- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Inhibitory control and attentional allocation in overcoming position-velocity indiscrimination misconception in position-time graph representation

Qiawu Lin1,2,3,*, Jiabei Lin1,2,4,*, Wenting Hong1,2, Jianwen Xiong1,2, Kaiqing Luo5,†, Lei Bao6,‡, Keke Yu7,§, and Yang Xiao1,2,∥

  • 1Guangdong Basic Research Center of Excellence for Structure and Fundamental Interactions of Matter, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Physics Education, School of Physics, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006, China
  • 2Key Laboratory of Atomic and Subatomic Structure and Quantum Control (Ministry of Education), South China Normal University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006, China
  • 3Guangdong University of Education, Guangzhou 510303, China
  • 4Dongguan Tenth Senior High School, Dongguan, Guangdong 523000, China
  • 5Guangdong Provincial Engineering Research Center for Optoelectronic Instrument, School of Electronic Science and Engineering (School of Microelectronics), South China Normal University, Foshan, Guangdong 528225, China
  • 6School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 211189, China
  • 7Philosophy and Social Science Laboratory of Reading and Development in Children and Adolescents (South China Normal University), Ministry of Education, & Center for Studies of Psychological Application, School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510631, China

  • *These authors contributed equally to this work.
  • †Contact author: kqluo@scnu.edu.cn
  • ‡Contact author: bao.15@osu.edu
  • §Contact author: kkyu@m.scnu.edu.cn
  • ∥Contact author: xiaoyang@m.scnu.edu.cn
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020156 – Published 5 November, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/p4ln-56qt

Abstract

Students often hold intuitive misconceptions that coexist with scientifically normative understanding. A growing body of research suggests that inhibitory control plays an important role in resolving such interference by suppressing misconception-based responses. In science learning, however, the same underlying concept is often encountered through multiple external representations, which may repeatedly activate similar misconceptions. It therefore remains unclear whether inhibitory control is also involved when the same concept is expressed in different but closely related representation formats. Extending prior findings on inhibitory control in stroboscopic representation involving the position-velocity indiscrimination (PVI) misconception, the present research examined whether similar demands on inhibitory control arise in position-time graph representations. To address this question, we conducted two studies using a negative priming (NP) paradigm, with eye tracking added in Study 2. Study 1 involved 45 high school students and tested whether inhibitory control was involved in overcoming the PVI misconception in position-time graphs. Study 2 involved 37 physics major undergraduates and further examined how attentional allocation unfolded during this process. In both studies, congruent probes following incongruent primes elicited slower responses than congruent probes following neutral primes, indicating a reliable NP effect. In Study 1, probe accuracy was also lower after incongruent primes. Eye tracking in Study 2 further showed that, during incongruent primes, participants oriented earlier to graph regions in which the two objects occupied the same position, whereas access to the graph region indicating equal velocity, defined by equal slope, was delayed relative to neutral primes. In the probe stage, congruent probes following incongruent primes elicited later entry into, and greater attentional investment on, the graph region that contained the scientifically relevant cue for making the correct velocity judgment. Taken together, these findings suggest that the PVI misconception is activated early, competes for attentional resources, and requires inhibitory control together with attentional reallocation toward scientifically relevant information. More broadly, considered alongside prior evidence from stroboscopic representations, the present results provide initial evidence that the inhibitory demands associated with overcoming the PVI misconception may generalize across closely related visual representations of the same kinematic concept. This study advances understanding of the cognitive processes underlying physics learning and offers implications for instruction aimed at mitigating persistent misconceptions.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (93)

  1. R. Duit and D. F. Treagust, Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 671 (2003).
  2. R. Babai, R. Sekal, and R. Stavy, Persistence of the intuitive conception of living things in adolescence, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 19, 20 (2010).
  3. J. Lin, Y. Xing, Y. Hu, J. Zhang, L. Bao, K. Luo, K. Yu, and Y. Xiao, Inhibitory control involvement in overcoming the position-velocity indiscrimination misconception among college physics majors, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010112 (2023).
  4. L.-M. Brault Foisy, E. Ahr, J. Blanchette Sarrasin, P. Potvin, O. Houdé, S. Masson, and G. Borst, Inhibitory control and the understanding of buoyancy from childhood to adulthood, J. Exp. Child Psychol. 208, 105155 (2021).
  5. S. Masson, P. Potvin, M. Riopel, and L.-M. B. Foisy, Differences in brain activation between novices and experts in science during a task involving a common misconception in electricity: Brain activation related to scientific expertise, Mind, Brain, Educ. 8, 44 (2014).
  6. P. Potvin, S. Masson, S. Lafortune, and G. Cyr, Persistence of the intuitive conception that heavier objects sink more: A reaction time study with different levels of interference, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 13, 21 (2015).
  7. P. Potvin and G. Cyr, Toward a durable prevalence of scientific conceptions: Tracking the effects of two interfering misconceptions about buoyancy from preschoolers to science teachers, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 54, 1121 (2017).
  8. Y. Skelling-Desmeules, L.-M. Brault Foisy, P. Potvin, H. G. Lapierre, E. Ahr, P.-M. Léger, S. Masson, and P. Charland, Persistence of the “Moving things are alive” heuristic into adulthood: Evidence from EEG, LSE 20, ar45 (2021).
  9. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  10. D. E. Trowbridge and L. C. McDermott, Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension, Am. J. Phys. 48, 1020 (1980).
  11. G. Allaire-Duquette, L.-M. Brault Foisy, P. Potvin, M. Riopel, M. Larose, and S. Masson, An fMRI study of scientists with a Ph.D. in physics confronted with naive ideas in science, Npj Sci. Learn. 6, 1 (2021).
  12. A. Diamond, Executive functions, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64, 135 (2013).
  13. P. Potvin, G. Malenfant-Robichaud, C. Cormier, and S. Masson, Coexistence of misconceptions and scientific conceptions in chemistry professors: A mental chronometry and fMRI study, Front. Educ. 5 (2020).
  14. P. Potvin, Proposition for improving the classical models of conceptual change based on neuroeducational evidence: conceptual prevalence, Neuroeducation 2, 16 (2013).
  15. P. Klein, A. Müller, and J. Kuhn, Assessment of representational competence in kinematics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010132 (2017).
  16. A. Susac, M. Planinic, A. Bubic, K. Jelicic, and M. Palmovic, Effect of representation format on conceptual question performance and eye-tracking measures, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020114 (2023).
  17. Multiple Representations in Physics Education, edited by, D. F. Treagust, R.Duit, and H. E. Fischer (Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 2017).
  18. S. Van den Eynde, P. van Kampen, W. Van Dooren, and M. De Cock, Translating between graphs and equations: The influence of context, direction of translation, and function type, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020113 (2019).
  19. N. Munfaridah, L. Avraamidou, and M. Goedhart, The use of multiple representations in undergraduate physics education: What Do we know and where Do we Go from here?, EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Tech. Ed. 17, em1934 (2021).
  20. E. Rexigel, J. Kuhn, S. Becker, and S. Malone, The more the better? a systematic review and meta-analysis of the benefits of more than two external representations in STEM education, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 36, 124 (2024).
  21. A. Van Heuvelen and X. Zou, Multiple representations of work–energy processes, Am. J. Phys. 69, 184 (2001).
  22. P. Nieminen, A. Savinainen, and J. Viiri, Force concept inventory-based multiple-choice test for investigating students’ representational consistency, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020109 (2010).
  23. A. Shtulman and J. Valcarcel, Scientific knowledge suppresses but does not supplant earlier intuitions, Cognition 124, 209 (2012).
  24. W. Hong, T. Li, L. Wang, R. Dai, L. Bao, K. Yu, and Y. Xiao, Overcoming the more measurements, the better intuitive heuristic in physics data evaluation: The role of inhibitory control, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020159 (2025).
  25. H. Galili, R. Babai, and R. Stavy, Intuitive interference in geometry: An eye-tracking study, Mind, Brain, Educ. 14, 155 (2020).
  26. B. Olk, Measuring the allocation of attention in the Stroop task: evidence from eye movement patterns, Psychol. Res. 77, 106 (2013).
  27. Y. Wen, J. Lin, Y. Ming, J. Zhang, X. Wu, L. Bao, K. Yu, and Y. Xiao, Role of inhibition in overcoming interferences of misconception under similar feature saliency: An eye-tracking study of the projectile motion problem, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020121 (2024).
  28. S. P. Tipper, The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects, Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 37, 571 (1985).
  29. S. P. Tipper, Does negative priming reflect inhibitory mechanisms? A review and integration of conflicting views, Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 54, 321 (2001).
  30. L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999).
  31. L. Bao, K. Hogg, and D. Zollman, Model analysis of fine structures of student models: An example with Newton’s third law, Am. J. Phys. 70, 766 (2002).
  32. A. F. Heckler, The ubiquitous patterns of incorrect answers to science questions: The role of automatic, bottom-up processes, in Psychology of Learning and Motivation, edited by J. P. Mestre and B. H. Ross (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA, 2011), Vol. 55, pp. 227–267.
  33. A. C. Howe, Development of science concepts within a Vygotskian framework, Sci. Educ. 80, 35 (1996).
  34. C. von Aufschnaiter and C. Rogge, Conceptual change in learning, in Encyclopedia of Science Education, edited by R. Gunstone (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2015), pp. 209–218.
  35. S. Vosniadou, C. Ioannides, A. Dimitrakopoulou, and E. Papademetriou, Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science, Learn. Instr. 11, 381 (2001).
  36. S. Vosniadou and W. F. Brewer, Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood, Cognit. Psychol. 24, 535 (1992).
  37. A. A. diSessa, N. M. Gillespie, and J. B. Esterly, Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force, Cognit. Sci. 28, 843 (2004).
  38. A. A. diSessa, Knowledge in pieces, in Constructivism in the Computer Age, edited by G. Forman and P. B. Pufall (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988), pp. 49–70.
  39. R. Stavy and D. Tirosh, How Students (Mis-)Understand Science and Mathematics: Intuitive Rules, Ways of Knowing in Science Series (Teachers College Press, P, Williston, VT, 2000).
  40. R. Stavy and D. Tirosh, Alternative conceptions and intuitive rules, in Encyclopedia of Science Education, edited by R. Gunstone (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2015), pp. 32–33.
  41. C. Dawson, Towards a conceptual profile: Rethinking conceptual mediation in the light of recent cognitive and neuroscientific findings, Res. Sci. Educ. 44, 389 (2014).
  42. S. Ohlsson, Resubsumption: A possible mechanism for conceptual change and belief revision, Educ. Psychol. 44, 20 (2009).
  43. J. Solomon, Learning about energy: How pupils think in two domains, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 5, 49 (2007).
  44. L. Mason and S. Zaccoletti, Inhibition and conceptual learning in science: A review of studies, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 33, 181 (2021).
  45. L.-M. Brault Foisy, P. Potvin, M. Riopel, and S. Masson, Is inhibition involved in overcoming a common physics misconception in mechanics?, Trends Neurosci. Educ. 4, 26 (2015).
  46. G. Borst, A. Aïte, and O. Houdé, Inhibition of misleading heuristics as a core mechanism for typical cognitive development: Evidence from behavioural and brain-imaging studies, Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 57, 21 (2015).
  47. Y. Xiong, J. Liu, J. Lai, T. Zheng, X. Qu, Q. Li, Y. Zhong, L. Bao, and S. Zhou, Bridging the novice-expert gap: The role of inhibitory control and interventions in overcoming buoyancy misconceptions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020120 (2025).
  48. D. Liu, S. Jamshaid, and L. Wang, Neural mechanisms of inhibition in scientific reasoning: Insights from fNIRS, Brain Sci. 14, 606 (2024).
  49. L. R. J. Palmer, D. K. Sumanapala, D. Mareschal, and I. Dumontheil, the UnLocke Team, Neural associations between inhibitory control and counterintuitive reasoning in science and maths in primary school children, J. Cogn. Neurosci. 37, 915 (2025).
  50. L. R. J. Palmer, D. Mareschal, and I. Dumontheil, Similarity of the neural correlates of inhibitory control and Maths and science counterintuitive reasoning in adulthood, ZDM Math. Educ. 58, 459 (2026).
  51. Y. Zhu, L. Zhang, Y. Leng, R. Pang, and X. Wang, Event-related potential evidence for persistence of an intuitive misconception about electricity, Mind Brain, Educ. 13, 80 (2019).
  52. J. S. Bruner, The course of cognitive growth, Am. Psychol. 19, 1 (1964).
  53. T. Fredlund, C. Linder, J. Airey, and A. Linder, Unpacking physics representations: Towards an appreciation of disciplinary affordance, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020129 (2014).
  54. B. G. Waldrip and V. R. Prain, , Learning from and through representations in science, in Second international handbook of science education, edited by B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, and C. J. McRobbie (Springer, New York, 2012), pp. 145–155.
  55. H.-K. Wu and S. Puntambekar, Pedagogical affordances of multiple external representations in scientific processes, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 21, 754 (2012).
  56. E. Adadan, Using multiple representations to promote grade 11 students’ scientific understanding of the particle theory of matter, Res. Sci. Educ. 43, 1079 (2013).
  57. E. Adadan, K. Irving, and K. Trundle, Impacts of multi-representational instruction on high school students conceptual understandings of the particulate nature of matter, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 31, 1743 (2009).
  58. S. Ainsworth, DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations, Learn. Instr. 16, 183 (2006).
  59. W. Schnotz and M. Bannert, Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation, Learn. Instr. 13, 141 (2003).
  60. R. E. Mayer, Multimedia Learning (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009).
  61. R. Kozma, The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding, Learn. Instr. 13, 205 (2003).
  62. R. Kozma, E. Chin, J. Russell, and N. Marx, The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning, J. Learn. Sci. 9, 105 (2000).
  63. J. Yeo and J. K. Gilbert, Constructing a scientific explanation—a narrative account, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 1902 (2014).
  64. P. B. Kohl and N. D. Finkelstein, Patterns of multiple representation use by experts and novices during physics problem solving, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010111 (2008).
  65. E. Campos, G. Zavala, K. Zuza, and J. Guisasola, Students’ understanding of the concept of the electric field through conversions of multiple representations, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010135 (2020).
  66. E. Campos, K. Zuza, J. Guisasola, and G. Zavala, Recognition and conversion of electric field representations: The case of electric field lines, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020117 (2023).
  67. D. Rosengrant, Multiple representations and free-body diagrams: Do students benefit from using them? (2007).
  68. P. Nieminen, A. Savinainen, and J. Viiri, Relations between representational consistency, conceptual understanding of the force concept, and scientific reasoning, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010123 (2012).
  69. N. Ott, R. Brünken, M. Vogel, and S. Malone, Multiple symbolic representations: The combination of formula and text supports problem solving in the mathematical field of propositional logic, Learn. Instr. 58, 88 (2018).
  70. N. Lavie and Y. Tsal, Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention, Percept. Psychophysics 56, 183 (1994).
  71. J. Sweller, Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cognit. Sci. 12, 257 (1988).
  72. L. Hahn and P. Klein, Eye tracking in physics education research: A systematic literature review, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 013102 (2022).
  73. M. Kozhevnikov, M. A. Motes, and M. Hegarty, Spatial visualization in physics problem solving, Cognit. Sci. 31, 549 (2007).
  74. P. Klein, J. Viiri, S. Mozaffari, A. Dengel, and J. Kuhn, Instruction-based clinical eye-tracking study on the visual interpretation of divergence: How do students look at vector field plots?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010116 (2018).
  75. M. A. Just and P. A. Carpenter, Eye fixations and cognitive processes, Cognit. Psychol. 8, 441 (1976).
  76. K.-P. Chien, C.-Y. Tsai, H.-L. Chen, W.-H. Chang, and S. Chen, Learning differences and eye fixation patterns in virtual and physical science laboratories, Comput. Educ. 82, 191 (2015).
  77. K. Rayner, Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research, Psychol. Bull. 124, 372 (1998).
  78. Y. V. Jiang, B.-Y. Won, and K. M. Swallow, First saccadic eye movement reveals persistent attentional guidance by implicit learning, J. Exp. Psychol. 40, 1161 (2014).
  79. J. Han, L. Chen, Z. Fu, J. Fritchman, and L. Bao, Eye-tracking of visual attention in web-based assessment using the force concept inventory, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 045702 (2017).
  80. S. Becker, L. Knippertz, S. Ruzika, and J. Kuhn, Persistence, context, and visual strategy of graph understanding: Gaze patterns reveal student difficulties in interpreting graphs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020142 (2023).
  81. Q. Wang, Y. Zhu, L. Wei, and H. Deng, Visual attention pattern of middle school students during problem-solving in physics, Mind, Brain, Educ. 16, 99 (2022).
  82. A. M. Madsen, A. M. Larson, L. C. Loschky, and N. S. Rebello, Differences in visual attention between those who correctly and incorrectly answer physics problems, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010122 (2012).
  83. A. Viarouge, H. Lee, and G. Borst, Attention to number requires magnitude-specific inhibition, Cognition 230, 105285 (2023).
  84. E. J. Van Loo, C. Grebitus, and W. Verbeke, Effects of nutrition and sustainability claims on attention and choice: An eye-tracking study in the context of a choice experiment using granola bar concepts, Food Qual. Preference 90, 104100 (2021).
  85. C. Conati, N. Jaques, and M. Muir, Understanding attention to adaptive hints in educational games: An eye-tracking study, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 23, 136 (2013).
  86. A. T. Duchowski, Eye Tracking Methodology (Springer, Cham, 2017).
  87. K. Holmqvist, M. Nyström, R. Andersson, R. Dewhurst, H. Jarodzka, and J. van de Weijer, Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures (Oxford Press, Oxford, UK, 2011).
  88. M. Meißner and J. Oll, The promise of eye-tracking methodology in organizational research: A taxonomy, review, and future avenues, Organizational Res. Methods 22, 590 (2019).
  89. A. B. Tobii, Tobii pro lab user manual (2024).
  90. Tobii Technology, Tobii X2-60 eye tracker user’s manual (2014).
  91. A. Krüger and I. Scharlau, The time course of salience: Not entirely caused by salience, Psychol. Res. 86, 234 (2022).
  92. M. M. Botvinick, T. S. Braver, D. M. Barch, C. S. Carter, and J. D. Cohen, Conflict monitoring and cognitive control, Psychol. Rev. 108, 624 (2001).
  93. A. Madsen, A. Rouinfar, A. M. Larson, L. C. Loschky, and N. S. Rebello, Can short duration visual cues influence students’ reasoning and eye movements in physics problems?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020104 (2013).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020156– Published 5 November, 2026
  • Received 4 June 2026
  • Accepted 13 October 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation