Cited by 68Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMotor Control and AdaptationNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Developmental improvements in voluntary control of behavior: effect of preparation in the fronto-parietal network

Open access
Alahyane, Nadia, Brien, Donald C., Coe, Brian C., Stroman, Patrick W., Munoz, Douglas P.·2014·NeuroImage

Abstract

The ability to prepare for an action improves the speed and accuracy of its performance. While many studies indicate that behavior performance continues to improve throughout childhood and adolescence, it remains unclear whether or how preparatory processes change with development. Here, we used a rapid event-related fMRI design in three age groups (8-12, 13-17, 18-25years) who were instructed to execute either a prosaccade (look toward peripheral target) or an antisaccade (look away from target) task. We compared brain activity within the core fronto-parietal network involved in saccade control at two epochs of saccade generation: saccade preparation related to task instruction versus saccade execution related to target appearance. The inclusion of catch trials containing only task instruction and no target or saccade response allowed us to isolate saccade preparation from saccade execution. Five regions of interest were selected: the frontal, supplementary, parietal eye fields which are consistently recruited during saccade generation, and two regions involved in top down executive control: the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices. Our results showed strong evidence that developmental improvements in saccade performance were related to better saccade preparation rather than saccade execution. These developmental differences were mostly attributable to children who showed reduced fronto-parietal activity during prosaccade and antisaccade preparation, along with longer saccade reaction times and more incorrect responses, compared to adolescents and adults. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was engaged similarly across age groups, suggesting a general role in maintaining task instructions through the whole experiment. Overall, these findings suggest that developmental improvements in behavioral control are supported by improvements in effectively presetting goal-appropriate brain systems.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.03.008

Cites

109 of 109 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Whereas the behavioral and neuroimaging literatures generally indicate a relationship between increases in cognitive control and engagement of the lPFC from adolescence into adulthood, the relationship between age, behavior, and neural engagement from childhood to adolescence is not as consistent.

    “Whereas the behavioral and neuroimaging literatures generally indicate a relationship between increases in cognitive control and engagement of the lPFC from adolescence into adulthood, the relationship between age, behavior, and neural engagement from childhood to adolescence is not as consistent (Alahyane et al., 2014, Booth et al., 2003, Braet et al., 2009, Casey et al., 1997, Durston et al., 20”

    From The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation (2016) · cites this paper as Alahyane et al., 2014

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 110 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alahyane, N., Brien, D. C., Coe, B. C., Stroman, P. W., & Munoz, D. P.
Affiliations
Queen's University (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Alahyane, Nadia
  • Munoz, Douglas P.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-09
Volume
98
Pages
103-117
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1968035552
Cited by
68
References
110
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3
FWCI
5.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (97741, grant MOP-97741, MOP- 97741)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
saccade preparation, frontoparietal network, developmental changes, children, adolescents, adults, prosaccade task, antisaccade task, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, supplementary eye field, parietal eye field, reaction time, executive function
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Brain Mapping, Child, Female, Frontal Lobe, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motor Activity, Neural Pathways, Parietal Lobe, Psychomotor Performance, Saccades, Volition, 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.

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