| Title |
Math anxiety: A review of its cognitive consequences, psychophysiological correlates, and brain bases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13415-015-0370-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Macarena Suárez-Pellicioni, María Isabel Núñez-Peña, Àngels Colomé |
| Abstract |
A decade has passed since the last published review of math anxiety, which was carried out by Ashcraft and Ridley (2005). Given the considerable interest aroused by this topic in recent years and the growing number of publications related to it, the present article aims to provide a full and updated review of the field, ranging from the initial studies of the impact of math anxiety on numerical cognition, to the latest research exploring its electrophysiological correlates and brain bases from a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Finally, this review describes the factors and mechanisms that have been claimed to play a role in the origins and/or maintenance of math anxiety, and it examines in detail the main explanations proposed to account for the negative effects of math anxiety on performance: competition for working memory resources, a deficit in a low-level numerical representation, and inhibition/attentional control deficit. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 33% |
| Finland | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 443 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 436 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 79 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 58 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 52 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 31 | 7% |
| Researcher | 27 | 6% |
| Other | 80 | 18% |
| Unknown | 116 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 136 | 31% |
| Mathematics | 52 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 45 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 18 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 51 | 12% |
| Unknown | 133 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,463,251
of 25,826,146 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#68
of 1,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,189
of 276,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,826,146 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,688 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.