CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 202Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control

Open access
Padmanabhan, Aarthi, Geier, Charles F., Ordaz, Sarah J., Teslovich, Theresa, Luna, Beatriz·2011·Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
DOI 10.1016/j.dcn.2011.06.004PMC PMC3181104
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Adolescence is a period marked by changes in motivational and cognitive brain systems. However, the development of the interactions between reward and cognitive control processing are just beginning to be understood. Using event-related functional neuroimaging and an incentive modulated antisaccade task, we compared blood-oxygen level dependent activity underlying motivated response inhibition in children, adolescents, and adults. Behaviorally, children and adolescents performed significantly worse than adults during neutral trials. However, children and adolescents showed significant performance increases during reward trials. Adults showed no performance changes across conditions. fMRI results demonstrated that all groups recruited a similar circuitry to support task performance, including regions typically associated with rewards (striatum and orbital frontal cortex), and regions known to be involved in inhibitory control (putative frontal and supplementary eye fields, and posterior parietal cortex, and prefrontal loci). During rewarded trials adolescents showed increased activity in striatal regions, while adults demonstrated heightened activation in the OFC relative to children and adolescents. Children showed greater reliance on prefrontal executive regions that may be related to increased effort inhibiting responses. Overall, these results indicate that response inhibition is enhanced with reward contingencies over development. Adolescents’ heightened response in striatal regions may be one factor contributing to reward-biased decision making and perhaps risk taking behavior.

Verified 2026-10-06 · 1 reference not checked yet

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.dcn.2011.06.004

Cites

103 of 104 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

21 tests recomputed · 1 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

0 of 69 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Adolescents showed greater activity in striatal regions during rewarded trials than during neutral trials.

    “During rewarded trials adolescents showed increased activity in striatal regions”
    • Also stated in: § 3.2 Imaging · boosted
      “Adolescents demonstrated increased activity to rewarded relative to neutral trials”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Children and adolescents made fewer errors on rewarded trials than on neutral trials.

    “children and adolescents showed significant performance increases during reward trials”
    • Also stated in: § 3.1 Behavior · plain
      “children (t(9) = −4.71, p<.001) and adolescents (t(9)= −2.24), p<.05), but not adults (p=.46), generated fewer errors during rewarded trials compared to neutral”
    • Also stated in: § 4.1 Rewards Enhance Inhibitory Control Behavior · plain
      “children and adolescents performance increased to adult levels”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Children and adolescents made more antisaccade errors than adults on neutral trials.

    “children and adolescents performed significantly worse than adults during neutral trials”
    • Also stated in: § 3.1 Behavior · boosted
      “children (t(18) = 3.287, p<.005) and adolescents (t(18)=2.172, p <.05) demonstrating worse performance during neutral trials relative to adults”
    • Also stated in: § 4.1 Rewards Enhance Inhibitory Control Behavior · plain
      “there were differences in performance in children and adolescents relative to adults on neutral trials”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Adults showed greater orbital frontal cortex activation during rewarded trials than children and adolescents did.

    “adults demonstrated heightened activation in the OFC relative to children and adolescents”
    • Also stated in: § 3.2 Imaging · plain
      “this was due to a late increased peak in adults during rewarded relative to neutral trials”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    All age groups engaged a similar set of brain regions for the task, including reward-related striatum and orbital frontal cortex and inhibitory-control regions such as frontal and supplementary eye fields, posterior parietal cortex, and prefrontal areas.

    “all groups recruited a similar circuitry to support task performance, including regions typically associated with rewards (striatum and orbital frontal cortex), and regions known to be involved in inhibitory control (putative frontal and supplementary eye fields, and posterior parietal cortex, and prefrontal loci)”
    • Also stated in: § 3.2 Imaging · boosted
      “Main effect of time effects across conditions and age groups demonstrated robust recruitment of a distributed circuitry including frontal, supplementary, posterior parietal cortex, basal ganglia and prefrontal cortex, VS and OFC”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 36
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 12

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a main effect of incentive type on antisaccade error rate, with more errors in neutral than reward conditions.

