Cognitive Brain Research 20 (2004) 183 – 193

www.elsevier.com/locate/cogbrainres

Research report
Facts, rules, and strategies in single-digit multiplication:
evidence from event-related brain potentials
Kerstin Jost *, Ulrike Beinhoff, Erwin Hennighausen, Frank Rösler
Experimental and Biological Psychology, Department of Psychology, Philipps-University of Marburg, Gutenbergstrasse 18, Marburg D-35032, Germany
Accepted 27 February 2004

Available online 14 April 2004

Abstract

It has been hypothesized that zero vs. nonzero operands in single-digit multiplication problems invoke distinct solution strategies. We
studied such problems in an implicit production task with event-related brain potentials (ERPs) recorded from 61 scalp positions in 18
participants. The topography of a slow negative wave, which accompanied the implicit production of the multiplication result, varied with
problem type. In comparison to small problems, larger problems evoked a stronger negativity over fronto-central and right temporal sites, and
zero problems evoked a left anterior negativity. These topographic differences indicate not only that zero and small nonzero problems are
solved by means of distinct strategies—most likely rule application vs. fact retrieval—but also that larger, less practiced problems invoke
other processes than pure fact retrieval. Moreover, ERPs showed a positive deflection around 450 ms with a centro-parietal topography
(P300), whose amplitude reflected differences in anticipated problem difficulty.
D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Theme: Neural basis of behavior

Topic: Cognition

Keywords: Mental calculation; Multiplication facts; Problem size effect; Rule application; Slow waves; P300

1. Introduction operand, which can be solved immediately irrespective of

It is widely accepted that single-digit multiplication
problems are stored as facts in long-term memory, repre-
senting the associative structure of operands, problems, and
solutions (for review, see Refs. [3,4]). LeFevre et al.
showed that fact retrieval can account for 80% of the
solutions of simple addition and multiplication problems,
while other strategies (e.g., decomposition into simpler
memorized facts) are applied only if immediate retrieval
fails [28,29]. However, there are some other exceptions.
Multiplications involving zero must not necessarily be
solved by fact retrieval because the corresponding result
can be generated by applying a rule (i.e., n  0 = n). This is
easily demonstrated by any multiplication with a zero
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-6421-2822160; fax: +49-6421-
2828948.
E-mail addresses: jost@staff.uni-marburg.de (K. Jost),
roesler@staff.uni-marburg.de (F. Rösler).
URL: http://www.staff.uni-marburg.de/~cablab/.
its size (e.g., 758  0). Further evidence for a distinction
between ‘‘rule-based’’ and ‘‘retrieval-based’’ multiplications
has been provided by double dissociations observed in
brain-damaged patients with calculation impairments
[36,44]. Sokol et al. described a patient whose performance
on fact-retrieval problems was not uniform. Error rates and
the time course of improvement varied for problems with-
out zero. In contrast, all multiplication problems with zero
were equally impaired at the beginning but improved
suddenly at the same moment and to the same extent. This
suggests that an impairment of a general rule affected the
performance on all problems with zero.
Although there is little doubt that some multiplication
problems can be solved by applying the zero rule, the
empirical evidence for how multiplications with a zero
operand are actually solved is sparse and somewhat contra-
dictory. Stazyk et al. [46] (see also Ref. [35]), for example,
found that verification times of n  0 problems were un-
usually long and error-prone compared to problems without
zero, although the zero problems were uniformly rated as

0926-6410/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.02.005
184 K. Jost et al. / Cognitive Brain Research 20 (2004) 183–193
less difficult than nonzero problems. Thus, the authors
concluded that zero problems are solved by applying the
appropriate rule, rather than by directly retrieving the result.
Rule knowledge might be less well established and therefore
its activation might take longer than fact retrieval. However,
in production tasks, response latencies are usually found to
be faster for zero than for nonzero problems [22,28,32]. This
discrepancy may be due to processing differences between
production and verification. While production problems
require full retrieval of the result, verification problems
can be solved without producing the solution [49]. Instead,
some sort of familiarity or plausibility judgment seems often
used to decide whether the equation is valid or not (see also
Ref. [9]). It could be that these processes caused the
disadvantage of the n  0 problems in the Stazyk et al.
study. However, even if only production tasks are consid-
ered, response times (RTs) are inconclusive with respect to
the solution strategy invoked by zero problems. LeFevre et
al. [28], for example, collected introspective reports in a
production task and found that rule application and fact
retrieval both resulted in fast and correct responses to zero
problems.
However, it is not only claimed that distinct solution
strategies are possibly used for zero vs. nonzero prob-
lems, or for zero problems if they are embedded in
different tasks. Recent studies provided evidence that
single-digit multiplications without zero are also not
necessarily always solved by one and the same strategy
(Refs. [28,43]; for a comparable finding with addition
problems, see Ref. [29]). In these studies, participants
solved simple arithmetic problems in a reaction time task
and gave immediate verbal reports on the type of strategy
they had used for producing the result. In contrast to
existing theories, which state that direct memory retrieval
is the one and only procedure to access the result of
single-digit problems (e.g., Ref. [7]; for review, see Refs.
[3,4]), participants reported substantial use of nonretrieval
strategies, such as repeated addition, number series gen-
eration, and retrieval of derived facts. For example, the
problem 8  7 can be solved by retrieving 7  7 and then
adding seven to the intermediate result, ‘‘49’’. Typically,
these backup strategies involve multiple steps, including
retrieval of well-known facts and applications of compu-
tational principles, presumably the reason why most of
them are more time-consuming than simple, immediate
fact retrieval [28].
LeFevre et al. found that procedures other than direct
retrieval are more often used if larger operands (e.g.,
78), compared to smaller operands (e.g., 23), are
involved ([28,43]; for comparable findings with addition
and division problems, see Refs. [27,29]). Furthermore,
the authors could show that the well-established problem-
size effect (i.e., an increase of RT with increasing size of
the operands; e.g., see Refs. [8,32,46]) can be reduced
dramatically if problems that invoke some nonretrieval
strategy are eliminated. This finding contradicts theories
(e.g., Ref. [7]; for review, see Ref. [3]) that attribute the
problem size effect to differences in the accessibility of
results (e.g., due to differences in the frequency of
problem usage) [1,2].
