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; 3 of the 69 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control
Open accessAbstract
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
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
37 Own result · 29 Not checked yet · 29 Own interpretation · 6 Own method · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported so far · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“During adolescence, key reward processing and control regions including the striatum and prefrontal cortex demonstrate continued gray matter thinning”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Giedd et al., 1996 source
- Partly supportedcites Gogtay et al., 2004 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex loses gray matter at the end of adolescence, supporting the prefrontal portion of the claim. The paper maps cortical development; the passages do not report adolescent gray matter thinning in the striatum. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites Sowell et al., 1999 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper reports reductions in gray-matter density in frontal and striatal regions between adolescence and young adulthood (Fig. 1 caption, p. 2; discussion, p. 3). It does not establish thinning specifically during adolescence or measure cortical thickness, so the claim overstates the timing and the measurement. (LLM, conf=0.86)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.2 Imaging · boosted
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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.1 Behavior · plain
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
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.1 Behavior · boosted
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
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.2 Imaging · plain
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
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.2 Imaging · boosted
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.1 Behavior · plain
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
“There was a trend for a main effect of age group on rate of AS errors (p=.094)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.1 Behavior
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“There were no differences between children and adolescents during neutral trials (p = 0.242)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.1 Behavior
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 three age-groups made significantly faster correct anti-saccade responses during reward trials compared to neutral (children: t(9) = 2.26, p<.0001, adolescents: t(9)=2.26, p<.0001, adults: t(9)=2.26, p<.0001) (Figure 2b)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.1 Behavior
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Across ages, reward related regions were also recruited including VS, OFC and ACC.”
§ 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“There was no effect of age group during rewarded trials”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.1 Behavior
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“In the dorsal ACC, children demonstrated increased activity during both rewarded and neutral trials relative to adults (age by time: F(7,126) = 2.484, p<.05) (Figure 6b)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.2 Imaging
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“There was an incentive type by age group interaction (F(2,27) = 4.884, p<.05)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.1 Behavior
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Results indicated several age-related differences in the magnitude of recruitment of this circuitry”
§ 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
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Within these regions, bilateral FEF, and superior parietal cortex, did not demonstrate any age or incentive interactions with time (Figure 4)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.2 Imaging
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Only adolescents showed a modulation of rewards on activity in right IPS, bilateral putamen, and bilateral VS.”
§ 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 faster latencies for correct rewarded AS trials relative to correct AS neutral trials”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION > 4.1 Rewards Enhance Inhibitory Control Behavior
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“results also demonstrated rewards-enhanced activity in regions associated with oculomotor and inhibitory control in adolescence”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Post-hoc comparisons indicated that all three groups demonstrated equivalent performance on reward trials (Figure 2a)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.1 Behavior
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 consistent inhibitory error rates (10–20%) across incentives”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION > 4.1 Rewards Enhance Inhibitory Control Behavior
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“In the present study, all three age groups robustly engaged key oculomotor control regions bilaterally across incentives including the FEF, SEF, inferior parietal sulcus (IPS), superior parietal lobule (SPL), putamen, and the dorsal ACC.”
§ 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
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Behavioral results indicated that rewards enhanced task performance (i.e., reduced latencies and error rates) across ages”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Younger participants demonstrate that they improve performance in tasks that have known limitations due to immaturity, such as inhibitory control, within the context of a potential reward”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION > 4.1 Rewards Enhance Inhibitory Control Behavior
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“In SEF, there was a significant age-group by time interaction (F(14,189) = 1.940, p<.05). Post-hoc tests indicated that children demonstrated increased activity relative to adults and adolescents during neutral (time by age: F(14,189) = 2.232, p<.01) but not rewarded trials (p=.11) (Figure 6a)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.2 Imaging
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Finally, similar to previous findings (Galvan et al., 2006; Geier et al., 2010; van Leijenhorst et al., 2009) only adults showed evidence of recruiting the OFC during rewarded 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“However, in our study, age-related differences were determined by the relative attenuated response to neutral trials in adolescents, a differentiation that was not present in children and adults.”
§ 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Overall, these results indicate that response inhibition is enhanced with reward contingencies over development”
- Also stated in: § 4. DISCUSSION · hedged
“Behavioral results indicated that rewards enhanced task performance (i.e., reduced latencies and error rates) across ages”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4. DISCUSSION · hedged
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In some studies, adolescents were found to exhibit a relative decrease of VS, OFC and mesial PFC recruitment during reward cue and anticipation”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“One particularly robust and reliable assay of developmental changes in inhibitory control behavior and the neural systems that support it is the antisaccade (AS) task”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hallett, 1978 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Developmental fMRI studies on reward processing have found age related differences in the magnitude of recruitment of striatal and prefrontal regions”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“This finding suggests that an overreactive reward system coupled with a still developing cognitive system may account for unique influences of rewards on decision making”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 1. Introduction
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The IPS and putamen have both been associated with response planning, oculomotor control (Everling & Munoz, 2000), reward prediction (Peck et al., 2009) and outcome (Delgado et al., 2003).”
§ 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“suggesting an enhancement in motivation may be required to achieve adult levels of performance.”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION > 4.1 Rewards Enhance Inhibitory Control Behavior
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“The decrease in latencies and error rate during rewarded trials suggest optimization of behavior that leads to the receipt of a reward.”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION > 4.1 Rewards Enhance Inhibitory Control Behavior
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“These results suggest that the basic circuitry supporting inhibitory control and reward processing is in place by childhood.”
§ 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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“supporting motivational effects of incentives on voluntary saccades, consistent with previous work (Hikosaka et al 2006, Geier et al 2010).”
§ 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Similarly, immaturities in reward processing may enhance behaviors that appear to lead to a reward such as sensation seeking and risk-taking, which can at times be suboptimal (Steinberg, 2004).”
§ 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 Steinberg, 2004 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Increased activity of these key regions may support improved performance during rewarded 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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“suggesting unique developmental profiles of reward processing and its influence on cognitive control 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
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Age-related differences in brain activity reflect developmental changes rather than other age-correlated factors.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With our present sample size we had the power to detect medium to large effects with 3-way (Age Group by Condition by Time) and a 2 way interactions (Age Group by Condition) (effect size: .201).”
§ 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
plainn = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our sample size of 10 participants per age group limited our ability to assess pubertal status, sex, and continuous age effects.”
§ 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
plaindirectn = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Relative increased sensitivity in the VS coupled with under-activity of the OFC in response to rewards in adolescence may result in a vulnerability to behavior that is directed by incentives when executive value has not been properly assessed.”
§ 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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The IPS in particular has been found to be involved in antisaccade preparation (Curtis & Connolly, 2008).”
§ 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 Curtis & Connolly, 2008
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Furthermore, this relative difference between rewarded and neutral trials observed in adolescents may indicate an increased sensitivity to incentives that is not present in children or adults.”
§ 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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“We also note that this limitation in power indicates that there may be even more age related differences than the ones reported in the present study, especially with regards to the modest differences found in the child group.”
§ 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
hedgedconditionaln = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Enhanced VS activity in the adolescent may result in increases in regions supporting the specific behavior that leads to rewards such as the IPS and its role in antisaccade performance (Brown et al., 2007; Curtis & Connolly, 2008).”
§ 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 Brown et al., 2007 source
- Not checked yetcites Curtis & Connolly, 2008
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Neutral trials in the context of an incentive task may be perceived as a relative loss of a reward, rather than simply lacking in reward value.”
§ 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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“and may underlie bias for immediate over future rewards (McClure et al., 2004).”
§ 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 McClure et al., 2004 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The unique circuitry recruited by adolescents may 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, 1995; Seeman et al., 1987).”
§ 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
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“This more executive component of reward processing may still be immature 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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, our power indicates that our findings regarding functional differences in adolescent brain function is a robust effect.”
§ 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
hedgedn = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“The OFC may support the executive processing of rewards that underlie the assessment of the significance of a reward regarding related behaviors.”
§ 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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Overall, our results speak to a key component of adolescent immaturity, which lies in the differences in motivationally driven behaviors.”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 5. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Our results that adolescents showed increased activity in regions supporting performance that resulted in reward receipt reflect enhancements in motivation.”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 5. CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“The current findings suggest that basic neural circuitry underlying response inhibition and incentive processing is established in childhood.”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 5. CONCLUSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 5. CONCLUSION
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Age-related differences in brain activity reflect developmental changes rather than other age-correlated factors.
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
“Taken together, these findings indicate immaturities in the developing brain that could be especially vulnerable to risk taking and other suboptimal behaviors during adolescence.”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 5. CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 36
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated 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
- Supportedcites Rubia et al., 2007 source
The Conclusions report that adults showed greater right inferior prefrontal activation than children/adolescents during inhibition, with progressive age-related changes in inhibition networks from ages 10 to 42. The Discussion interprets less focal activation patterns as more immature. Together, these passages support the paraphrase's distinct adolescent profile and its hedged maturational explanation. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked yetcites Velanova et al., 2008 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.1 Behavior
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“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)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.2 Imaging
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“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)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.1 Behavior
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“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)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.2 Imaging
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.1 Behavior
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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
“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)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.2 Imaging
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“Imaging results indicated that heightened VS activation during rewarded relative to neutral trials was specific to adolescence, following a non-linear trajectory from childhood”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“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)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.2 Imaging
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.2 Imaging
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.2 Imaging
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“In this region, we observed a modulation of incentive condition in adolescents and a lack of incentive differentiation in children and adults.”
§ 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“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.”
§ 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
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“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).”
§ 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adolescents showed reward related increases in reward and cognitive control related regions while showing limitations in executive assessment of rewards.”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 5. CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 3.2 Imaging · boosted
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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS > 2.1. Participants
plainn = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS > 2.4 fMRI
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · hedged
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
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION > 4.1 Rewards Enhance Inhibitory Control Behavior
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“suggesting that their cognitive control is more stable and less prone to external influences and may be optimal, reaching ceiling levels.”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 4. DISCUSSION > 4.1 Rewards Enhance Inhibitory Control Behavior
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“This may enhance reward effects and undermine executive assessment of rewards.”
