Cognitive control under contingencies in anxious and depressed adolescents: an antisaccade task
Abstract
Background Emotion-related perturbations in cognitive control characterize adult mood and anxiety disorders. Fewer data are available to confirm such deficits in youth. Studies of cognitive control and error processing can provide an ideal template to examine these perturbations. Antisaccade paradigms are particularly well suited for this endeavor because they provide exquisite behavioral measures of modulation of response errors.Methods A new monetary reward antisaccade task was used with 28 healthy, 11 anxious, and 12 depressed adolescents. Performance accuracy, saccade latency, and peak velocity of incorrect responses were analyzed.Results Performance accuracy across all groups was improved by incentives (obtain reward, avoid punishment). However, modulation of saccade errors by incentives differed by groups. In incentive trials relative to neutral trials, inhibitory efficiency (saccade latency) was enhanced in healthy, unaffected in depressed, and diminished in anxious adolescents. Modulation of errant actions (saccade peak velocity) was improved in the healthy group and unchanged in both the anxious and depressed groups.Conclusions These findings provide grounds for testing hypotheses related to the impact of motivation deficits and emotional interference on directed action in adolescents with mood and anxiety disorders. Furthermore, neural mechanisms can now be examined by using this task paired with functional neuroimaging.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Instrumental-reward tasks lend themselves to examining interactions between reward processes and cognitive/motor processes, probing top-down and bottom-up processes.
“Instrumental-reward tasks lend themselves to the examination of interactions between reward processes and cognitive/motor processes, probing both top-down and bottom-up processes (e.g., Geier et al., 2009b; Hardin et al., 2009a; Jazbec et al., 2005).”
From A systematic review of fMRI reward paradigms used in studies of adolescents vs. adults: The impact of task design and implications for understanding neurodevelopment (2013) · cites this paper as Jazbec et al., 2005
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 106
- Authors
- Jazbec, S., McClure, E., Hardin, M., Pine, D. S., & Ernst, M.
- Affiliations
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- ORCID
- Pine, Daniel S.
- Venue
- Biological Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-10
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 632-639
- ISSN
- 0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2034891620
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 2.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
- Keywords
- cognitive control, anxiety, depression, adolescents, antisaccade task, monetary rewards, error processing, saccade latency, saccade peak velocity, response inhibition, motivational deficits, emotional interference, mood disorders, anxiety disorders
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Anxiety, Association Learning, Child, Depression, Female, Humans, Functional Laterality, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Saccades, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
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