All in all, there is good reason to assume that single-
digit multiplication problems are not only solved by pure
fact retrieval, but that other strategies are used as well. To
date, however, the empirical evidence of which problem
is solved with which strategy is inconclusive. As outlined,
findings with response times are inconsistent and, to some
degree, task-dependent. Self-reports, on the other hand,
are very suggestive, but their validity is questionable.
Kirk and Ashcraft [22], for example, demonstrated that
strategy reports for simple addition and multiplication
problems are partially dependent on instructions. More-
over, self-reports can change the behavior of some indi-
viduals (see Ref. [43]). Brain imaging studies (e.g., Refs.
[10,25]) also addressed the question of whether arithmetic
problems invoke distinct solution processes, but so far,
single-digit multiplication problems involving zero and
nonzero, or small and large operands, were not analyzed
systematically with this approach. To get more insight
into whether multiplications with small and large or with
zero operands invoke different solution strategies, we
recorded event-related brain potentials (ERPs). ERPs are
on-line measures of brain activity, which reflect timing,
extent, and quality of processing mechanisms before an
overt response is observed (e.g., see Ref. [40]). Previous
studies demonstrated that ERPs could be successfully
used to delineate the associative network structure of
arithmetic knowledge [20,33,34], distinct processes during
mental calculation [21], or strategy variations in verifying
complex inequalities [14].
In the present study, the production of a multiplication
result was embedded in a chain calculation problem—a
sequence of simple calculations had to be performed and a
final result, presented at the very end of the sequence, had to
be verified (e.g., 3  5 + 2 = 17). The advantage of such a
procedure is twofold. First, participants must implicitly
produce the interim result of the multiplication problem
before they can go on with the next calculation step. This
prevents, as can happen in one-step verification problems
(e.g., 3  5 = 16), that a decision is based on some sort of
plausibility judgment without invoking production of the
result (see Refs. [9,49]). Second, the multiplication result
has to be produced implicitly (i.e., without any overt
response) and this prevents movement artifacts in the
electroencephalogram (EEG) recording, as they are most
likely in one-step production tasks with an immediate verbal
response.
Three types of multiplications—problems with small or
large nonzero operands and problems with one zero oper-
and—were compared with a control condition not involving
any type of mental calculation proper. In this condition, the
operands of the first problem had to be stored only and one
of the operands had to be used for another addition or
 K. Jost et al. / Cognitive Brain Research 20 (2004) 183–193
subtraction.1 This provides an ‘‘active’’ baseline because the
operands must be perceived and stored in each multiplica-
tion condition as well. Thus, computing the differences
between multiplication conditions and the storage condition
should reveal the net effects due to different solution
strategies.
We analyzed two ERP phenomena: the P300 component
and a subsequent slow negative wave evoked in the pro-
duction phase. P300 is an endogenous positive component
occurring approximately 300 – 600 ms after stimulus onset
that reflects higher-level cognitive processes such as event
categorization [13,19]. Among others, the amplitude of
P300 reflects variations in anticipated task difficulty: stimuli
which notify a subjectively more demanding task elicit
larger amplitudes [5,48]. Slow negative waves accompany
almost any cognitive processing with two interesting fea-
tures: their topographic maximum is determined by the
modality and the type of task; for instance, linguistic tasks
evoke a left anterior maximum and spatial tasks elicit a
parietal maximum, and their amplitude reflects processing
effort, that is, larger negativities are evoked by more
difficult tasks) [38]. There is also strong evidence that slow
negative waves reflect a relative increase of excitatory
postsynaptic potentials within cortical cell assemblies [6].
Thus, slow negative waves indicate to what extent identical
or distinct neural cell assemblies are recruited during a
particular processing episode.
Differences between calculation strategies should be-
come manifest in the ERPs as follows: if the three con-
ditions—problems with zero, and small and large problems
without zero—are inherently categorized as varying in
subjective difficulty, then an amplitude modulation of the
P300 should be observed. More specifically, all multiplica-
tion conditions should evoke larger amplitude than the
storage condition and the amplitude should be largest for
the nonzero problems with large operands.
1 monetary compensation.
As shown by Ref. [26], arithmetic facts may be activated
automatically by a set of two digits, even if participants are not explicitly
asked to perform a calculation. In Ref. [26], subjects were shown pairs of
numbers (e.g., 3 + 2) that were replaced, after a variable SOA, by a target
number. Subjects were required to decide whether the target number was
one of the numbers in the initial pair, referred to as number-matching task.
LeFevre and Kulak found that subjects were slower to respond ‘‘no’’ when
the target was the sum of the pair (e.g., 3 + 2 = 5) than when it was unrelated
to the pair (e.g., 4). Thus, our storage condition could have caused a similar
automatic activation of multiplication results, although the two digits were
not shown together with a multiplication sign in this condition.
However, even if such an effect was present in our control condition, it
was of minor importance because the interference effect observed in Ref.
[26] only occurred at very short SOAs (i.e., 40 and 60 ms), indicating that
automatically activated results are very short-lived. Since the implicit
production of the multiplication results took much longer than 60 ms in our
study (see response times of Experiment I) and the main ERP differences
between multiplication and storage also appeared much later in time (not
earlier than 300 ms after problem presentation), it seems very unlikely that
such an automatic spread of activation effect will have contaminated the
contrasts of the multiplication problems with the control (storage)
condition.
185
Distinct solution strategies—rule application for zero,
fact retrieval for nonzero small problems, and backup
strategies for nonzero large problems, respectively—should
become apparent in distinct topographies of the negative
slow waves accompanying production proper. We expected
one topographic difference between rule-based and retriev-
al-based problems and another one between retrieval-based
problems involving small and large operands.
We ran two studies: a behavioral study (Experiment I)
and an ERP study (Experiment II). In the behavioral study,
the timing of the event sequences was partially controlled by
the participants: they saw the first part of the problem
sequence (e.g., 34) and indicated with a finger movement
when they had implicitly generated the solution to the
multiplication problem and felt ready for the next operation
(e.g., + 2). This allowed for an estimation of the implicit
production times of the different problem types. We
expected that responses are shorter for zero than for nonzero
problems, and that they show the typical problem-size effect
for nonzero problems (i.e., longer RTs for larger problems
than for smaller problems).