§ 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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
§ 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is not clear whether the incentive was considered “equal” across age groups.”
§ 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
§ 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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Alternatively, children may have recruited regions outside of our a priori functionally-defined brain regions to support better performance in rewarded 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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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
“It is possible that younger individuals require this added motivation to perform the task at optimal levels.”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 5. CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 5. CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Adolescents made fewer errors on rewarded versus neutral trials compared to adults (Padmanabhan et al., 2011)”
From Dopaminergic reward sensitivity can promote adolescent health: a new perspective on the mechanism of ventral striatum activation (2016) · cites this paper as Padmanabhan et al., 2011
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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 Padmanabhan et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“We must acknowledge, however, that there are also several studies that do not find age-related differences in this region [90, 92, 95, 96, 100].”
From The role of the anterior insula in adolescent decision making (2014) · cites this paper as [92]
In the citing paper
“an age-related linear increase in control systems was suggested by the greater activation to neutral vs. reward trials in the cortical supplementary eye fields (SEF), and to both neutral and reward trials in the ACC in children relative to both adolescents and adults.”
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 Padmanabhan et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“only adolescents, but not adults or children, manifested greater activation to reward relative to neutral trials in the ventral striatum.”
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 Padmanabhan et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“A similar age-effect was found in oculomotor control regions, including the intraparietal sulcus and putamen”
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 Padmanabhan et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“only adults showed a sensitivity to reward within the lateral OFC when modeling the entire trial.”
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 Padmanabhan et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“During adolescence, many developmental changes occur in the frontostriatal reward circuitry, which includes the ventral striatum (VS; including the nucleus accumbens), dorsal striatum (DS) and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC)169,170.”
From Rhythms of life: circadian disruption and brain disorders across the lifespan (2019) · cites this paper as [170]
In the citing paper
“Adolescence is marked by dramatic development in frontostriatal reward circuitry, including the ventral striatum (VS), dorsal striatum (DS), and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) (9,10).”
From Impact of Sleep and Circadian Rhythms on Addiction Vulnerability in Adolescents (2018) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“at the neural level, adolescents exhibited increased activation compared to children and adults in the ventral striatum on the rewarded trials (Padmanabhan et al., 2011)”
From Dopaminergic reward sensitivity can promote adolescent health: a new perspective on the mechanism of ventral striatum activation (2016) · cites this paper as Padmanabhan et al., 2011
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
“t(9) = 2.26, p<.0001”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.1 Behavior
Reported p < .0001 · recomputed p = .050
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(7,63) = 4.894, p<.0001”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.2 Imaging
Reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(16,144) = 2.283, p<.005”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.2 Imaging
Reported p < .005 · recomputed p = .005
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(7,63) = 4.805, p<.0001”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.2 Imaging
Reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“t(9) = −4.71, p<.001”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.1 Behavior
Reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .001
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(14,189) = 2.730, p<.001”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.2 Imaging
Reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .001
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”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
“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). All three age-groups made significantly faster correct anti-saccade responses during reward trials compared to neutral (children: t(9) = 2.26, p<.0001, adolescents: t(9)=2.26, p<.0001, adults: t(9)=2.26, p<.0001)”
§ Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control > 3. RESULTS > 3.1 Behavior
Reported 209.618 · recomputed 15.3228
Citations
Cites
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,…”
InfluentialThe 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
Cited by
Sorted by citations
fMRIPrep: A robust preprocessing pipeline for functional MRI
Esteban, O., Markiewicz, C. J., Blair, R. W., Moodie, C. A., Isik, A. I., Erramuzpe, A., Kent, J. D., Goncalves, M., DuPre, E., Snyder, M., et al. (2019) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-018-0235-4 · Cited by 3,905
Understanding adolescence as a period of social–affective engagement and goal flexibility
Crone, E. A., & Dahl, R. E. (2012) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3313 · Cited by 2,507
Motivation and cognitive control: from behavior to neural mechanism
Botvinick, M., & Braver, T. (2015) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015044 · Cited by 909
The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation
Shulman, E. P., Smith, A. R., Silva, K., Icenogle, G., Duell, N., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2016) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2015.12.010 · Cited by 867
“…extent than both children and adults (Barkley-Levenson and Galvan, 2014; Christakou et al., 2011; Galvan and McGlennen, 2013; Galvan et al., 2006; Geier et al., 2010; Hoogendam et al., 2013; Jarcho et al., 2012; Padmanabhan et al., 2011; Silverman et al., 2015; Van Leijenhorst et al., 2010b).”
Rhythms of life: circadian disruption and brain disorders across the lifespan
Logan, R. W., & McClung, C. A. (2019) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-018-0088-y · Cited by 713
Metadata
- 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
- Venue
- Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-10
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 517-529
- ISSN
- 1878-9293 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- 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).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