    “Behavioral results showed a main effect of incentive type for AS error rate, (F(1,27) = 8.357, p<0.01) with more errors occurring in the neutral vs. reward conditions”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In left ventral striatum, there was an incentive by time interaction; adolescents increased activity for rewarded relative to neutral trials, while adults and children did not.

    “In left ventral striatum, similar to the contra-lateral region, a significant incentive by time interaction was observed (F(7,189) = 2.343, p<.05). As before, adolescents increased activity during rewarded trials relative to neutral (incentive by time: F(7,63) = 4.805, p<.0001) whereas adults and children did not (Figures 7d&e)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Correct antisaccade latency showed a main effect of incentive type but no main effect of age group or age group by incentive interaction.

    “The latency of correct antisaccades showed a main effect of incentive type (F(1,27) = 209.618, p<.0001) but no main effect of age group (p=.138) or age group by incentive type interaction (p=.975)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In right lateral orbital frontal cortex, there was an age-group by incentive by time interaction, driven by a late increased peak in adults during rewarded relative to neutral trials.

    “in right lateral OFC, there was a significant age-group by incentive by time interaction (F(8,108) = 2.935, p < .05) however this was due to a late increased peak in adults during rewarded relative to neutral trials (F(16,144) = 2.283, p<.005) (Figure 5)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The number of dropped trials did not differ between rewarded and neutral conditions across age groups.

    “There were no differences in the number of dropped trials (i.e participant did not attempt to perform the task) between rewarded and neutral conditions across age groups”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In left putamen, there was an incentive by time interaction; only adolescents increased activity for rewarded relative to neutral trials.

    “The left putamen showed a similar pattern of activity, with a significant incentive by time interaction (F(7,189) = 2.857, p<.05), with only adolescents showing increased activity for rewarded relative to neutral trials (incentive by time: F=(7,63) = 5.008, p <.0001) (Figure 7b&c)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Heightened ventral striatum activation for rewarded relative to neutral trials was specific to adolescence and followed a non-linear trajectory from childhood.

    “Imaging results indicated that heightened VS activation during rewarded relative to neutral trials was specific to adolescence, following a non-linear trajectory from childhood”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In right intraparietal sulcus, there was an age-group by incentive by time effect; only adolescents showed a condition by time interaction, with increased activity for reward relative to neutral.

    “A significant age-group by incentive by time effect was found in right IPS (F(14,189) = 2.730, p<.001). Post-hoc comparisons indicated that only adolescents (incentive by time: F(7,63) = 4.894, p<.0001) demonstrated a significant condition by time interaction, increasing activity in response to reward trials relative to neutral (Figure 7a)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In right putamen, there was an incentive by time interaction; adolescents increased activity for rewarded relative to neutral trials, while adults and children did not.

    “In the right putamen, a significant incentive by time interaction was observed (F(7,189)= 2.589, p<.05). Adolescents demonstrated increased activity to rewarded relative to neutral trials (incentive by time: F(7,63) = 3.735, p<.005) whereas adults and children did not”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In right ventral striatum, there was an incentive by time interaction and a trend for age-group by incentive by time; adolescents increased activity for rewarded relative to neutral trials, while children and adults did not.

    “In right ventral striatum, there was a significant incentive by time interaction (F(7,189) = 2.501, p<.05) and a trend for a age-group by incentive by time interaction (p =.08). Adolescents demonstrated significantly increased activity for rewarded trials relative to neutral (incentive by time F(7,63) = 3.735, p<.005), but children and adults did not”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the VS, incentive condition modulated activity in adolescents, while children and adults showed no incentive differentiation.

    “In this region, we observed a modulation of incentive condition in adolescents and a lack of incentive differentiation in children and adults.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Children had increased activity in SEF for neutral trials and in dorsal ACC for both reward and neutral trials relative to the older groups.

    “Furthermore, children demonstrated increased activity in SEF for neutral trials and in the dorsal ACC for both reward and neutral trials relative to the older groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Children showed the same behavioral pattern as adolescents, but their brain function in VS, putamen, and IPS resembled adults and did not differentiate by incentive condition.