The estimate of the longest implicit production time was
then used in the ERP study to specify a constant interval
between the multiplication and the next operation, which
was long enough to avoid any interference between the two
operations.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Participants
Students of the University of Marburg were recruited for
the behavioral and the ERP study. All were right-handed,
native speakers of German, had normal or corrected-to-
normal vision, and were naive with respect to the purpose of
the study. They received either course credit points or a
Thirteen students participated in the behavioral study.
One participant had to be excluded because of too many
errors. The final sample comprised data from 12 participants
(nine women) with a mean age of 25 years (range 20 – 34
years).
Twenty-one students took part in the ERP study, none of
whom had participated in the behavioral study. Three
participants had to be excluded because of too many EEG
recording artifacts. The final sample comprised data from
nine women and nine men. The mean age was 23 years
(range 18– 27 years).
2.2. Materials
Operands ranging from 2 to 9 (ties were excluded; e.g.,
3  3) were combined to form 56 multiplication problems
without zero. Two levels of problem size were defined, each
containing 28 problems: Problems with both operands V 5
186 K. Jost et al. / Cognitive Brain Research 20 (2004) 183–193
(products ranging from 6 to 20) were classified as small;
problems with both operands >5 (products ranging from 42
to 72) were classified as large (for a similar classification,
see Refs. [21,49]). Mixed problems with one operand V5
and one operand >5 (e.g., 38 or 56) were defined as
small if they contained either a 2 or a 5. Thus, all problems
with 2 and 5 were defined as small. This classification is
based on the observation that in several response time
studies, problems with 2 were found to be solved faster
than other problems and that problems with 5 show a
latency advantage relative to other problems of the same
magnitude (e.g., Refs. [8,27]). In a previous study, this
classification had provided a reliable problem-size effect,
in both RTs and ERPs (Ref. [20]; for a similar classification,
see Ref. [9]).2
Another 16 problems were constructed from the same
digits by setting one operand to zero (n  0 or 0  n). All
operand combinations were also used for the storage con-
dition. Each problem was repeated seven times in the
multiplication and in the storage condition. In total, there
were 1008 trials. The additional, subsequent operation was
either an addition or a subtraction by 1, 2, or 3. Incorrect
solutions in the verification task ( p = 0.50) were realized by
adding or subtracting 1, 2, or 3 from the correct result.
2.3. Design and procedure
Participants sat in a recording chamber in front of a
computer screen located at eye level at a distance of 70 cm.
Numeric characters (vertical size 0.9 cm) were presented in
black within a white rectangle in the center of the screen on
a light-gray background. In the behavioral study, a trial
started with a rectangle in the center of the screen in which
the first operand appeared on its left side 1000 ms later. The
next frame was presented another 500 ms later, and added
the second operand on the right side of the rectangle and the
operation sign in the center. Storage was indicated by ‘‘!’’
and multiplication by ‘‘  ’’. After another 500 ms, both
digits disappeared and the operation sign remained visible
during the ‘‘production phase.’’ The participants had to
indicate with a finger response when they had generated
the result and felt ready for the next operation. With this
procedure, solution times were measured and an appropriate
interval could be defined for the ERP study. The stimulus
sequence was continued by the presentation of the addition-
2
In other studies, multiplication problems were categorized with
respect to the size of the product irrespective of the size of the operands,
that is, all products <25 were classified as small, all >25. However, there is
some evidence that all multiples of 2 and all multiples of 5 show a response
time advantage even if the second operand is >5. Therefore, we used the
outlined classification procedure because we think that it separates easy and
more difficult problems better. Following the recommendation of one
reviewer, we reanalyzed the response times and the ERPs by using the more
traditional classification, with the cutoff set at 25. Surprisingly, this
reclassification provided almost identical results as found with our
classification.
al operation for 600 ms. In the storage condition, the
position of the third operand indicated which of the two
stored digits should be used. Presentation on the left side of
the rectangle indicated to add/subtract on basis of the first,
left-sided operand, and presentation on the right side indi-
cated to use the second, right-sided operand. The additional
operation was followed by a blank screen of 200 ms, and the
final result was presented until a response was given, or for
a maximum of 1100 ms. The intertrial interval varied
randomly between 2 and 3 s.
Participants were instructed either to multiply or to store
the first two operands and to indicate when result production
was finished. This and the verification response had to be
given by a brief upward finger movement, which interrupted
a light gate. Allocation of the index fingers to the two
response alternatives in the verification task was varied
systematically across participants. Delayed and incorrect
responses were fed back and excluded from further analysis.
Stimulus presentation in the ERP study was identical with
one exception. Participants had a fixed interval to produce the
result of the multiplication task or to store the two operands:
the operation sign was presented for 2800 ms (see Fig. 1),
which is equivalent to the maximum RT observed in the
behavioral study. The following additional operation and
the verification task were as described for the behavioral study.
In both studies, trials were presented in 28 blocks (with
36 trials each), with multiplication and storage trials appear-
ing equally often within one block. A new randomized trial
Fig. 1. Event sequence of a trial, grand average ERPs, and measurement
epochs. A trial started with a rectangle in which the first operand appeared
on its left side followed by the second operand on the right and the
operation sign in the center. From this point on, participants had 3300 ms to
produce the result of the multiplication problem, or to store the two
operands. After the production phase, an additional operation was presented
and followed by the final result, which had to be verified. Shading shows
where the positivity and the slow negative wave were measured (i.e.,
relative to the presentation of the second operand, between 300 and 600 ms
and between 900 and 3100 ms, respectively). Negativity is up in this figure
and in the following figure.
 K. Jost et al. / Cognitive Brain Research 20 (2004) 183–193
sequence was created for each participant with the restric-
tion that no operand combination was repeated within a
block. Participants received some practice trials in advance
in order to familiarize themselves with the task. An oblig-
atory break of at least 20 s separated the blocks, which could
be prolonged by moving both fingers out of the light gate.
Participants were advised to use the short breaks for
recreation. A longer break was inserted after approximately
half of the blocks. In total, the experiments took about 2.5
h (plus about 1.5 h of electrode montage in the ERP study).
2.4. EEG recording, artifact handling, and signal extraction
The EEG was recorded with Ag/AgCl electrodes from 61
locations and referenced to the nose tip. Additional electro-
des were attached at the outer canthi of both eyes and the
suborbital and supraorbital ridges of the left eye for hori-
zontal and vertical EOG monitoring. The left mastoid served
as ground. Impedances were always kept below 7 kV.
Bandpass of the amplifier system (SYNAMPS; Neuro-
Scan) ranged from DC to 40 Hz and the signals were
digitized with 200 Hz. A DC reset was initiated automati-
cally prior to the beginning of each experimental block.
Trials containing eye blinks were detected by wavelet
analysis and corrected using a linear interpolation algorithm.
Drift artifacts were corrected by a regression method [17].
ERPs were extracted by averaging trials separately for
subjects, electrodes, and experimental conditions, and were
based on a minimum of 90 trials each.
2.5. Dependent variables and statistical analysis
2.5.1. Behavioral data (Experiment I)
Mean response times were computed for each participant
and experimental condition. Trials with response times
shorter than 200 ms and larger than 10000 ms were
excluded. This procedure eliminated less than 1% of the
trials.
2.5.2. EEG data (Experiment II)
Two intervals were defined to analyze the positive
deflection and the slow negative wave in the production
phase (see Fig. 1). P300 was measured between 300 and 600
ms by computing the average amplitudes of 10 consecutive
time windows of 30 ms width. The slow negative wave was
measured between 900 and 3100 ms by means of 11 average
amplitudes, each covering 200 ms. The measures were
referenced to a baseline of 100 ms preceding the onset of
the first operand (see Fig. 1).
To avoid an inflation of the degrees of freedom in the
analysis of interactions with factor electrode, we selected 17
standard electrodes: frontal (FPz, F7, F3, Fz, F4, F8), central
(C3, Cz, C4), temporal (T3, T5, T4, T6), parietal (P3, Pz,
P4), and occipital (Oz). Moreover, the analysis of P300
effects was restricted to Pz and surrounding electrodes (P3,
P4, C3, Cz, C4) because the P300 is known to have a
187
centro-parietal maximum. This was also confirmed by a first
inspection of the data.
ERP effects were tested with repeated-measures
ANOVAs with factors measurement epoch (10 and 11
levels), electrode (6 and 17 levels), and problem type (4
levels). The four levels of problem type were given by zero
problems, small and large problems without zero, and the
storage condition. Storage with small, large, and zero
operands was combined because a first analysis had not
revealed any differences between them, neither for the P300
nor for the slow negative wave. A superordinate ANOVA
comprising all three factors revealed a significant triple
interaction, which justified more detailed analyses. To avoid
an increase in the likelihood of type I errors, all further tests
were guided by the following hierarchical constraints:
‘Local’ ANOVAs for one measurement epoch at one elec-
trode were computed only if the particular electrode had
shown a significant Epoch  Problem Type interaction and
the particular measurement epoch had shown a significant
Electrode  Problem Type interaction in superordinate
ANOVAs. Thus, the number of local tests was restricted
in advance. Amplitude differences were considered as
reliable only if at least two consecutive time windows had
signaled significance ( p < 0.05) for the particular effect. F-
statistics were corrected according to the formulas of Huynh
and Feldt [18]. The uncorrected degrees of freedom, the
corrected p value, and the respective epsilon values are
reported.
To compare the topographies of slow negativity,
ANOVAs were also run with z-standardized scores such
that mean and variance across electrodes were equalized for
experimental conditions and subjects. The standardization
permits evaluation of pure topographic differences between
conditions that are not caused by amplitude or variance
differences (see Refs. [30,47]).
3. Results
3.1. Experiment I: behavioral data
Response times showed a reliable problem-size effect.
The implicit production took longer for larger (mean 1344
ms; S.D. F708 ms) than for smaller problems (841F277
ms; F(1,11)=11.55, p=0.0059). Moreover, multiplications
with zero (690F185 ms) were solved faster than both small
[ F( 1,11 )= 16. 01 , p =0 .00 21 ] a nd large pro bl e m s
[F(1,11)=14.20, p=0.0032]. The average time for the storage
condition amounted to 744(F199) ms with no differences
between zero, small, or large digits.
3.2. Experiment II: ERPs
Grand average ERPs in the production phase (starting
with the onset of the second operand and the operation sign)
are presented in Fig. 2. As can be seen, both ERP phenom-
188 K. Jost et al. / Cognitive Brain Research 20 (2004) 183–193

Fig. 2. Grand average ERPs for the four problem types in the production phase for a selected set of frontal (F7, Fz, F8), central and parietal (Cz, Pz), and
temporal electrodes (T3, T4, T5, T6). The figure shows the amplitude modulation of the centro-parietal positivity (maximum at Pz) between 300 and 600 ms
and of the subsequent slow negativity. The second operand and the operation sign were presented at time 0 s. ERPs were referenced to a 100-ms-long baseline
(between 600 and 500 ms).

ena of interest, the P300 and the subsequent slow wave,
were affected by the experimental conditions.
3.2.1. P300
All four conditions evoked a phasic positivity with a
clear centro-parietal maximum around 450 ms (see Fig. 2).
Latency and topography qualify this component as P300
[19]. The amplitude of the positive peak measured at Pz was
systematically affected between 390 and 600 ms by factor
problem type [minF(3,51) = 5.82, p = 0.0076, e = 0.6356;
maxF(3,51) = 20.25, p < 0.0001, e = 0.7439]. As is obvious
from Fig. 2, the amplitude is smallest for storage, interme-
diate for multiplication problems with zero, and largest for
multiplication problems without zero. Post-hoc tests
revealed significant amplitude differences between storage
and multiplications with zero between 450 and 600 ms
[minF(1,17) = 4.71, p = 0.0444; maxF(1,17) = 8.78,
p = 0.0087]. The amplitude was also significantly smaller
for multiplications with zero than for multiplications with-
out zero between 390 and 570 ms [minF(1,17) = 8.09,
p = 0.0112; maxF(1,17) = 46.90, p < 0.0001]. Amplitude dif-
ferences are not restricted to electrode Pz. Surrounding
electrodes (i.e., P3, P4, Cz, and C4; see Cz in Fig. 2) also
show reliable differences between storage and multiplication
with zero between 450 and 570 ms [minF(1, 17) = 4.53,
p = 0.0483; maxF(1,17) = 8.70, p = 0.0090] and between
multiplication with and without zero between 390 and 480
[minF(1,17) = 4.51, p = 0.0486; maxF(1,17) = 20.90,
p = 0.0003]. Problem size did not affect the amplitude of
the positivity.
3.2.2. Slow negative wave
The positivity was followed by a sustained negativity with
an initial phasic maximum at frontal and temporal electrodes
and a subsequent gradual increase at central to occipital sites.
Problem type affected the amplitude and topography of this
negativity significantly. The negativity was most pronounced
for large problems, least pronounced for storage, and
intermediate for small and zero problems. This is substan-
tiated by a significant main effect of problem type between
900 and 2700 ms [minF(3,51) = 3.11, p = 0.0343, e = 1;
maxF(3,51) = 7.64, p = 0.0004, e = 0.9080]. Pairwise post-
hoc tests for the mentioned time epoch revealed that the
average amplitudes for large problems differ significantly
from that of small problems (between 1100 and 2700 ms),
zero problems (between 1100 and 1500 ms), and storage
[between 900 and 2700 ms; minF(1,17) = 4.91, p = 0.0407;
maxF(1,17) = 12.77, p = 0.0023, for the mentioned con-
trasts]. The difference between storage and multiplications
with zero proved to be reliable between 1100 and 2300 ms
[minF(1,17) = 3.21, p = 0.0911; maxF(1,17) = 8.24,
p = 0.0106].
Beside these main effects, factor problem type inter-
acted with factor electrode for the entire measurement
epoch [minF(48,816) = 2.87, p = 0.0006, e = 0.2851;
maxF(48,816) = 4.89, p < 0.0001, e = 0.2730], indicating
distinct scalp distributions of the negativity for the various
problem types.
To investigate topographical differences, we first com-
puted the net effect of each multiplication type by subtract-
ing the storage (control) condition. As will be shown, the
 K. Jost et al. / Cognitive Brain Research 20 (2004) 183–193 189

three types of multiplication problems evoked the relative
negativity with distinct maxima. To delineate which electro-
des are relevant for the topographic and the amplitude
differences, we also computed the difference scores between
the multiplication conditions. Fig. 3 shows the topographies
of these difference waves for two consecutive time windows
of 400 ms length between 1100 and 1900 ms. This interval
was chosen because differences between the problem types
are maximal and stable throughout this interval (see below;
note that the ANOVAs were computed for 200 ms time
windows). Furthermore, ANOVAs showed reliable interac-
tions of problem type and electrode, both for the contrasts of
each multiplication type vs. storage and for the contrasts of
zero vs. small problems and large vs. small problems. These
effects provide the basis for subsequent ‘local’ contrasts and
detailed analyses of the topographic differences.
Relative to the storage condition, small multiplications
without zero evoked the negativity with an occipital max-

Fig. 3. Topographies. Interpolated maps for two consecutive time windows of 400 ms length between 1100 and 1900 ms where the effect sizes were largest. Net
effects (multiplication minus storage) were computed for the three types of multiplication problems. Dark shading indicates a relatively more negative potential
in comparison to the storage condition. Topographies of the difference waves of zero minus small problems and large minus small problems (problem-size
effect) are presented in the second and fourth rows. Notice the different scales, which were adjusted to compensate for differences in effect size.
190 K. Jost et al. / Cognitive Brain Research 20 (2004) 183–193
imum extending to left temporal and central sites (see Fig. 3,
middle row). The difference was significant (with p < 0.05)
at C3, P3, T3, T5, Oz, and T6 for all 200 ms time epochs
between 1100 and 1900 ms (except T6 where the effect was
significant only until 1500 ms).
Multiplications with zero (upper row) evoked a clear left
anterior negativity between 1100 and 1500 ms, differing
significantly from storage at left frontal and central electro-
des (F7, F3, C3). A second maximum appeared between Oz
and T6 (all contrasts p < 0.05). In the following time
window, the relative negativity is again significant at the
mentioned electrodes, but also at left temporal (T3, T5) and
parietal positions (P3).
Amplitude differences between large multiplications
without zero and storage (see lower row) existed at almost
all electrodes (F7, F3, Fz, T3, C3, T4, T5, P3, P4, T6, Oz)
with p < 0.05 for all measurement epochs between 1100 and
1900 ms, but clear maxima were present at frontal (Fz),
occipital (Oz), and temporal (T5, T6) electrodes.
To objectify the topographic differences between the
three multiplication conditions, pairwise ANOVAs with z-
standardized difference scores were run for the consecutive
time windows of 200 ms between 1100 and 1900 ms. The
topography for large multiplication problems proved to be
significantly distinct from those of either small multiplica-
tions and multiplications with zero throughout the whole
epoch [comparison large vs. small: minF(16,272) = 2.07,
p = 0.0304, e = 0.6152; maxF(16,272) = 2.35, p = 0.0180,
e = 0.5410; comparison large vs. zero: minF(16,272) = 2.58,
p = 0.0220, e = 0.3820; maxF(16,272) = 3.11, p = 0.0069,
e = 0.3902]. Small multiplications differed from zero prob-
lems only marginally between 1100 and 1500 ms but signif-
icantly between 1500 and 1900 ms [minF(16,272) = 1.78,
p = 0.0948, e = 0.4464; maxF(16,272) = 2.80, p = 0.0100,
e = 0.4370].
To delineate which electrodes are responsible for the
topographic and amplitude differences, we also computed
the difference scores between multiplication conditions. The
differences between zero and small multiplications and
between large and small problems are plotted as topographic
maps in the second and fourth rows of Fig. 3.
Zero problems evoked a relatively stronger negativity
than small multiplications at left anterior to left central sites.
Towards left temporal and occipital sites, a polarity shift
occurred where small multiplications were more negative
than zero problems especially in the time window between
1100 and 1500 ms (see also Fig. 2). However, only the
differences at left frontal and central electrodes (F3, Fz, C3)
proved to be reliable between 1500 and 1900 ms (with
p < 0.05). Thus, the topographic differences are attributable
to the left anterior negativity for zero problems that were not
observed for small problems.
The slow wave was more negative for large problems
than for small problems at almost all electrodes ( p < 0.05),
varying between 0.5 and 2.0 AV (with nearly identical
topography in the two time windows), but most pronounced
at the frontal (Fz) and right temporal (T6) electrodes—
electrodes that already showed the maximum of the net
effect for large multiplications.
4. Discussion
The objective of the present study was to determine by
means of event-related brain potentials whether different
solution strategies are used to produce the results of single-
digit multiplication problems with small, large, or zero
operands.
The experimental conditions affected significantly both
ERP phenomena of interest, the P300 component peaking
around 450 ms after problem presentation and the subse-
quent slow negative wave. Amplitude of the P300 was
smallest for storage, intermediate for zero multiplications,
and largest for nonzero multiplications, irrespective of their
size. The peak latency of this effect was much shorter than
the average solution times estimated in the behavioral study
(the fastest responses were found for zero multiplications
with 690 ms). Therefore, it can be concluded that the P300
reflects a processing difference that precedes the actual
production of a solution. This finding is compatible with
the idea that different problems are immediately categorized
according to their expected difficulty and that these differ-
ences are reflected by the P300 amplitude (see also Refs.
[5,48]).3 In this sense, the amplitude modulation can be
interpreted as a measure of cognitive preparation in terms of
adjusting attentional and processing resources (see Ref.
[48]). However, the observed amplitudes do not fully reflect
the task difficulty as may be inferred from the response
times or the later negativity. RTs differed for small and large
nonzero multiplications (841 vs. 1344 ms) while the P300
amplitude was the same for these two conditions.
Moreover, the observation of some kind of precategori-
zation also fits well with the model of arithmetic perfor-
mance in children of Siegler and Shipley [42] (see also Ref.
[41]). This model contains a decision component that selects
a solution strategy prior to problem solution. The P300
effects in the present study suggest that a similar decision
stage is passed in adults as well.
The subsequent slow negative wave whose timing coin-
cides with the production phase proper was most pro-
nounced for large multiplications, intermediate for small
and zero problems, and smallest for the storage condition.
This suggests that the different problems recruit neural
resources to a different extent.
3
It is unlikely that event probability—in general a major factor for
P300 amplitude variations—was the main determinant for the observed
amplitude variations: zero multiplications had the smallest probability
( p = 0.111) while small and large multiplications without zero had each a
larger probability of 0.194, or, if both were combined to one category, of
0.389. Nevertheless, the amplitude of P300 was smallest for the zero
problems with the lowest probability.
 K. Jost et al. / Cognitive Brain Research 20 (2004) 183–193
The most important finding, however, is that the nega-
tivity revealed clear topographic differences between the
problem types. These indicate an activation of distinct
generator ensembles [47] and, therefore, support the hy-
pothesis that single-digit multiplication problems are solved
by means of different solution strategies.
4.1. Problem size
Large problems in contrast to small problems evoked a
larger negative slow wave, suggesting greater mental load
for large problems (cf. Refs. [6,38]). This result agrees with
the problem-size effect observed in the behavioral study.
There the RT difference between small and large problems
amounted to 500 ms—an effect that is substantial and larger
than in other studies (cf. Refs. [8,9]).
More important is the topographic difference between
small and large problems. Small multiplications (compared
to storage) evoked the negativity with an occipital maxi-
mum extending to left temporal sites. In contrast, larger
problems evoked a more substantial negativity over central-
frontal areas (Fz) and a larger amplitude over right temporal
areas (T6). Such clearly distinct topographies are difficult to
reconcile with pure differences in processing difficulty. In
that case, one and the same generator configuration should
have been affected and one and the same surface topography
should have shown an amplitude variation only. The distinct
topographies are more compatible with the hypothesis that
large one-digit multiplications invoke other processes than
pure fact retrieval. Of course, by means of ERPs, we cannot
decide which strategies our participants used to solve such
problems. ‘‘Derived facts’’ is the most reported strategy to
solve problems with larger operands (see Refs. [28,43]).
Thus, it is likely that participants in the present study
sometimes decomposed large problems into a series of
smaller, easily accessible facts.
However, P300 amplitude was the same for small and
large problems, indicating that small and large problems
were initially classified as equally demanding and that the
same amount of processing resources has been allocated to
the two problem types. Thus, the first categorization of the
problems seems not to fully anticipate the actual processing
demands. From this, it can be also concluded that use of
strategies other than fact retrieval might not be the default
option for large problems, but rather that such strategies are
activated only when fact retrieval fails (cf. Refs. [41,42]).
Although the topography of scalp-recorded slow waves
can give only a rough estimate of the location of underlying
generators, the location of the most prominent topographic
differences between small and large problems is neverthe-
less suggestive. The amplitude difference over occipital to
right temporal electrodes indicates stronger activation of the
underlying areas. This agrees with previous findings
[20,21], which related ERP effects measured at right inferior
parietal to temporal areas to number comparison and mag-
nitude estimation processes [11,12]. Accordingly, it might
191
be concluded that magnitude estimation processes are trig-
gered when the results of larger single-digit multiplication
problems are retrieved.
The prominent frontal activation observed in this study
agrees with similar findings of other studies [24,45] and
indicates that strategies other than pure fact retrieval seem to
be involved when larger operands are multiplied. Gruber et
al. [15] reported that more complex problems involving
calculation rules and decomposition strategies showed in-
creased activity over frontal areas. They related these differ-
ences to linguistic and working memory functions.
Likewise, the frontal negativity in the present study could
indicate that larger problems impose more load on working
memory and executive functions if they are decomposed
into a chain of smaller and easily accessible facts [12].
4.2. Facts vs. rules
In the pilot study, zero problems were solved much faster
(690 ms) than all nonzero problems (841 and 1344 ms for
small and large problems), a finding that has also been
observed in other studies [22,28,32]. Moreover, the ampli-
tude of the P300 also suggests that the zero problems are
categorized as potentially less demanding than nonzero
multiplications.
The negativity evoked by zero problems shows its most
prominent amplitude over left fronto-central sites, and it
deviates in this aspect from the topography of small and
large nonzero problems. The fact that zero problems evoke a
much larger amplitude over left anterior electrodes than
small nonzero problems (Fig. 3, second row) strongly
suggests that they are solved by a strategy that is clearly
different from fact retrieval. Most likely, the correct results
are generated by applying the zero rule.
It is intriguing that this negativity, which most likely
accompanies a rule-based strategy in mental calculation, has
a similar topography as a conceptually related phenomenon
observed with linguistic material, that is, the left anterior
negativity (LAN). LANs with a maximum at left frontal to
central sites have been observed in two situations: first in
sentences with a rule violation (e.g., incorrect morphosyntax
or incorrect usage of an auxiliary; e.g., see Refs. [16,37])
and, second, in grammatically and semantically correct
sentences with less used, and therefore less easily parsed,
grammatical constructions (see Refs. [23,39]). For example,
Rösler et al. [39] presented German sentences in which the
order of sentence elements (subject, indirect object, and
direct object) was systematically varied. Note that the
German language—due to direct case marking—allows
constructing grammatically correct sentences of different
complexity by changing the word order. In this study,
determiners, which function as case markers in German,
evoked a left anterior negativity whenever they indicated
that a noun phrase sequence would not continue in its
canonical (expected) word order. Rösler et al. interpreted
the LAN as indicating that a deviation from the canonical
192 K. Jost et al. / Cognitive Brain Research 20 (2004) 183–193
word order triggers an additional rule-based parsing step
(e.g., that the next noun phrase is not immediately assigned
to the syntactic role of the actor).
The fact that a left anterior negativity is evoked with
similar topography by both linguistic and arithmetic
material whenever a rule application is most likely
invoked suggests some conceptual parallelism between
linguistic and arithmetic processing (see Refs. [20,34]
for a comparison of arithmetic and semantic N400
effects). Possibly similar mechanisms and overlapping
neural structures are involved if linguistic and arithmetic
representations are modified in working memory by rule-
based operations. In other words, the common feature
between the arithmetic and the linguistic LAN is seen in
the fact that in both cases, default strategies—as extrap-
olation of overlearned grammatical structures or direct
access to multiplication facts—fail and have to be
replaced by a distinct rule-based processing step, which
imposes extra load on executive and/or working memory
functions. These could be reflected by the LAN.
5. Conclusion
By means of ERPs, we could provide evidence that
strategies other than pure fact retrieval are used to solve
single-digit multiplication problems. Our data sustain the
distinction between rule-based and fact-retrieval problems
and they support the notion that problem size determines the
solution process, too [28]. These functional dissociations
observed here with ERPs are congruent with neuropsycho-
logical findings showing differential impairments of acalcu-
lia patients, in particular, a dissociation between facts and
rules, on one hand [44], and problems with small and large
operands, on the other hand [31].
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by grants Ro529/10 and
Ro529/17-1 from the German Research Foundation (DFG)
assigned to Frank Rösler.
References
[1] M.H. Ashcraft, The development of mental arithmetic: a chronometric
approach, Dev. Rev. 2 (1982) 213 – 236.
[2] M.H. Ashcraft, Children’s knowledge of simple arithmetic: a devel-
opmental model and simulation, in: C.J. Brainerd, R. Kail, J. Bisanz
(Eds.), Formal Methods in Developmental Research, Springer, New
York, 1987, pp. 302 – 338.
[3] M.H. Ashcraft, Cognitive arithmetic: a review of data and theory,
Cognition 44 (1992) 75 – 106.
[4] M.H. Ashcraft, Cognitive psychology and simple arithmetic: a review
and summary of new directions, Math. Cogn. 1 (1995) 3 – 34.
[5] J. Bajrič, F. Rösler, M. Heil, E. Hennighausen, On separating pro-
cesses of event categorization, task preparation, and mental rotation
proper in a handedness recognition task, Psychophysiology 36
(1999) 399 – 408.
[6] N. Birbaumer, T. Elbert, A.G. Canavan, B. Rockstroh, Slow potentials
of the cerebral cortex and behavior, Physiol. Rev. 70 (1990) 1 – 41.
[7] J.I.D. Campbell, Mechanisms of simple addition and multiplication: a
modified network-interference theory and simulation, Math. Cogn. 1
(1995) 121 – 164.
[8] J.I.D. Campbell, D.J. Graham, Mental multiplication skill: structure,
process and acquisition, Can. J. Psychol. 39 (1985) 338 – 366.
[9] J.I.D. Campbell, D.P.M. Tarling, Retrieval processes in arithmetic
production and verification, Mem. Cogn. 24 (1996) 156 – 172.
[10] L. Cohen, S. Dehaene, F. Chochon, S. Lehéricy, L. Naccache,
Language and calculation within the parietal lobe: a combined
cognitive, anatomical and fMRI study, Neuropsychologia 38
(2000) 1426 – 1440.
[11] S. Dehaene, Cerebral bases of number processing and calculation,
in: M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The New Cognitive Neurosciences, MIT
Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 987 – 998.
[12] S. Dehaene, L. Cohen, Towards an anatomical and functional model
of number processing, Math. Cogn. 1 (1995) 83 – 120.
[13] E. Donchin, M.G. Coles, Is the P300 component a manifestation of
context updating? Behav. Brain Sci. 11 (1988) 357 – 427.
[14] R. El Yagoubi, P. Lemaire, M. Besson, Different brain mechanisms
mediate two strategies in arithmetic: evidence from event-related
brain potentials, Neuropsychologia 41 (2003) 855 – 862.
[15] O. Gruber, P. Indefrey, H. Steinmetz, A. Kleinschmidt, Dissociating
neural correlates of cognitive components in metal calculation, Cereb.
Cortex 11 (2001) 350 – 359.
[16] A. Hahne, A.D. Friederici, Rule-application during language compre-
hension in the adult and the child, in: A.D. Friederici, R. Menzel
(Eds.), Learning: Rule Extraction and Representation, Walter de
Gruyter and Co., Berlin, Germany, 1999, pp. 71 – 88.
[17] E. Hennighausen, M. Heil, F. Rösler, A correction method for DC-
drift artifacts, Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 86 (1993)
199 – 204.
[18] H. Huynh, L.S. Feldt, Estimation of the box correction for degrees of
freedom from sample data in randomized block and split-plot designs,
J. Educ. Stat. 1 (1976) 69 – 82.
[19] R. Johnson, A triarchic model of P300 amplitude, Psychophysiology
23 (1986) 367 – 384.
[20] K. Jost, E. Hennighausen, F. Rösler, Comparing arithmetic and seman-
tic fact retrieval: effects of problem size and sentence constraint on
event-related brain potentials, Psychophysiology 41 (2004) 46 – 59.
[21] M. Kiefer, S. Dehaene, The time course of parietal activation in
single-digit multiplication: evidence from event-related potentials,
Math. Cogn. 3 (1997) 1 – 30.
[22] E.P. Kirk, M.H. Ashcraft, Telling stories: the perils and promise of
using verbal reports to study math strategies, J. Exp. Psychol., Learn.
Mem. Cogn. 27 (2001) 157 – 175.
[23] R. Kluender, M. Kutas, Bridging the gap: evidence from ERPs on
the processing of unbounded dependencies, J. Cogn. Neurosi. 5
(1993) 196 – 214.
[24] J. Kong, Y. Wang, H. Shang, Y. Wang, X. Yang, D. Zhuang, Brain
potentials during mental arithmetic—effects of problem difficulty on
event-related brain potentials, Neurosci. Lett. 260 (1999) 169 – 172.
[25] K.M. Lee, Cortical areas differentially involved in multiplication and
subtraction: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study and cor-
relation with a case of selective acalculia, Ann. Neurol. 48 (2000)
657 – 661.
[26] J. LeFevre, A.G. Kulak, Individual differences in the obligatory acti-
vation of addition facts, Mem. Cogn. 22 (1994) 188 – 200.
[27] J. LeFevre, J. Morris, More on the relation between division and
multiplication in simple arithmetic: evidence for mediation of division
solutions via multiplication, Mem. Cogn. 27 (1999) 803 – 812.
[28] J. LeFevre, J. Bisanz, K.E. Daley, L. Buffone, S.L. Greenham, G.S.
Sadesky, Multiple routes to solution of single-digit multiplication
problems, J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 125 (1996) 284 – 306.
 K. Jost et al. / Cognitive Brain Research 20 (2004) 183–193
[29] J. LeFevre, G.S. Sadesky, J. Bisanz, Selection of procedures in mental
addition: reassessing the problem size effect in adults, J. Exp. Psy-
chol., Learn. Mem. Cogn. 22 (1996) 216 – 230.
[30] G. McCarthy, C.C. Wood, Scalp distributions of event-related poten-
tials: an ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models, Elec-
troencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 62 (1985) 203 – 208.
[31] M. McCloskey, W. Harley, S.M. Sokol, Models of arithmetic fact
retrieval: an evaluation in light of findings from normal and brain-
damaged subjects, J. Exp. Psychol., Learn. Mem. Cogn. 17 (1991)
377 – 397.
[32] K. Miller, M. Perlmutter, D. Keating, Cognitive arithmetic: compar-
ison of operations, J. Exp. Psychol., Learn. Mem. Cogn. 10 (1984)
46 – 60.
[33] M. Niedeggen, F. Rösler, N400 effects reflect activation spread during
retrieval of arithmetic facts, Psychol. Sci. 10 (1999) 271 – 276.
[34] M. Niedeggen, F. Rösler, K. Jost, Processing of incongruous mental
calculation problems: evidence for an arithmetic N400-effect, Psycho-
physiology 36 (1999) 307 – 324.
[35] J.M. Parkman, Temporal aspects of simple multiplication and com-
parison, J. Exp. Psychol. 95 (1972) 437 – 444.
[36] M. Pesenti, N. Depoorter, X. Seron, Noncommutability of the N + 0
arithmetical rule: a case study of dissociated impairment, Cortex 36
(2000) 445 – 454.
[37] F. Rösler, A. Friederici, P. Pütz, A. Hahne, Event-related brain poten-
tials while encountering semantic and syntactic constraint violations,
J. Cogn. Neurosci. 5 (1993) 345 – 362.
[38] F. Rösler, M. Heil, B. Röder, Slow negative brain potentials as reflec-
tions of specific modular resources of cognition, Biol. Psychol. 45
(1997) 109 – 141.
[39] F. Rösler, T. Pechmann, J. Streb, B. Röder, E. Hennighausen, Parsing
of sentences in a language with varying word order: word-by-word
variations of processing demands are revealed by event-related brain
potentials, J. Mem. Lang. 38 (1998) 150 – 176.
193
[40] M.D. Rugg, M.G.H. Coles (Eds.), Electrophysiology of Mind: Event-
Related Brain Potentials and Cognition, Oxford Univ. Press, London,
1995.
[41] J. Shrager, R.S. Siegler, SCADS: a model of children’s strategy
choices and strategy discoveries, Psychol. Sci. 9 (1998) 405 – 410.
[42] R.S. Siegler, C. Shipley, Variation, selection, and cognitive change,
in: T. Simon, G. Halford (Eds.), Developing Cognitive Competence:
New Approaches to Process Modeling, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1995,
pp. 31 – 76.
[43] B.L. Smith-Chant, J. LeFevre, Doing as they are told and telling it
like it is: self-reports in mental arithmetic, Mem. Cogn. 31 (2003)
516 – 528.
[44] S.M. Sokol, M. McCloskey, N.J. Cohen, D. Aliminosa, Cognitive
representations and processes in arithmetic: evidence from the perfor-
mance of brain-damaged patients, J. Exp. Psychol., Learn. Mem.
Cogn. 17 (1991) 355 – 376.
[45] R. Stanescu-Cosson, P. Pinel, P.F. van de Moortele, D. Le Bihan, L.
Cohen, S. Dehaene, Understanding dissociations in dyscalculia: a
brain imaging study of the impact of number size on the cerebral
networks for exact and approximate calculation, Brain 123 (2000)
2240 – 2255.
[46] E.H. Stazyk, M.H. Ashcraft, M.S. Hamann, A network approach to
mental multiplication, J. Exp. Psychol., Learn. Mem. Cogn. 8 (1982)
320 – 335.
[47] T.P. Urbach, M. Kutas, The intractability of scaling scalp
distributions to infer neuroelectric sources, Psychophysiology 39
(2002) 791 – 808.
[48] G.F. Wilson, C.R. Swain, P. Ullsperger, ERP components elicited in
response to warning stimuli: the influence of task difficulty, Biol.
Psychol. 47 (1998) 137 – 158.
[49] N.J. Zbrodoff, G.D. Logan, On the relation between production and
verification tasks in the psychology of simple arithmetic, J. Exp.
Psychol., Learn. Mem. Cogn. 16 (1990) 83 – 97.