"Systemisers are better at maths". But be careful of sweeping generalisations...

The title of this post - "systemisers are better at maths" - comes from the findings reported by Paola Bressan [1], an author not unfamiliar to this blog (see here). This time around, the author has opted for a topic a little less 'controversial' [2] than last time, in the form of an analysis of the 'empathising-systemising theory'. In particular, the notion that mathematics is typically a systemising activity (based on rules and laws) and so those who lean more towards being systemisers should be better at maths. That's the theory anyway...

The word 'autism' is mentioned in the Bressan paper because of the *connection* made between systemising and autism by some big names in the autism research field. As far as I can see however, the Bressan study did not include anyone diagnosed with autism or an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) but rather relied on data from mostly university students studying "mainly psychology and engineering." Said student participants (N=201) were given a couple of measures to test maths skills (including a 'how good are you at maths?' self-report measure) alongside tests for non-mathematical intelligence and 'systemising tendencies' in the form of the Italian version of the Systemising Quotient (SQ-Short).

Results: the data for the study are freely available to anyone and everyone (see here). Bressan observed a few details. So: "Systemising was predicted by sex, with men scoring on average higher than women." Occupation, I assume meaning what participants were studying, also showed a potential relationship with systemising scores too. Then to the main event: "In a sample of students of a diverse range of disciplines, the systemising score predicted both self-assessed mathematical skills (201 participants) and mathematical intelligence (151 participants). This remained true after controlling for nonmathematical intelligence, for occupation (social vs biological/physical careers), and for sex."

These are interesting results. They offer some support for the idea that cognitive style *might* be an important factor when it comes to 'success' or not in certain types of discipline, and require further study. But...

Allowing for my 'no sweeping generalisations are required' sentiments that are typically included with my analysis of research on this blog, I'm still a little reserved on this topic. I'm reserved because on the previous occasion that I've covered maths achievement and systemising (see here), the results were a little different. The paper by Escovar and colleagues [2] for example, reported that social skills seemed to be more important to maths ability. They also observed that "mathematical achievement was not related to systemizing or the discrepancy between systemizing and empathizing" in their study. Bressan criticised this study for a potential lack of statistical power, but I'm slightly less critical of those results, particularly because Escovar et al utilised a wider range of study instruments covering a wider range of potentially important variables. I'm also inclined to mention how maths ability can sometimes be clouded by other factors. Take for example another post I wrote on maths problem solving ability and autism (see here) and how issues like attention and anxiety can play a role on performance. That and also the fact that not everyone on the autism spectrum is some sort of maths genius...

----------

[1] Bressan P. Systemisers are better at maths. Sci Rep. 2018 Aug 2;8(1):11636.

[2] Escovar E. et al. The Empathizing-Systemizing Theory, Social Abilities, and Mathematical Achievement in Children. Sci Rep. 2016 Mar 14;6:23011.

----------

Methylphenidate affecting academic performance meta-analysed

When first tweeting about the paper by Anne Fleur Kortekaas-Rijlaarsdam and colleagues [1] I kinda made a mistake. The text of the tweet read something like: "Does methylphenidate improve academic performance? A systematic review and meta-analysis... Pretty much so, but only in relatively small amounts."

Reading that tweet back to myself I realised that by saying 'but only in relatively small amounts' it's highly likely that any readers might have thought that I was talking about the dose of methylphenidate (MPH) rather than the [intended] effect on things like "math productivity (7.8% increase, p < .001); math accuracy (3.0% increase, p = .001); [and] increased reading speed (SMD .47, p < .001)." I apologise, and once again reiterate my blogging (and social media) caveat about not giving anything that looks, sounds or smells like medical or clinical advice.

I did think it worthwhile to write a short post about the Kortekaas-Rijlaarsdam findings given that (a) ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder) is something that turns up quite a bit on this blog (see here for example), and (b) pharmacotherapy 'for ADHD' is an important intervention area which has also, unfortunately under some circumstances, been 'hijacked' for other purposes (see here). On that last point, I specifically refer to the idea that for some people, striving for a diagnosis of ADHD is merely a route to either better academic accommodations or perhaps more worryingly, to gain access to a class of medicines with some potentially significant 'cognitive-enhancing' qualities...

What sets the Kortekaas-Rijlaarsdam findings apart from other reviews of the potential nootropic (cognitive enhancing) abilities of something like MPH is their focus on resolving the issue of "whether there are improvements in core academic skills or just improvements in academic productivity" in the context of "the mediating or moderating effects of symptom improvements, demographic-, design- and disorder-related variables."

From a starting number of 148 full-text research articles, the collected texts were screened for eligibility and some 34 were eventually included for meta-analysis ("quantitative synthesis"). These articles were included because they "provided information about either accuracy or productivity scores for math, reading or spelling, or a combination of these" or could at least be calculated on the basis of their included data. Various mediating and moderating variables were also thrown into the statistical mix - "age, gender, percent diagnosed with ADHD-inattentive subtype, and study characteristics: release system, trial duration, and titration method" - and results reported.

As per previous sentences, various aspects of maths performance showed an improvement that correlated with MPH use, and reading speed but not accuracy also came out as potentially showing a relationship with medicine usage. Important too was the information that: "None of our mediators or moderators influenced MPH effects on math and reading accuracy or productivity."

So, following meta-analytic scrutiny of some 1700 children, it looks like there is a small but potentially relevant effect from MPH use of some academic abilities, at least in the short-term ("between 1 and 7 days"). The authors do well not to stray too much into speculating mode when it comes to the cause of any nootropic effect but instead to include the need for more research "to isolate groups of patients who may benefit more or less from MPH and to reveal its mechanism of action." Can't argue with that.

And going back to the topic of cognitive enahncers, an interesting article from a few years back on what they may or may not be doing to elements of our University student body...

Music to close... Sia and Chandelier. Seemingly always playing outside my dojo....

----------

[1] Kortekaas-Rijlaarsdam AF. et al. Does methylphenidate improve academic performance? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2018 Jan 20.

----------

Maths problem solving ability and autism: as varied as the label itself

I'm bringing the paper by Tasha Oswald and colleagues [1] to the blogging table today and a reiteration of the important idea that within the vast heterogeneity that surrounds the presentation of autism (or even the autisms) so too there is quite a lot of variability in the presentation of strengths and weaknesses; indeed, not so dissimilar to life in general.

Mathematics problem-solving was the specific area that Oswald et al have zoomed in on, with the aim of assessing: "the relative proportions of youth with ASD who demonstrate giftedness versus disability on applied math problems."

Researchers reported that of the 27 "high-functioning adolescents with ASD [autism spectrum disorder]" (their words not mine), just over a fifth of participants (22%) "evidenced a mathematics learning disability" whilst only 4% presenting with "mathematical giftedness." These results, by the way, were based on "standardized measures of math problem solving, perceptual reasoning, verbal ability, and test anxiety." When it came to predicting which factors might be relevant to maths problem solving ability, the authors reported a sliding scale: "perceptual reasoning, followed by verbal ability and test anxiety, then diagnosis of ASD" taking into account results from age and cognitively matched controls (n=27) also.

Outside of the idea that not everyone diagnosed with an ASD is Rainman (indeed that whilst autism is over-represented in savant skills, this does not mean that autism = savant [2]), there are some interesting lessons to be potentially learned from the quite preliminary Oswald findings. Not least is the suggestion that results "highlight possible targets of intervention for students with ASD struggling with mathematics" based on those proposed predictors of maths ability and where further educational focus might be directed. Indeed, the specific idea that 'test anxiety' might for example be a factor, ties in well with other peer-reviewed evidence hinting at how the effects of different types of anxiety may be far-reaching when it comes to autism (see here).

I might also forward the idea that whilst autism was the focus on the Oswald data, one should perhaps be mindful of how other comorbidity can similarly affect academic attainment. May and colleagues [3] talked about how aspects of attention could very well affect skills such as mathematics performance with autism in mind and specifically how: "attentional switching difficulties are linked with poorer mathematics outcomes in ASD." Without hopefully confusing attentional switching with something like a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (although there is overlap), I will bring in the important data hinting that ADHD difficulties may indeed be over-represented when it comes to autism (see here) and what impact this might have on maths abilities in at least some cases of autism. Further, the question of whether 'tackling' said ADHD might have some interesting effects on areas like maths ability with autism in mind, bearing in mind pharmacotherapy might not be the only suggested avenue?

I'm gonna close with reference to the paper by De Marco and colleagues [4] detailing just how impressive the human mind can be...

----------

[1] Oswald TM. et al. Clinical and Cognitive Characteristics Associated with Mathematics Problem Solving in Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Autism Res. 2015 Sep 29.

[2] Treffert DA. & Rebedew DL. The Savant Syndrome Registry: A Preliminary Report. WMJ. 2015 Aug;114(4):158-62.

[3] May T. et al. The role of attention in the academic attainment of children with autism spectrum disorder. J Autism Dev Disord. 2013 Sep;43(9):2147-58.

[4] De Marco M. et al. Brief Report: Two Day-Date Processing Methods in an Autistic Savant Calendar Calculator.  J Autism Dev Disord. 2015. Oct 17.

----------

Oswald TM, Beck JS, Iosif AM, McCauley JB, Gilhooly LJ, Matter JC, & Solomon M (2015). Clinical and Cognitive Characteristics Associated with Mathematics Problem Solving in Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research PMID: 26418313