Cited by 285Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

A unique adolescent response to reward prediction errors

Open access
Cohen, Jessica R, Asarnow, Robert F, Sabb, Fred W, Bilder, Robert M, Bookheimer, Susan Y, Knowlton, Barbara J, Poldrack, Russell A·2010·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

Previous work has shown that human adolescents may be hypersensitive to rewards, but it is not known which aspect of reward processing is responsible for this. We separated decision value and prediction error signals and found that neural prediction error signals in the striatum peaked in adolescence, whereas neural decision value signals varied depending on how value was modeled. This suggests that heightened dopaminergic prediction error responsivity contributes to adolescent reward seeking.

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 · 10.1038/nn.2558

Cites

16 of 16 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?

  • Adolescents sometimes show greater ventral striatum activation while receiving rewards than children or adults, although this is not always observed.

    “On the one hand, adolescents sometimes (41; 42; 43), although not always (44), show greater activation in ventral striatum while receiving rewards than do children or adults.”

    From Adolescent Neurodevelopment (2013) · cites this paper as [42]

  • A model-based fMRI study found increased striatal neural signals for positive prediction errors in adolescents compared with children and adults, possibly contributing to greater risk taking.

    “a recent model-based fMRI study showed increased neural signals for positive prediction errors in the striatum in adolescents (compared to children and adults), again possibly contributing to increased risk-taking behaviors in this age group”

    From Addiction, adolescence, and the integration of control and motivation (2011) · cites this paper as Cohen et al., 2010

  • Previous studies found differential activations between adolescents and adults in striatal areas, but another study did not replicate that finding and instead found differences in connectivity between ventromedial prefrontal cortex and ventral striatum.

    “While Cohen et al. (2010) found differential activations between adolescents and adults in striatal areas, van den Bos et al. (2012) were not able to replicate that finding, but found differences in the connectivity between the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and the ventral striatum.”
  • Only few studies have investigated RPE processing in adolescents.

    “Despite the importance of RPE processing in adolescence, only few studies have investigated RPE processing in adolescents (Christakou et al., 2011; Cohen et al., 2010; Javadi et al., 2014a; van den Bos et al., 2012).”
  • In Cohen et al. 2010, during feedback, activation to positive prediction errors peaked in striatum and angular gyrus in adolescents relative to adults or children.

    “During the feedback stage, activation in response to positive prediction errors (unexpected gain) peaked in the striatum (MNI 14, 16, 4) and angular gyrus (MNI 60, −44, 28) in adolescents relative to adults or children.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [1]Casey BJ Getz S Galvan A Dev Rev 28 62 77 2008 18688292 PMC2500212

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cohen, J. R., Asarnow, R. F., Sabb, F. W., Bilder, R. M., Bookheimer, S. Y., Knowlton, B. J., & Poldrack, R. A.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Cohen, Jessica R
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2010-05-16
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
669-671
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2067543592
Cited by
285
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 16
FWCI
12.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R24MH072697)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (F31DA024534)
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
adolescence, reward prediction error, striatum, reward seeking, decision value, reward processing
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aging, Brain, Brain Mapping, Child, Corpus Striatum, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Mental Processes, Probability Learning, Reaction Time, Reward, Feedback, Psychological, Adolescent Development, 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