) with algebraic skills
Lateral Signs |
Value |
Standard Error |
t |
p |
Rosenbach’s Test – Ambidextrous Napoleon's Pose – Left EC-R (total) = 0 |
0.6172 |
0.6881 |
0.897 |
0.3769 |
Rosenbach’s Test – Left |
-2.3828 |
1.4343 |
-1.661 |
0.1071 |
Rosenbach’s Test – Right |
-2.139 |
0.83 |
-2.577 |
0.0151 |
Napoleon's Pose – Right |
0.5103 |
0.2572 |
1.984 |
0.0564 |
EC-R (total) |
-0.0077 |
0.0124 |
-0.626 |
0.5362 |
EC-R (total) Rosenbach’s Test – Left |
0.0383 |
0.0292 |
1.312 |
0.1994 |
EC-R (total) Rosenbach’s Test – Right |
0.0353 |
0.0153 |
2.312 |
0.0278 |
Multiple R2: 0.3704. adjusted R2: 0.2445. F (6. 30) = 2.942. p = 0.0223 |
Table 8. Correlation of the Rosenbach’s Test results and the REC (total) (including interactions) with geometric skills
Lateral Signs |
Value |
Standard Error |
t |
p |
Rosenbach’s Test – Ambidextrous REC (total) = 0 |
0.0765 |
0.2575 |
0.297 |
0.7681 |
Rosenbach’s Test – Left |
-0.3836 |
0.4149 |
-0.924 |
0.3611 |
Rosenbach’s Test – Right |
0.0556 |
0.3081 |
0.18 |
0.8577 |
REC (total) |
-0.0782 |
0.0259 |
-3.021 |
0.0045 |
REC (total) Rosenbach’s Test – Left |
0.0838 |
0.0331 |
2.537 |
0.0154 |
REC (total) Rosenbach’s Test – Right |
0.0964 |
0.027 |
3.579 |
0.001 |
Multiple R2: 0.3153. adjusted R2: 0.2252. F (5. 38) = 3.5. p = 0.0106 |
Table 9. Correlation of the Rosenbach’s Test/ Napoleon's Pose Test results and the REC (total) (including interactions) with mathematical skills
Lateral Signs |
Value |
Standard Error |
t |
p |
Rosenbach’s Test – Ambidextrous Napoleon's Pose – Left REC (total) = 0 |
0.2525 |
0.2627 |
0.961 |
0.3429 |
Rosenbach’s Test – Left |
-0.6999 |
0.3681 |
-1.901 |
0.0653 |
Rosenbach’s Test – Right |
-0.3219 |
0.2772 |
-1.161 |
0.2531 |
Napoleon's Pose – Right |
0.5209 |
0.2355 |
2.212 |
0.0334 |
REC (total) |
-0.0358 |
0.0229 |
-1.566 |
0.126 |
REC (total) Rosenbach’s Test – Left |
0.0337 |
0.0298 |
1.132 |
0.2653 |
REC (total) Rosenbach’s Test – Right |
0.0524 |
0.0238 |
2.204 |
0.034 |
Multiple R2: 0.3367. adjusted R2: 0.2262. F (3. 36) = 3.046. p = 0.0163 |
Table 10. Correlation of the Rosenbach’s Test/ Napoleon's Pose Test results and the EC-R 1st series of dichotic listening (including interactions) with mathematical skills
Lateral signs |
Value |
Standard Error |
t |
p |
Rosenbach’s Test – Ambidextrous Napoleon's Pose – Left EC-R (1st series) = 0 |
0.202 |
0.5821 |
0.347 |
0.731 |
Rosenbach’s Test – Left |
-0.3051 |
1.1133 |
-0.274 |
0.7859 |
Rosenbach’s Test – Right |
-1.5 |
0.6897 |
-2.175 |
0.0376 |
Napoleon's Pose – Right |
0.6889 |
0.2417 |
2.85 |
0.0078 |
EC-R (1st series) |
-0.0028 |
0.01 |
-0.274 |
0.786 |
EC-R (1st series) Rosenbach’s Test – Left |
-0.006 |
0.0215 |
-0.28 |
0.7817 |
EC-R (1st series) Rosenbach’s Test – Right |
0.0274 |
0.0123 |
2.222 |
0.034 |
Multiple R2: 0.4066. adjusted R2: 0.2879. F (6. 30) = 3.426. p = 0.0107 |
Table 11. Correlation of the Rosenbach’s Test/ Napoleon's Pose test results and the EC-R 1st series of dichotic listening (including interactions) with arithmetical skills
Lateral signs |
Value |
Standard Error |
t |
p |
Rosenbach’s Test – Ambidextrous Napoleon's Pose – Left EC-R (1st series) = 0 |
-0.7077 |
0.4649 |
-1.522 |
0.1385 |
Rosenbach’s Test – Left |
0.1608 |
0.5101 |
0.315 |
0.7548 |
Rosenbach’s Test – Right |
-0.0588 |
0.3968 |
-0.148 |
0.8833 |
Napoleon's Pose – Right |
0.962 |
0.4734 |
2.032 |
0.0511 |
EC-R (1st series) |
0.0132 |
0.0064 |
2.071 |
0.0471 |
Rosenbach’s Test – Left Napoleon's Pose – Right |
-1.9069 |
0.769 |
-2.48 |
0.019 |
Rosenbach’s Test – Right Napoleon's Pose – Right |
-0.2865 |
0.6006 |
-0.477 |
0.6368 |
Multiple R2: 0.4066. adjusted R2: 0.2879. F (6. 30) = 3.426. p = 0.0107 |
Table 12. Correlation of the Rosenbach’s Test test results and the EC-R 1st series of dichotic listening (including interactions) with attention skills
Lateral signs |
Value |
Standard Error |
t |
p |
Rosenbach’s Test – Ambidextrous EC-R (1st series) = 0 |
1.0676 |
0.571 |
1.87 |
0.0707 |
Rosenbach’s Test – Left |
-3.0364 |
1.0888 |
-2.789 |
0.0088 |
Rosenbach’s Test – Right |
-1.1686 |
0.6871 |
-1.701 |
0.0987 |
EC-R (1st series) |
-0.0142 |
0.01 |
-1.409 |
0.1685 |
EC-R (1st series) Rosenbach’s Test – Left |
0.0517 |
0.021 |
2.468 |
0.0191 |
EC-R (1st series) Rosenbach’s Test – Right |
0.0194 |
0.0123 |
1.581 |
0.1238 |
Multiple R2: 0.214. adjusted R2: 0.0911. F (5. 32) = 1.742. p = 0.1534 |
Table 13. Correlation of the Rosenbach’s Test results and M.Annette Questionnaire modification (including interactions) with attention skills
Lateral signs |
Value |
Standard Error |
t |
p |
Rosenbach’s Test – Ambidextrous M.Annette Questionnaire = 0 |
0.2833 |
0.196 |
1.446 |
0.1539 |
Rosenbach’s Test – Left |
-0.5869 |
0.2867 |
-2.047 |
0.0454 |
Rosenbach’s Test – Right |
-0.0572 |
0.235 |
-0.243 |
0.8087 |
M.Annette Questionnaire |
-0.2599 |
0.1935 |
-1.343 |
0.1848 |
M.Annette Questionnaire Rosenbach’s Test – Left |
0.0594 |
0.314 |
0.189 |
0.8506 |
M.Annette Questionnaire Rosenbach’s Test – Right |
0.7422 |
0.2489 |
2.982 |
0.0043 |
Multiple R2: 0.2346. adjusted R2: 0.1651. F (5. 55) = 3.372. p = 0.001 |
Table 14. Influence of visual and auditory asymmetry match on the MAAGS 2015 Test results
MAAGS-2015 Test Scale |
Asymmetry Match (N = 18) |
Asymmetry Mismatch (N = 26) |
F (1. 42) |
p |
R2 |
Attention |
0.1638±0.7534 |
0.0031±0.8011 |
0.449 |
0.507 |
|
Arithmetics |
0.7178±0.7739 |
-0.2213±0.8273 |
14.436 |
0.0005 |
0.2558 |
Algebra |
0.4166±0.7832 |
-0.0625±0.886 |
3.412 |
0.0717 |
0.0752 |
Geometry |
0.3911±0.7544 |
-0.2695±1.0024 |
5.602 |
0.0226 |
0.1177 |
Mathematics |
0.619±0.6339 |
-0.177±0.7924 |
12.562 |
0.001 |
0.2302 |
Table 15. Influence of visual and manual asymmetry match on the MAAGS 2015 Test results
MAAGS-2015 Test Scale |
Asymmetry Match (N = 31) |
Asymmetry Mismatch (N = 30) |
F (1. 59) |
p |
R2 |
Attention |
0.2312±0.699 |
-0.0965±0.8305 |
2.788 |
0.1 |
|
Arithmetics |
0.2538±0.8344 |
0.047±0.9599 |
0.808 |
0.372 |
|
Algebra |
0.2801±0.7337 |
-0.0769±0.957 |
2.684 |
0.107 |
|
Geometry |
0.222±0.8636 |
-0.3406±0.9655 |
5.761 |
0.0196 |
0.089 |
Mathematics |
0.3243±0.7225 |
-0.113±0.8715 |
4.564 |
0.0368 |
0.0718 |
Annett, M., & Kilshow, D. (1982) Mathematical ability and lateral asymmetry. Cortex, Vol. 18 (46), 547-568. doi: 10.1016/S0010-9452(82)80053-1
Arshavskiy, V.V. (2001) The differences that unite us (Studies of population mechanisms of asymmetry). Riga, Pedagogicheskiy tsentr Eksperiment, 234.
Aydarkin, E.K., & Fomina, A.S. (2013) Neurophysiological mechanisms of complex arithmetic task solving. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience. Vol. 12 (1), 73-89. doi: 10.1142/S0219635213500088
Fomina, E.V. (2006) Functional brain asymmetry and adaptation to extreme sports loads. Omsk, Izdatel’stvo SibGUFK, 196.
Khomskaya, E.D. (2010) Neuropsychology: A Textbook for high schools. 4th ed. SPb, Piter, 496.
Khomskaya, E.D., & Efimova, I.V. (1991) On the typology of individual profiles of asymmetry of the brain. [Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta]. Series 14. Psikhologiya, 4, 42-47.
Khomskaya, E.D., Efimova, IV, Budyka, E.V., & Yenikolopov, E.V. (2011) Neuropsychology of individual differences: manual for higher school. Moscow, Izdatel’skiy tsentr «Akademiya», 160.
Khokhlov, N.A. (2014) Functional brain asymmetry and components of mathematical abilities in
higher
Kovyazina, M.S. , Khokhlov, N.A..
Lateral signs and their interaction as a factor in the severity of mathematical abilities in adolescence. // National Psychological Journal
2016. 3. p.98-114. doi: 10.11621/npj.2016.0313 Copied to Clipboard