    “Although children displayed the same behavioral pattern as adolescents, their brain function in VS, putamen and IPS mimicked those of adults (i.e. did not differentiate by incentive condition).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Adolescents showed reward-related increases in reward and cognitive control related regions while showing limitations in executive assessment of rewards.

    “Adolescents showed reward related increases in reward and cognitive control related regions while showing limitations in executive assessment of rewards.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Adolescents performing inhibitory control tasks show a distinct neurofunctional profile, likely reflecting ongoing brain immaturity.

    “neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that adolescents performing tasks of inhibitory control exhibit a distinct neurofunctional profile, likely reflecting continued brain immaturities”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Luna et al., 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rubia et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Velanova et al., 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Adolescents can show mature inhibitory control but do so less consistently than adults.

    “Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that adolescents can demonstrate mature levels of inhibitory control, but do so inconsistently compared to adults”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bedard et al., 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Luna et al., 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Ridderinkhof et al., 1999 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Adolescents' increased striatal response may contribute to reward-biased decision making and possibly risk-taking behavior.

    “Adolescents’ heightened response in striatal regions may be one factor contributing to reward-biased decision making and perhaps risk taking behavior”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Unique immaturities in adolescents often lead to a peak in risk-taking behavior.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Children relied more on prefrontal executive regions, which may reflect greater effort to inhibit responses.

    “Children showed greater reliance on prefrontal executive regions that may be related to increased effort inhibiting responses”
    • Also stated in: § 3.2 Imaging · boosted
      “In the dorsal ACC, children demonstrated increased activity during both rewarded and neutral trials relative to adults”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    White matter connections between these regions thicken, which may increase transmission speed and support functional integration for complex behavior.

    “white matter connections between these regions thicken, indicating increased fidelity/speed of distal neuronal transmission which may support the functional integration necessary for complex behavior”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Asato et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Visually guided saccade trials were interspersed among antisaccade trials to reduce the chance of establishing an inhibitory response set.

    “These VGS trials were randomly interspersed between the AS trials to minimize the possibility that participants would establish an inhibitory response set (Velanova et al., 2009), but were not further analyzed”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Velanova et al., 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    van Leijenhorst et al. (2010) found reward-related activity peaked in adolescence compared with children and adults, while cognitive control activity followed a linear trajectory.

    “van Leijenhorst et al.,(2010) using a gambling task designed to assess the neural correlates of high-risk and low-risk monetary gambles, demonstrated that reward related activity peaked in adolescence compared to children and adults whereas cognitive control related activity followed a linear trajectory”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites van Leijenhorst et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Antisaccade performance is supported by a distributed circuit including frontal, supplementary, and parietal eye fields, prefrontal cortex, and subcortical structures such as striatum, thalamus, and cerebellum.

    “Work in humans and non-human primates have delineated a widely-distributed circuitry that supports AS performance including the frontal, supplementary, and parietal eye fields (FEF, SEF, PEF respectively), as well as prefrontal cortex (PFC) and various subcortical structures such as striatum, thalamus, and cerebellum”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Brown et al., 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Luna & Sweeney, 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Matsuda et al., 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    These functional immaturities include processes for antisaccade error processing and for maintaining an inhibitory response state, which improve into young adulthood.

    “These functional immaturities include the recruitment of brain processes that support AS error processing (Velanova et al., 2008), and the ability to retain an inhibitory response state (Velanova et al., 2009), which continue to improve into young adulthood”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Velanova et al., 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Velanova et al., 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    IQ did not differ significantly across age groups.

    “there were no significant differences in IQ across age groups (Children: mean = 112.4 (+/− 13.8 st. dev), Adolescents: mean = 108.6 (+/− 7.5 st. dev), Adults: 116.7 (+/− 10.2 st. dev), p = .263)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The age groups did not differ in the number of volumes removed for excessive motion.

    “Participant groups did not differ in number of volumes removed due to excessive motion (censored 3 volumes from two children and 1 volume from two adolescents)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Our prior work found adolescents initially decrease ventral striatum recruitment during incentive assessment but markedly increase it during reward anticipation compared with adults.

