Cited by 85Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Age-related influence of contingencies on a saccade task

Open access
Jazbec, Sandra, Hardin, Michael G., Schroth, Elizabeth, McClure, Erin, Pine, Daniel S., Ernst, Monique·2006·Experimental Brain Research

Abstract

Adolescence is characterized by increased risk-taking and sensation-seeking, presumably brought about by developmental changes within reward-mediating brain circuits. A better understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying reward-seeking during adolescence can have critical implications for the development of strategies to enhance adolescent performance in potentially dangerous situations. Yet little research has investigated the influence of age on the modulation of behavior by incentives with neuroscience-based methods. A monetary reward antisaccade task (the RST) was used with 23 healthy adolescents and 30 healthy adults. Performance accuracy, latency and peak velocity of saccade responses (prosaccades and antisaccades) were analyzed. Performance accuracy across all groups was improved by incentives (obtain reward, avoid punishment) for both, prosaccades and antisaccades. However, modulation of antisaccade errors (direction errors) by incentives differed between groups: adolescents modulated saccade latency and peak velocity depending on contingencies, with incentives aligning their performance to that of adults; adults did not show a modulation by incentives. These findings suggest that incentives modulate a global measure of performance (percent direction errors) in adults and adolescents, and exert a more powerful influence on the control of incorrect motor responses in adolescents than in adults. These findings suggest that this task can be used in neuroimaging studies as a probe of the influence of incentives on cognitive control from a developmental perspective as well as in health and disease.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00221-006-0520-9

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In several studies that have rewarded participants for better performance on an antisaccade task, researchers have found that incentives boost adolescents' performance to adult levels.

    “In several studies that have rewarded participants for better performance on an antisaccade task, researchers have found that incentives boost adolescents’ performance to adult levels (Geier et al., 2010, Jazbec et al., 2006, Padmanabhan et al., 2011).”

    From The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation (2016) · cites this paper as Jazbec et al., 2006

    The Discussion reports that incentives brought adolescents’ latency and peak velocity on incorrect antisaccade responses to adult levels. It also says adults remained more accurate than adolescents, so the claim overgeneralizes the finding to antisaccade performance as a whole. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findings on whether performance on control measures can be affected by reward availability are mixed, but provide evidence that developmental differences in control can be reduced or eliminated when successful performance is directly and adequately rewarded.

    “The findings are somewhat mixed, but provide evidence that developmental differences in control can be reduced (or eliminated) when successful performance is directly and adequately rewarded.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Carpenter RHS. Movement of the eyes. 2 ed. Pion; London: 1988. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jazbec, S., Hardin, M. G., Schroth, E., McClure, E., Pine, D. S., & Ernst, M.
Affiliations
United States Department of Health and Human Services (US)
Venue
Experimental Brain Research
Published
2006-05-30
Volume
174
Issue
4
Pages
754-762
ISSN
  • 0014-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1106
OpenAlex
W2086634842
Cited by
85
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
1.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Experimental Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Archive @ GSU (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (Z99 MH999999)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
adolescence, reward contingency, financial incentives, antisaccade task, saccade latency, saccade velocity, cognitive control, reward seeking, prosaccades, age differences
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aging, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Reinforcement, Psychology, Saccades

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review