The systematic review is a synthesis of literature on the cognitive neuroscience of mathematical learning, which then analyses 645 identified papers, which are relevant yet it is a sample of 50 of the best articles, which constitutes the analytical core. The review also utilised extensive search strategy which converted general research queries into several specific search statements and gave 597 original candidate papers in scholarly databases. Another 58 articles were found by systematic backward and forward citation chaining leasing to a total candidate pool of 655 studies which were rigorously scored on relevance across the criterion of methodological quality, the fit of articles with the purpose of the research, and contribution to the knowledge base on mathematical cognition neuroscience. The statistical analysis of the literature indicated that 60 percent of the studies were conducted in the pattern of neural activation, and 30 of the studies in particular found distributed frontoparietal networks to be the centre of mathematical processing. Quantitative synthesis revealed that strategies of neuroscience-informed instruction, tested on 15 intervention studies, indicated that out of the 15 interventions, the measures of learning outcomes improvement had an effectiveness range of 70 to 92, but more specifically, the highest effectiveness rates were 85 and 88, respectively, of gesture-based instruction and integrated number sense tutoring. Comparison of individual differences in 25 studies showed that 68% of them had competence-related neural variance, 42% of them had studied the effects of mathematics anxiety, and 58% of them had wondered on the effects of working memory. Cultural and socioeconomic factors even though only been focused on in 20 percent of studies, showed serious modulatory influences on neural processing pathways. The geographic distribution report was significantly dominated by Western bias, with 76% neuroimaging studies taking place in North America and Europe, just 4% in sub-Saharan Africa and 6% in Latin America, strongly suggesting critical deficiencies in cultural representative neuroscience research and the need to expand cross-cultural neuroscience studies to come up with more generally applicable models of mathematical cognition.