    “Our previous work has provided evidence indicating that adolescents demonstrate an initial decrease in recruitment of the VS during incentive assessment but markedly increased VS activity during reward anticipation relative to adults”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Geier et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Brain function supporting antisaccade performance remains immature even though inhibitory antisaccade errors reach adult levels by mid-adolescence.

    “Neuroimaging studies suggest that brain function underlying AS performance continues to demonstrate immaturities”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · hedged
      “despite behavioral evidence suggesting that the rate of inhibitory AS errors begins to reach adult levels in mid adolescence”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Luna et al., 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Velanova et al., 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Velanova et al., 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Other work suggests adolescents have increased ventral striatum activity mainly during reward receipt.

    “other work has suggested that adolescents demonstrate increased activity of VS primarily during reward receipt”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Ernst et al., 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Galvan et al., 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites van Leijenhorst et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The main effect of time image was unbiased with respect to the effects of interest and had been reliable for delineating the basic task circuitry.

    “making it unbiased with respect to all effects of interest and has been reliable in delineating the basic circuitry recruited in our study (Geier et al., 2010; Velanova et al., 2008)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Geier et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Velanova et al., 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Adolescents who perform at adult levels on cognitive tasks show increased prefrontal cortex activity, suggesting they need more effort to achieve equivalent performance.

    “adolescents who demonstrate adult-levels of mature behavior (i.e no performance differences in labortory tasks of cognition), demonstrate increased activity of prefrontal cortex, suggesting increased effort required to perform the task at equivalent levels”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Luna 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Luna 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Younger participants can perform like adults when given an incentive, which suggests heightened relative motivation and particular reward sensitivity.

    “This result suggests that younger participants have the ability to perform like adults when provided with an incentive to do so, reflecting a heightened relative motivation and a particular sensitivity to rewards”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The developmental results agree with prior findings that a monetary incentive improves cognitive performance and shortens latencies in adolescents.

    “Developmental results are consistent with previous findings demonstrating improved cognitive performance and decreased latencies with the presentation of a monetary incentive in adolescents (Duka & Lupp, 1997; Geier et al., 2010; Hardin et al., 2007; Jazbec et al., 2005; Jazbec et al., 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Duka & Lupp, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Geier et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hardin et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Adults' cognitive control is more stable and less influenced by external factors, possibly operating at ceiling levels.

    “suggesting that their cognitive control is more stable and less prone to external influences and may be optimal, reaching ceiling levels.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The VS is consistently associated with all phases of reward processing, including detection, anticipation, and outcome.

    “The VS is a region that has been consistently associated with all phases of the processing of rewards, including detection, anticipation, and outcome (Bjork et al., 2004; Dreher et al., 2006; Galvan et al., 2006; Knutson et al., 2001; Schultz et al., 1992)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bjork et al., 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Dreher et al., 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Galvan et al., 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The brain regions that support voluntary saccadic eye movements and reward processing are well characterized.

    “The brain regions supporting the generation of voluntary saccadic eye movements as well as the processing of rewards are well-delineated”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Apicella et al., 1991 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Breiter et al., 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Brown et al., 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Greater reliance on oculomotor and prefrontal control regions during correct antisaccade trials suggests children may have more difficulty performing the antisaccade optimally and may need greater engagement of critical regions, reducing potential reward-neutral differences.

    “Increased reliance on oculomotor and prefrontal control regions during correct AS trails suggests that children may have relative increased difficulty in performing the antisaccade at optimal levels and may require greater engagement of critical regions to perform the task (Luna et al., 2001; Luna et al., 2004) diminishing potential differences between reward and neutral trials.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Luna et al., 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Luna et al., 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This may enhance reward effects and undermine executive assessment of rewards.

    “This may enhance reward effects and undermine executive assessment of rewards.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Overall, children showed a distinct profile from adolescents and adults, reflecting dependence on medial prefrontal structures regardless of incentives and not relying on oculomotor control or reward-related regions to support improved rewarded performance.

    “Overall, children showed a distinct profile from adolescence and adulthood, reflecting dependence on medial prefrontal structures to perform the task regardless of incentives and not relying on oculomotor control or reward related regions to support improved performance during rewarded trials.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The lateral OFC has been implicated in many aspects of reward processing, especially coding valence and magnitude of reward and punishment, and is highly connected to the basal ganglia.

    “The lateral OFC has been previously implicated in many aspects of reward processing especially in coding representations of valence and magnitude of reward and punishment and is highly connected to the basal ganglia (Breiter et al., 2001; Delgado et al., 2000; Hikosaka & Watanabe, 2000; Knutson et al., 2000; O’Doherty et al., 2004; Roesch & Olson, 2003; Roesch & Olson, 2004; Schultz et al., 2000;”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Breiter et al., 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Delgado et al., 2000 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hikosaka & Watanabe, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These results suggest that the circuitry supporting executive assessment of rewards and modulation of motivation may still be immature in adolescence and contribute to the high rate of risk-taking in adolescence.

    “In this manner, these results suggest that the circuitry that supports executive assessment of rewards and modulation of motivation may still be immature in adolescence and contribute to the high rate of risk-taking in adolescence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The laboratory findings on reward-related brain activity and inhibitory control generalize to real-world risk-taking and suboptimal behaviors in adolescence.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    It is not clear whether the incentive was considered equal across age groups.

    “It is not clear whether the incentive was considered “equal” across age groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Adolescents may be more influenced by limbic system control, which could override their ability to effectively use executive control systems.

    “That is, adolescents may be more influenced by limbic system control, which could override their ability to effectively utilize executive control systems (Spear, 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Spear, 2000 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    This finding resembles other studies showing an inverted U in brain function across development and a peak in reward sensitivity during adolescence.

    “This finding is similar to other studies that demonstrated an “inverted U” in brain function across development, and highlights the peak in reward sensitivity in adolescence (Cohen et al., 2010; Somerville et al., 2010; van Leijenhorst et al., 2009; van Leijenhorst et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cohen et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Somerville et al., 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites van Leijenhorst et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Dopamine neurons that heighten responses to reward contingencies in primary reward regions such as VS may contribute to enhanced signaling of oculomotor control neurons in regions such as IPS, which may underlie enhanced performance.

    “DA neurons that heighten responses to reward contingencies in primary reward regions (such as VS), may contribute to enhanced signaling of oculomotor control neurons in regions such as the IPS, that may underlie enhanced performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    Alternatively, children may have recruited regions outside the a priori functionally defined brain regions to support better performance in rewarded trials.

    “Alternatively, children may have recruited regions outside of our a priori functionally-defined brain regions to support better performance in rewarded trials.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    It is possible that younger individuals require this added motivation to perform the task at optimal levels.

    “It is possible that younger individuals require this added motivation to perform the task at optimal levels.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The results support current models of adolescent immaturities in reward processing and cognitive control, suggesting that an overall over-reactive reward response may enhance engaging in behaviors that result in immediate rewards.

    “Our results support current models regarding adolescent immaturities in reward processing and cognitive control, suggesting that an overall over-reactive reward response may enhance engaging in behaviors that result in immediate rewards.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
47 of 47

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Adolescent behavior is distinct from childhood and adulthood, as shown by more frequent sub-optimal or immature decision-making.

    “Adolescent behavior is distinct from childhood and adulthood, as evidenced by heightened incidents of sub-optimal or immature decision-making”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Unique immaturities in adolescents often lead to a peak in risk-taking behavior.

    “Although adolescents have improved decision making skills compared to children, unique immaturities exist that often result in a peak in risk taking behavior”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The laboratory findings on reward-related brain activity and inhibitory control generalize to real-world risk-taking and suboptimal behaviors in adolescence.

    “In this manner, these results suggest that the circuitry that supports executive assessment of rewards and modulation of motivation may still be immature in adolescence and contribute to the high rate of risk-taking in adolescence.”
    “Taken together, these findings indicate immaturities in the developing brain that could be especially vulnerable to risk taking and other suboptimal behaviors during adolescence.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Age-related differences in brain activity reflect developmental changes rather than other age-correlated factors.

    “Results indicated several age-related differences in the magnitude of recruitment of this circuitry suggesting unique developmental profiles of reward processing and its influence on cognitive control in adolescence.”
    “However, immaturities in regions associated with reward reactivity and executive assessment appear to follow a non-linear developmental trajectory from childhood through adolescence into adulthood.”
4 of 4

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?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value across alpha = .05: t(9) = 2.26, p < .0001

    Major

    The paper reports p < .0001 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .050 (two-tailed). The two fall on opposite sides of alpha = .05. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p < .0001 · recomputed p = .050

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(7,63) = 4.894, p < .0001

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .0001 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p < .001. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(16,144) = 2.283, p < .005

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .005 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .005. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p < .005 · recomputed p = .005

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(7,63) = 4.805, p < .0001

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .0001 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p < .001. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

  • p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: t(9) = −4.71, p < .001

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .001 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .001 (two-tailed). The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.

    Reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .001

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(14,189) = 2.730, p < .001

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .001 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .001. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .001

6 of 6

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upt(9) = 2.26reported p < .0001 · recomputed p = .050The two fall on opposite sides of .05

    “t(9) = 2.26, p < .0001”

  • Doesn’t add upt(9) = 2.26reported p < .0001 · recomputed p = .050The two fall on opposite sides of .05

    “t(9)=2.26, p < .0001”

  • Doesn’t add upt(9) = -4.71reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “t(9) = −4.71, p < .001”

  • Doesn’t add upF(16, 144) = 2.283reported p < .005 · recomputed p = .005

    “F(16,144) = 2.283, p < .005”

  • Doesn’t add upF(14, 189) = 2.73reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “F(14,189) = 2.730, p < .001”

  • Doesn’t add upF(7, 63) = 4.894reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(7,63) = 4.894, p < .0001”

  • Doesn’t add upF(7, 63) = 4.805reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(7,63) = 4.805, p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 27) = 8.357reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .007

    “F(1,27) = 8.357, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(18) = 3.287reported p < .005 · recomputed p = .004

    “t(18) = 3.287, p < .005”

  • Consistentt(18) = 2.172reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .043

    “t(18)=2.172, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(2, 27) = 4.884reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .015

    “F(2,27) = 4.884, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 27) = 209.618reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,27) = 209.618, p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(8, 108) = 2.935reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .005

    “F(8,108) = 2.935, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(14, 189) = 1.94reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .025

    “F(14,189) = 1.940, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(14, 189) = 2.232reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .008

    “F(14,189) = 2.232, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(7, 126) = 2.484reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .020

    “F(7,126) = 2.484, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(7, 189) = 2.589reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .014

    “F(7,189)= 2.589, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(7, 63) = 3.735reported p < .005 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(7,63) = 3.735, p < .005”

  • ConsistentF(7, 189) = 2.857reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .007

    “F(7,189) = 2.857, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(7, 189) = 2.501reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .018

    “F(7,189) = 2.501, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(7, 189) = 2.343reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .026

    “F(7,189) = 2.343, p < .05”

21 of 21

Self-check

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

  • The reported latency F statistic is incompatible with the three group t statistics

    Major

    The paper reports t = 2.26 for the reward-versus-neutral latency comparison in each of the three groups. With ten participants per group, those statistics put an upper bound of approximately 3 × 2.262 = 15.32 on the pooled incentive F statistic, far below the reported 209.618. The stated p<.0001 for each t(9) = 2.26 is also too small.

    Reported 209.618 · recomputed 15.3228

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Padmanabhan, A., Geier, C. F., Ordaz, S. J., Teslovich, T., & Luna, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Padmanabhan, Aarthi
ORCID
Venue
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-10
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
517-529
ISSN
1878-9293 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.dcn.2011.06.004
PMC
PMC3181104
OpenAlex
W1989816441
Semantic Scholar
a262717fd88fd70c79a9cbecff5a147381d256f6
Cited by
202
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH080243, MH080243)
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
reward processing, inhibitory control, response inhibition, adolescence, brain development, striatum, orbitofrontal cortex, prefrontal cortex, supplementary eye field, posterior parietal cortex, effort, risk-taking, decision-making
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Child, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Reward, Young Adult

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

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