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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 102 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; none of the 69 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.dcn.2011.06.004

Cites

102 of 103 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

A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adults showed no performance changes across conditions”
- Also stated in: § 3.1 Behavior · plain
  “but not adults (p=.46), generated fewer errors during rewarded trials compared to neutral”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes

Show all 58 claims

It may state two separate claims as one. 36
Probably not a substantial claim. 12

None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that adolescents performing tasks of inhibitory control exhibit a distinct neurofunctional profile, likely reflecting continued brain immaturities”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Luna et al., 2001 source
- Not checked yetcites Rubia et al., 2007 source
- Not checked yetcites Velanova et al., 2008 source
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that adolescents can demonstrate mature levels of inhibitory control, but do so inconsistently compared to adults”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bedard et al., 2002 source
- Not checked yetcites Luna et al., 2004 source
- Not checked yetcites Ridderinkhof et al., 1999 source
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adolescents’ heightened response in striatal regions may be one factor contributing to reward-biased decision making and perhaps risk taking behavior”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Unique immaturities in adolescents often lead to a peak in risk-taking behavior.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Asato et al., 2010 source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS > 2.2 Behavioral Paradigm
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Velanova et al., 2009 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Leijenhorst et al., 2010 source
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brown et al., 2006 source
- Not checked yetcites Luna & Sweeney, 1999
- Not checked yetcites Matsuda et al., 2004 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Velanova et al., 2008 source
- Not checked yetcites Velanova et al., 2009 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Geier et al., 2010 source
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Luna et al., 2001 source
- Not checked yetcites Velanova et al., 2008 source
- Not checked yetcites Velanova et al., 2009 source
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“other work has suggested that adolescents demonstrate increased activity of VS primarily during reward receipt”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ernst et al., 2005 source
- Not checked yetcites Galvan et al., 2006 source
- Not checked yetcites van Leijenhorst et al., 2009
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS > 2.4 fMRI
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Geier et al., 2010 source
- Not checked yetcites Velanova et al., 2008 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Luna 2001 source
- Not checked yetcites Luna 2009
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION > 4.1 Rewards Enhance Inhibitory Control Behavior
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Duka & Lupp, 1997
- Not checked yetcites Geier et al., 2010 source
- Not checked yetcites Hardin et al., 2007 source
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION > 4.2 Reward Incentives Enhances Brain Activity in Adolescents
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bjork et al., 2004 source
- Not checked yetcites Dreher et al., 2006 source
- Not checked yetcites Galvan et al., 2006 source
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The brain regions supporting the generation of voluntary saccadic eye movements as well as the processing of rewards are well-delineated”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION > 4.2 Reward Incentives Enhances Brain Activity in Adolescents
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Apicella et al., 1991 source
- Not checked yetcites Breiter et al., 2001 source
- Not checked yetcites Brown et al., 2006 source
Strength:boosted· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION > 4.2 Reward Incentives Enhances Brain Activity in Adolescents
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Luna et al., 2001 source
- Not checked yetcites Luna et al., 2004 source
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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;”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION > 4.2 Reward Incentives Enhances Brain Activity in Adolescents
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Breiter et al., 2001 source
- Not checked yetcites Delgado et al., 2000 source
- Not checked yetcites Hikosaka & Watanabe, 2000
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION > 4.2 Reward Incentives Enhances Brain Activity in Adolescents
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
In the paper
“That is, adolescents may be more influenced by limbic system control, which could override their ability to effectively utilize executive control systems (Spear, 2000).”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION > 4.2 Reward Incentives Enhances Brain Activity in Adolescents
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Spear, 2000 source
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION > 4.2 Reward Incentives Enhances Brain Activity in Adolescents
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al., 2010 source
- Not checked yetcites Somerville et al., 2010
- Not checked yetcites van Leijenhorst et al., 2009
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.

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

Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL
Smith, S. M., Jenkinson, M., Woolrich, M. W., Beckmann, C. F., Behrens, T. E. J., Johansen-Berg, H., Bannister, P. R., De Luca, M., Drobnjak, I., Flitney, D. E., et al. (2004) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.051 · Cited by 13,630
Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain
Talairach, J., & Tournoux, P. (1988) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,798
AFNI: Software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages
Cox, R. W. (1996) · Computers and Biomedical Research · doi:10.1006/cbmr.1996.0014 · Cited by 10,913
Fast robust automated brain extraction
Smith, S. M. (2002) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.10062 · Cited by 10,496
Co-planar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain
Laitinen, L. (1989) · Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery · doi:10.1016/0303-8467(89)90128-5 · Cited by 7,565
A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images
Jenkinson, M., & Smith, S. M. (2001) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/s1361-8415(01)00036-6 · Cited by 7,018
Dynamic mapping of human cortical development during childhood through early adulthood
Gogtay, N., Giedd, J. N., Lusk, L., Hayashi, K. M., Greenstein, D., Vaituzis, A. C., Nugent, T. F., Herman, D. H., Clasen, L. S., Toga, A. W., et al. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0402680101 · Cited by 5,604 · cited 5×
“…be associated with the known structural immaturities including continued gray matter thinning of the basal ganglia (Sowell et al., 2002) and OFC (Gogtay et al., 2004), and increases in dopamine transmission (Kalsbeek et al., 1988; Meng et al., 1999; Rosenberg & Lewis, 1994; Rosenberg & Lewis,…”
Influential
The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations
Spear, L. P. (2000) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(00)00014-2 · Cited by 5,433
Anticipation of Increasing Monetary Reward Selectively Recruits Nucleus Accumbens
Knutson, B., Adams, C. M., Fong, G. W., & Hommer, D. (2001) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.21-16-j0002.2001 · Cited by 2,244
Dissociable Roles of Ventral and Dorsal Striatum in Instrumental Conditioning
O'Doherty, J., Dayan, P., Schultz, J., Deichmann, R., Friston, K., & Dolan, R. J. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1094285 · Cited by 2,088

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 103 references

Sorted by citations

Items 201–201 of 201

Peripheral markers dopamine and cortisol correlate with achievement motivation during different stages of adolescence: A case control study in the Siddi ethnic group of Karnataka, South India
Daniel, S., & Sadananda, M. (2026) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2026.102377

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: Padmanabhan, Aarthi
Geier, Charles F.
Ordaz, Sarah J.
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: bronze
doi.org
Licence: www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ (vor, 1445 d)
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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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

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

Abstract

Overview

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Statistics that don’t add up

Statistics recomputed

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks